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
Someone retweeted the June message about Trump regarding the Charlie Hebdo attacks. The French ambassador in the U.S replied calling hi ma heartless vulture.
Vultures are actually useful to society tho.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes![]()
I'll give him a begrudging "Fair enough" regarding the Hebdo attacks, as that was perpetrated by gunmen, not bombs. Coulter, however, has no such excuse
. She's one of the few public figures I actually hate due to her vile rhetoric, though Trump's the other one.
![]()
Do...you think that people having a gun is going to be enough to keep them from shooting you? As in...that is impossible unless people carry guns on their hands all the time. And in what world would such a thing be remotely safe or sane?
The only thing guns would make would be vigilante style justice on the streets for criminals. which does not realy deter them at all. They still do the act.
edited 16th Nov '15 2:08:14 PM by Aszur
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesAlso, I mentioned it a few pages ago. But this is a new bit of U.S politics for me at least.
But basically: Group of smugglers traffic people from Cuba to the U.S. Trip starts in Ecuador. They go through there to Colombia to Costa Rica to Nicaragua etc until they reach the U.S. They are charged, what. USD $10.000 per person or so.
Costa Rican officials shut down this group of traffickers.
About 600 cuban immigrants swarm the costa rican offices of travel desperate to be let through to cotinue their trip. Costa Rican offices expedite a thousand and a half transient visas so they can continue their travel.
The cuban immigrants move to Nicaragua, they are repelled with tear gas by the Nicaraguan army. Nicaraguan president accuses costa rica of region destabilizing or whatever.
But I found out why so many cubans are desperately trying to get to the U.S at this point. They fear that with the restabilization of the U.S-Cuba relationships, the Wet feet, dry feet
policy comes to an end. Right now, Cubans have a migratory advantage over any other immigrant in the U.S with that law in bases, a remnant of the cold war.
And taking advantage of that seems to be the last chance these people will get now to get to the U.S
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
It falls under the general principle that, when conditions are dire enough, migration will happen no matter what anyone tries to do to stop it. Unless we want to annex Nicaragua, et. al., we aren't going to be able to stop the problem or even do much of anything about it; our legal responsibility for those migrants begins when they reach our shores and not a moment sooner.
Our moral responsibility is a bit harder to pin down, but U.S. relations with South and Central America have been fraught for a long, long time. One might observe that our history of screwing Latin America goes back long before we started dicking around in the Middle East, and applies to both Democratic and Republican governments.
edited 16th Nov '15 2:18:59 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"We can't transplant all of Cuba to the United States. That is not practical.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!""I don't know... do we want to get to the point where each law, ordinance, regulation, and rule is assigned some kind of Permitted Religious Exemption Rating? I would be happier with the converse — no exceptions whatsoever."
That why I was talking about easy ones. Head wear in pictures and allowing people to take days off for religious holidays should be a non-issue.
"I have religious objections to paying taxes" should not.
Things that fall in between are best left to those more well versed in law than some 20 year old who spends too much time on the internet.
I'm baaaaaaackIn the long run, embargoing Cuba proved to not work, and to give Castro an enemy to focus on. In the longer run, normalizing relations with Cuba will allow more oversight into what they're doing, and also allow more legal immigration from there. Because, quite frankly, having to do it illegally sucks for the ones doing it. It's also a lot harder to paint us as the enemy when we're having regular contact with them in their own country.
Quite frankly I don't understand how we've been enemies this long and yet maintained a base there on Cuba.
They don't want to be Europe, obviously. They would rather maintain the independence inherent to the American psyche to the extent that they still can. I mean, of course years of Republican policies of deregulation and tax-cutting and so on have contributed to the problems of working-class conservatives, but I guess what I mean to get at is that trust needs to be re-earned. There's no way their worldview is going to change on its own, so it's not something that would "have to change". Rather, action by state and local governments needs to have the effect of restoring their faith in the institution of government.
GM: AGOG S4 & F/WC RP; Co-GM: TABA, SOTR, UUA RP; Sub-GM: TTS RP. I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new Empire.
Except that the Republicans are doing their best to destroy people's faith in government so that they will continue to be elected to it by telling everyone how much it sucks. It's an easy, secure job if you can stomach it.
edited 16th Nov '15 3:54:36 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Of course. I don't mean to downplay the role the Republican Party plays and continues to play in creating the lack of trust. I'm just saying that the causation flows from government being demonstrated as useful to worldviews changing, not the other way around.
GM: AGOG S4 & F/WC RP; Co-GM: TABA, SOTR, UUA RP; Sub-GM: TTS RP. I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new Empire.First Cuba would have to become a U.S. possession, which would violate all kinds of international laws and whatnot if we didn't seek its consent in the matter. Generally, that sort of thing is called war.
edited 16th Nov '15 8:35:22 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Well, that was kind of my idea - once Cuba finally got rid of the Castrosauruses (NB: now that Cuba no longer has Soviet protection, if Cubans launch a massive pro-democracy rally, the government wouldn't be able to safely resort to Crushing the Populace), I'm wondering if Cuban citizens in general would want to unite Cuba with the US.
edited 16th Nov '15 8:41:36 PM by Ramidel
At least Cuba is close. Much closer to USA mainland than Hawaii, for example.
Reminds me of Civ 1 or Civ 2, wherein cities (very far away) declared they were joining my empire and I had to scramble to airdrop troops into them.
Can't remember for sure. I think I lost tech if those cities got invaded.
Plants are aliens, and fungi are nanomachines.We might have had a decent shot of that back pre castro, but I really doubt they'd vote for it now. Him and his brother have blamed all their problems on the US for years.
Though there are over a million Cubans and their descendants living in the about 10% of the population of Cuba, and most have close relatives still there, so if anywhere in the world was going to, they're probably one of the more likely candidates. The rest are right around 0% chance though so it doesn't say much.
edited 16th Nov '15 9:19:12 PM by Joesolo
I'm baaaaaaackI meant that Trump saying that about the Hebdo attack wasn't nearly as batshit insane as saying it about the bombings/shootings last weekend. In the former, someone with a gun could conceivably do something to retaliate against the shooters. A bomber (suicide or otherwise) is another story altogether.
As for a Cuban annexation, look at how conflicted Puerto Rico is about officially joining the Union - and we've a fair amount of other island nations that get jack-all in benefits from the arrangement, save for being "protectorates" of the US. John Oliver has more
.
edited 16th Nov '15 9:35:06 PM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"

That one's been doing the rounds for a while; he actually said it after Charlie Hebdo.
"Yup. That tasted purple."