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
![]()
The key word is suspected terrorists, Fighteer. I don't blindly trust my government whenever it claims that a newborn infant child is gonna someday pose a threat to the world.
I say that because that's the vibe I'm getting from Afghanistan
right now. I know the guys we're training are almost literally backstabbing us, but come on.
edited 9th Feb '13 6:49:56 PM by Serocco
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.Considering how we recently moved drone strikes to its own thread, I'm wondering if we should have a separate topic for American bilateral diplomacy...
I don't know, is it really a US politics issue, rather than an international-relations one? It's an issue where bipartisan support is more frequent nowadays. It's nowhere as divisive as it is with some domestic issues, or as it was during past wars and Bush presidency.
To your last point: Thanks, Barack, for mainstreaming fucked up Bush era policies.
Historically, Republicans have aggressively pursued the concentration and acquisition of new power, while Democrats promise reform and then proceed to quietly consolidate that power upon being elected. It's been thus for decades.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.It's because the majority of American voters simply don't give a fuck about a bunch of folks off in the Middle East, except when they kill Americans.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Ugh, Serocco, do we have to start thumping you for strawmanning? Most Democrats don't want to kill Social Security. There are disagreements about how to "fix" it, if it even needs fixing, but the entitlement-breaking is almost entirely on the Republicans' side.
edited 9th Feb '13 7:09:06 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I don't think many Democrats today would smile at Social Security reform. And as I understand it, Eisenhower's acquisitions of power were more on the global stage. No one held any illusions about the global power of the U.S. by the end of his term. (Ironically, for a guy who warned of the rise of the military-industrial complex...)
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.Quote from Obama
. "If congressional Republicans refuse to pay America’s bills on time, Social Security checks, and veterans benefits will be delayed. We might not be able to pay our troops, or honor our contracts with small business owners. Food inspectors, air traffic controllers, specialist who track down loose nuclear materials wouldn’t get their paychecks."
That was, I think, at a time where he was calling in favor of Social Security and tried to say "Oy, what the fuck, GOP?"
edited 9th Feb '13 7:17:17 PM by Serocco
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.
Unless I'm severely missing something, he's using that as the standard scaremongering (not without reason) "Voters, please put some pressure on these lunatics so they'll raise the debt ceiling" rhetoric. It doesn't sound to me like he's in favor of cutting any of those things. If anything, he's arguing for preserving them.
Fire Dog Lake? Seriously?
That was a classic scare quote by Obama. He was attempting to make the Republicans bad (and a task that easy he couldn't fail at even if he wanted to). He was not incorrect in that a total shutdown could threaten SS, but that doesn't mean he feels like threatening SS.
Seriously, SS rollback is the Philosopher's Stone of Republican politics. They've been seeking a way to sell it - as reform, as "more efficient vouchers", as any number of things - to their own base for decades, much less to Democrats and Independents. And they still haven't figured out how to do so in a way that doesn't piss off the seniors.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.I put that there so we can be sure that, if Obama cuts Social Security, everyone will know that he was lying through his teeth about appearing to want to protect it.
The Chained CPI
deal that he once proposed really makes me doubt his statements about keeping it intact.
edited 9th Feb '13 7:30:17 PM by Serocco
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.Ahem. Let's look at that article.
Now, back to the original article, it is absolutely correct when it says:
This is the key point about chained CPI, often glossed over by its advocates. Adopting it is just another way to cut Social Security benefits. So it's only a good idea if cutting Social Security benefits is a good idea.
Slate is against it, National Journal tries to sell it, NY Times is against it. Surprise.
Any Democrats actually in support of it? ("Obama, in his moment of free-fall surrender during the fiscal cliff debates before he realized that the Republican House wouldn't vote in favour of something he offered even if it included having every Democrat lined up against the wall and shot" doesn't count.)
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.At the time, Democrats voiced their opposition to it
, but none of those included Obama.
edited 9th Feb '13 7:43:41 PM by Serocco
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.There have been several innocent people released from gitmo. Sheer probability states that some of the people currently being held forever without trial and being tortured are innocent.
Of course once you think of them as evil instead of enemies it's amazing how much easier it is to let that slide.
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?
Yeah, but it's a strange, fucked-up situation. I doubt they're doing much torturing anymore. (Not much left to spill) but even if you were innocent, after that long in Gitmo, you're going to want revenge. I'm personally torn on the issue, and can't think of any solution that I wholeheartedly agree on.
The constitution makes no distinction between "citizens" and "non citizens" when it comes to due process. As in, due process is mandatory even for foreigners. Except, due process was not used with Gitmo. Due process was not used with the NDAA.
edited 9th Feb '13 8:02:12 PM by Serocco
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.

edited 9th Feb '13 6:41:02 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"