Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
That article is highly ambiguous. Basically it says that we don't know for sure if Iran is actively trying to build a bomb; while it doesn't look like it at present, they are most definitely considering it and could, in theory, do so within three years if they actually set their minds to it. Further, if they did do so, we might or might not find out about it in time to stop it, and anyway they are definitely enriching uranium, even if they claim it's for power rather than weapons.
There's a whole lot of maybes and I-don't-knows there. Regardless, our sanctions on Iran predate our concerns about their nuclear program; they also do little things like sponsor terrorist groups.
Edit: We can argue all day about who did what to whom when. The fact is that we do, now, have global enemies who wish us harm. It is foolish in the extreme to ignore that. The fact is that our reputation is at stake here every bit as much as our economic and military interests.
edited 6th Feb '13 7:24:20 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
And even then, Washington could be bluffing — they could already know that Iran is seeking/building nukes, but is pretending to both Iran and the rest of the world that it doesn't know for some reason or the other.
edited 6th Feb '13 7:25:28 AM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.Extraordinary renditions, deportations, torture by proxy, persecution of whistleblowers, drug dispensary raids, extrajudicial killings, racial profiling, indefinite detentions, shady deals with corporations and tax cuts for the rich.
Are we talking about George Bush or Barack Obama? This isn't the change I was looking for.
edited 6th Feb '13 7:38:39 AM by Sledgesaul
And your point is what, exactly? There is not a one of us here who has not acknowledged the President's shortcomings when it comes to national security policy. You, however, seem to be ignoring the fact that there is no functional alternative. What are you going to do, start a pacifist revolution? Join together the libertarian and anarchist factions of the Left and Right and sing "Kumbaya" whilst showering the world with koans?
edited 6th Feb '13 7:42:35 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Right. Because they had no chance of getting elected. What part of a "two party system enabled by first past the post" don't you understand?
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
Hahahahahahahahaha....wait, you're serious.
First, I'd rather have Obama than any libertarian president. I like my corporate overlords on a leash, even if it's a long leash.
Second, that's the thing. No one gives a fuck about third party candidates. A vote for them is as good as a vote for the person you *least* want to win. You have to pick someone that actually has a chance.
Last, do you think either of them would be able to get shit done with congress the way it is? Really? Really? They'd be the least effective president every.
I don't know why third parties even try for the presidential election. What they should do is endorse the mainstream candidate they least hate, and meanwhile try to get some of their guys elected to congress.
Once they've got enough people in congress they aren't a joke, then they can think about presidency.
edited 6th Feb '13 7:47:10 AM by DrTentacles
He is suggesting a revolutionary pacifist overthrow. How that would work is anyone's guess.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@Fighteer: Let him speak for himself, please. Putting words in someone's mouth is very rude, that's why I'm asking him to clarify his own position.
![]()
Fair enough. I apologize.
How, exactly, is this ennobling of American domestic and foreign security policy supposed to take place, Sledgesaul? Plot us a course.
Because the votes for them are wasted, and everyone knows it. Seriously, you seem to have no concept of the difference between "would be cool if" and "is possible to achieve".
edited 6th Feb '13 7:55:06 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@Sledgesaul: Incorrect. Duverger's law
is responsible for this; you can only have two functioning parties at any one time under FPTP, because FPTP rewards making promises to the broadest possible coalition of interests.
So those who would, for example, support the Greens know that they're far more likely to get at least some results by trying to work through the Democrats.
Yes. Address that one part of my point. Honestly, I've seen nothing to suggest either of those two would be any better than Obama. They'd likely be significantly worse. Being in office changes people. What makes you think they'd be any more likely to deliver, or any more able to deliver on their promises?
Secondly, as I said earlier, another, probably bigger reason why no one votes for them is because they have no power to change anything. Until they get people in congress, or even governors, they're a joke.
@ Tea Part: Smart (tactic wise) people who latched onto an established party.
There's nothing stopping libertarian/green part candidates from doing the same with democrats and republicans. In fact, that's what the successful ones do.
edited 6th Feb '13 7:58:55 AM by DrTentacles
I'd need to check, but I'm certain the Sanctions on Iran go back to the Iranian Revolution.
![]()
They're not an actual Political Party, last time I checked.
edited 6th Feb '13 7:58:29 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling On@Sledgesaul: No, the reason the votes are wasted is because we have a system in which a plurality decides the victor. It's a mathematical certainty. There are only two ways to get a third party to rise to power in such a system: convert it to proportional representation, or have one of the two parties in power collapse.
edited 6th Feb '13 7:58:52 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@Sledgesaul: I'd love it if the Green Party got into power. But it simply cannot happen unless either the Republicans or the Democrats fall apart to the point where they can no longer hope to command a plurality of votes anywhere in the country.
edited 6th Feb '13 8:02:18 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The Tea Party are exactly what I'm talking about. They're a movement of far-right-wing elements to change the direction and tenor of the Republican Party's coalition and bring it farther to the right, while marginalizing the Rockefeller Republicans.
Now, to be fair, the Libertarian Party is actually rather useful if you don't look at them as a party who are expected to win. Libertarians make excellent gadflies, and when the Libertarian Party gets a chance to weigh in on something like the War on Drugs, they make cogent points that both sides of the spectrum often pick up and try to work into their own platforms. But there's no way in hell a Libertarian will ever make it to the Presidency.
edited 6th Feb '13 8:02:52 AM by Ramidel
The easiest way to get the politicians to bow would be to have a force of personality.
When you actually press them, they will fold. Obama, for example, can easily say "See you in 2014" to whatever the Republicans say, and if they chose to remain stubborn, they will suffer through it. Look at Gingrich over Clinton.

Half the reason 9/11 happened was because of our decision to screw with the Arabic world. It's a domino effect.
So, no, America doesn't have enemies that it doesn't create at this point. It has rivals, yes, like China or Russia, but its enemies are the ones we've attacked first.
edited 6th Feb '13 7:23:33 AM by Sledgesaul