TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

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

Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#108726: Jan 14th 2016 at 10:46:28 AM

It was Truman, and it was more for trying to go over the president's head than for wanting to use nukes. Truman is the only person to have ever ordered the use of nuclear weapons in war. He's the only person we can say for a fact would not shy from atomic bombing if the situation warranted it.

If I recall, Eisenhower condemned using the bombs on Japan, but when he was elected, he also implied that he'd nuke Chinese cities as a way of coaxing them to the negotiation table.

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#108727: Jan 14th 2016 at 10:58:29 AM

Do you honest to god believe "The others" are so politically idiotic and ignorant as to commit to full blown saturday morning cartoon villainy of "Tonight, Pinky, we take over the world!"?

Why not? We did.

We annihilated two civilian cities in a foreign nation with nuclear weapons to win a war and suffered no retaliation for it because our nuclear weapons were so powerful and so unstoppable that there was no possible resistance that could have been given to them.

That's not speculation. That's history. One-sided nuclear checkmate has ended a war immediately in the favor of the side employing it before. Without the threat of nuclear retaliation, why couldn't it be done again?

If only one country had nuclear weapons, the decision to employ them strikes me as a question of when, not if. The option would always be on the table in every negotiation, every border skirmish, every open war. As opposed to being unthinkable as it is today.

edited 14th Jan '16 11:00:35 AM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#108728: Jan 14th 2016 at 11:12:07 AM

To be honest, the reason I'm afraid of the United States having nukes is less about the question of what if Mother Russia decides to take over the world and more about what happens if we get President Trump or his equivalent.

Which is not to say that I want our nuclear arsenal to be as ridiculously outdated as it is. If we're going to have one, we had might as well make it modern and effective. I would rather scrap it than rebuild it, though.

edited 14th Jan '16 11:19:54 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#108729: Jan 14th 2016 at 11:19:17 AM

The sad fact is that the biggest factor in preventing a war between the major powers is that the Americans/Russians/Chinese/French/British/etc have the ability to annihilate each other and their allies and kill hundreds of millions of people in an instant. Because these countries aren't run by suicidal lunatics, this has more or less prevented any open warfare between great powers. We've had a few close calls but the last 70 years have been some of the most peaceful years in human history. For some parts of the world at least.

Unless everyone commits to complete nuclear disarmament, then its actually beneficial for several nations to have nuclear weapons (provided their stocks stay under their control). And this disarmed world might be prone to more conventional conflicts.

edited 14th Jan '16 11:37:30 AM by Rationalinsanity

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#108730: Jan 14th 2016 at 11:21:40 AM

However, the same rule that states that, "If anyone has them, everyone wants them," also works in reverse. If we all disarm, slowly and mutually, then nobody has to feel that they are the "suckers" in the deal.

edited 14th Jan '16 11:21:55 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#108731: Jan 14th 2016 at 11:26:51 AM

No way to verify if the other guy is if the other guy only plays at it. Everyone will think the same.

And then you have the little shits who don't have them who will wait for everyone to disarm...and then arm themselves.

Because thats another problem: Even if the weapons are destroyed, there isn't much preventing an industrialized nation from pursuing them, since the technological knowledge will still exist, especially if there is no fear of nuclear retaliation.

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#108732: Jan 14th 2016 at 11:27:21 AM

Yes, that's how it would have to go. And that's very unlikely. So our best option to maintain peace is holding a gun to our species' collective head.

[up]Also true. Almost every First World country (and a lot of developing nations) that aren't under global sanctions has breakout capability.

edited 14th Jan '16 11:28:21 AM by Rationalinsanity

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#108733: Jan 14th 2016 at 12:02:08 PM

Why not? We did.

We annihilated two civilian cities in a foreign nation with nuclear weapons to win a war and suffered no retaliation for it because our nuclear weapons were so powerful and so unstoppable that there was no possible resistance that could have been given to them.

That is not "taking over the world" as it is "Doing sadistic shit out of sheer fear", silly tongue

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#108734: Jan 14th 2016 at 12:37:56 PM

Getting rid of nukes might result in better terms, or it might turn out how Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal predicts.

