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
If it gets to the point of a rebellion, anyone who takes up arms against the United States in the name of such a cause is, quite frankly, someone whose death I won't object to. So I don't see anything wrong with going out of our way to oppress "Real American Christians" and take away their "FREEEEEDOM!"
We need the red states to connect the coasts, too.
edited 10th Sep '15 9:24:53 AM by Ramidel
In a hypothetical Divided States of America, the red states would largely be banana republics supplying food and other raw materials to the industrialized blue states. They would have very little independent economic value otherwise. You'd see a huge crash of incomes in those states as federal transfers ceased, and they'd have to rebuild their own financial industry as all the major centers are in blue states. It would not go well for them.
Anyway, unless the National Guard units of those states turned out and actively fought against the U.S. military, the "uprising" would be over in a matter of days. Even then, it would be weeks at most.
edited 10th Sep '15 9:32:38 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Seriously though this is BS, her 'religious freedom' does not give her the right to impose on others by denying them their right.
This kind of fight is so stupid and idiots cling to it so hard it really does not make sense but its religion so it never actually does make sense.
At this point such a rebellion would only help, let the insane Darwin themselves vs tanks and nukes.
edited 10th Sep '15 9:55:22 AM by Memers
![]()
So Hunger Games then?
Correct me if I'm wrong on this but aren't most of the military from the red states to begin with?
Inter arma enim silent leges![]()
![]()
Refusing to fight for whom? The average citizen in both sides?
During the Bush administration, my family was afraid there would be a draft. We dug up as many old papers written about me in my childhood (I was diagnosed with autism and, I would later find out, "emotionally disturbed"), as proof that the military shouldn't want me. Yes, we dug up medical records and stuff to avoid such a draft.
The draft never came. The Iraq war was way too unpopular. Also, didn't the military have serious problems with the results of drafting people into a war they wouldn't nothing to do with, back in the Vietnam War?
edited 10th Sep '15 10:05:47 AM by BonsaiForest
You know, back when I used to read conspiracy sites (shortly after the 9/11 attacks, actually, back when I was looking for more information and believed I'd found it), one of the conspiracy sites repeatedly listed every single war the US government has been involved in.
Even though I've since disavowed my past of reading whacko stuff, sometimes Strawman Has a Point. And I don't doubt our government would pull another war out of its ass and attempt to justify it if it could.
Problem is Iran is not really a threat. So since Iran is not putting up too much of a fight, they need another. Trump likes to bring up China, or Mexico, for example (one as an actual possible threat. The other, due to proximity). And there is always Russia.
This is not really unique to the U.S though. Everyone wants peace, but they want this peace by finding someone, saying THEY don't want peace, and being generally "unpeaceful" towards them. It makes for easy movement of people.
Again. Talking about the reduction of military in the U.S is anathema. It is political suicide. It is quite part of their culture. More is known and quoted about the founding fathers on guns than they are quoted on human rights.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesIn other words, their "peace" is peace within the country. Get the people to hate an outside enemy, so they don't turn on anything bad the government did to the country. Sounds rather... what's that word? Oh yeah, Orwellian.
Regarding the Justice Department claiming they'll arrest individual humans who screw around and make their companies break laws, what do you think about this?
For one, I see such companies offering up a sacrificial lamb of sorts - throw out some person who they can pin the blame on and let that person fry so the company can go along just fine. I'd like to see this result in actual prosecutions of actually guilty people, but I have to wonder how much that will happen. Yes, I'm skeptical. Hoping for the best, but not expecting much.
Also, it seems like this was created in direct result to how much Americans increasingly hate and distrust big business, and think the government is in bed with big business. As if this is a way of saying "Calm down, isn't this what you want?"
Businesses do have a history of some pretty awful crimes. Ever hear of United Fruit Company, since renamed Chiquita?
Also, Donald Trump is now the first or second choice for half of GOP voters
. The guy's a massive flip-flopper who constantly makes an ass out of himself and probably has no idea how to run a country. Do these voters CARE?
![]()
I am going to take advantage of you bringing up polls and trump to transplant a discussion that was being had on the womens issues thread, derailing it a bit but I think it fits much better here now
No. The polls arent any assurance that Trump has a chance to win. Polls suck at this stage.
This is the stage of American Idol where all the awful singing contestants appear (It is the only part worth watching) and the camera likes to focus on them because of how terrible and narcissistic they are. But when shit starts getting serious they are dismissed with half a word and we won't hear of them anymore
edited 10th Sep '15 10:50:45 AM by Aszur
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesif Trump actually manages to take the nomination, I'm going to repost every single post that said he had no chance whatever the polls say, just to rub it in.
If he actually manages to become president, I'm going to start a political party whose first priority would be to retake the colonies, for it would soon be the perfect time to strike.
If Trump becomes President, I will help you reclaim the colonies because clearly our experiment with independence will have failed.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Eh, I'll stick around. As a beneficiary of white male privilege I doubt I'll be tossed in jail or deported under his regime, although I suppose that I run the risk of being swept up in race riots.
edited 10th Sep '15 11:30:54 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"As Trump and Sanders rise, the two major parties fall
Argument that the main establishment of both parties are starting to become less relevant, considering a self-identified Republican and self-identified Democrat who are very different from the norm are the two biggest stars right now.
And also that other changes are occurring.
Not that I like either of those two candidates, but holy shit. You don't say the candidate process is almost, dare I say... democratizing??
The establishment may not like his style, but, with Internet buzz, who needs an endorsement from party regulars? Candidates relying on and playing to the party establishment are failing, while candidates adept at breaking party norms are gaining ground or taking the lead. That’s in part because the parties’ loss of control over the nominating process has coincided with the decline in their brands. People are almost embarrassed to call themselves Democrats or Republicans, so even candidates avoid party labels and are instead building their own brands.

To function as a coherent country we need the red states. There's a lot of shit in them.
Like hell, the Marine Corps would be pretty crippled without Camp Lejeune here in North Carolina.
That being said, that shouldn't stop us from forcing them to get in line. I'm all for having the 101st come back and kick some heads in.
It'd send one hell of a message.
edited 10th Sep '15 9:24:42 AM by LeGarcon
Oh really when?