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
JackOLantern1337 Shameful Display from The Most Miserable Province in the Russian Empir Since: Aug, 2014 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
Shameful Display
#108735: Jan 14th 2016 at 12:54:39 PM

Japan was already beaten by the time the bomb's were dropped. It was just a matter of what terms the peace would be on, we wanted unconditional surrender, they didn't. Had it been just to atomic bombs at the start of the conflict I doubt they would have surrendered.

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#108736: Jan 14th 2016 at 1:22:18 PM

[up]X3 Thing is nobody said Russia would try and take over the world if the US didn't have nukes. It might try for Eastern Europe though, China might try for Taiwan and North Korea would likely try for South Korea.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Demonic_Braeburn Yankee Doodle Dandy from Defective California Since: Jan, 2016
Yankee Doodle Dandy
#108737: Jan 14th 2016 at 1:23:54 PM

Plane With Confederate Flag Reading ‘No Votes for Turncoats’ Paid to Fly Over GOP Debate.

Any group who acts like morons ironically will eventually find itself swamped by morons who think themselves to be in good company.
JackOLantern1337 Shameful Display from The Most Miserable Province in the Russian Empir Since: Aug, 2014 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
Shameful Display
#108738: Jan 14th 2016 at 1:28:26 PM

Video of Chicago cops killing Cedrick Chatman.

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#108739: Jan 14th 2016 at 1:36:07 PM

[up][up] Apparently that's a pro-confederate slogan, which makes no sense at all.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#108740: Jan 14th 2016 at 1:38:51 PM

RE: Hiroshima/Nagasaki

That one's complex for a couple reasons.

  • 1) The US was in a race against Russia to get there first, for similar reasons as what Operation: Paperclip did (we wanted their scientists to prep for the Cold War).

  • 2) Japanese culture at the time was still very rooted in the Bushido Code, so there were valid concerns that trying a conventional invasion would result in more civilian casualties than just dropping the two bombs did.

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
FieldMarshalFry Field Marshal of Cracked from World Internet War 1 Since: Oct, 2015 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
Field Marshal of Cracked
#108741: Jan 14th 2016 at 1:46:14 PM

the confederacy were the turn coats, they rebelled against a democratically elected government, and the US Supreme Court ruled that they did not secede they only rebelled, and failed, confederates really seem to have a loose relationship with facts

advancing the front into TV Tropes
LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#108742: Jan 14th 2016 at 1:47:27 PM

What do I keep saying about facts in America?

They're subjective.

Oh really when?
Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#108743: Jan 14th 2016 at 1:48:01 PM

[up] Then is the existence of the US subjective? surprised

Keep Rolling On
LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#108744: Jan 14th 2016 at 1:49:05 PM

Well considering some don't recognize the legitimacy of the federal government I'd have to actually say yes, to some it is.

Oh really when?
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#108745: Jan 14th 2016 at 1:53:09 PM

I don't think they necessarily believe that the US's existence is subjective. It's very easy to prove that it does exist. The issue is more that they don't think it has any legitimacy.

Know-age Since: May, 2010
#108746: Jan 14th 2016 at 1:58:25 PM

RE: nuclear disarmerment - Israel will never disarm, and neither Will North Korea or Russia in the foreseeable future.

TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#108747: Jan 14th 2016 at 2:08:24 PM

It would disarm if it became a One State, because them Arabs can't be trusted with WEPON.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#108748: Jan 14th 2016 at 2:18:59 PM

Yeah.

And unfortunately, while Iran has good reasons for wanting their own bomb (because Iran doesn't really have good reason to trust Israel), everyone else would really rather keep that from happening (though Europe is kind of sick of worrying about it).

LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#108749: Jan 14th 2016 at 3:21:41 PM

Who's watching the debate? I'm not but I heard a snippet basically amounting to a promise that every treaty with Iran will be destroyed on day one with a Republican in the white house.

Oh really when?
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#108750: Jan 14th 2016 at 3:22:49 PM

At this point it's better for one's sanity to watch the talk and comedy show recaps.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Total posts: 417,856
Top