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

BlueNinja0 The Mod with the Migraine from Taking a left at Albuquerque Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
The Mod with the Migraine
#111051: Feb 4th 2016 at 1:01:44 PM

making it questionable whether the committee is intended to help advance a resolution or be a political stunt.
How is it questionable? Congress would never turn down the opportunity for a political stunt.
Trump taps into the seething resentment of people who go about their lives treating people fairly, working hard and trying to be decent citizens, and for their trouble are painted as racist, greedy, uncaring. unenlightened Yahoos.
Emphasis mine. Because while, sure, there are probably plenty of people unfairly branded as racists, there have quite clearly been multiple racistsnote  publically supporting Trump and recruiting new membership from his rallies.
this year, the GOP's most prominent candidates are clowns
Amen. While I didn't like Romney, I didn't have the utter loathing for him that I have for, um, every Republican candidate this year. And I would have voted for Mc Cain if he hadn't chained himself to Palin.
Morally, Jimmy Carter is probably the best US President, although I think Obama may be better on social issues if only due to different standards of the time and Fair for Its Day stuff.
Obama has done some questionable things as well, so I wouldn't put him above Carter on a relative morality scale.
How about having the rest of the world represented as an extra State of sorts in both party primaries, presidential elections, and congressional elections?
How about a big ol' helping of ohfuckno? Also if we do that, then turnabout is fair play, and the US gets to openly decide the leadership of other countries (instead of having to do it with shady CIA deals).

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw
Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#111052: Feb 4th 2016 at 1:05:48 PM

You guys already decided the presidents of my nation at least thrice!

I demand the right to call the shots now!

I THINK IT'S TIME EVERYONE MARCHED BEHIND ME! YOUR NEW GLORIOUS LEADER!

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
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
#111053: Feb 4th 2016 at 1:06:30 PM

most of the "questionable things" about Obama seem to stem from him using drones to bomb targets instead of planes

advancing the front into TV Tropes
Bense Since: Aug, 2010
#111054: Feb 4th 2016 at 1:10:29 PM

Speaking of Carter, he has said now that given Trump or Cruz to choose from, he would pick Trump.

If he had to choose between them, “I think I would choose Trump, which may surprise some of you,” he said.

“The reason is, Trump has proven already he’s completely malleable,” Carter said. “I don’t think he has any fixed (positions) he’d go the White House and fight for. On the other hand, Ted Cruz is not malleable. He has far right-wing policies he’d pursue if he became president.”

Carter added that he had a “feeling” that Trump's chances for the presidency would “fade away.”

“When people actually get ready to put on a ballot, ‘This is the person I want to lead me for the next four or eight years, I think they’ll have a little different opinion,’” Carter said.

He goes on to say that he thinks Hillary will ultimately prevail.

edited 4th Feb '16 1:13:46 PM by Bense

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#111055: Feb 4th 2016 at 1:20:05 PM

Well, y'know, lesser of two evils and all.

vandro Shop Owner from The little shop that wasn't Since: Jul, 2009
Shop Owner
#111056: Feb 4th 2016 at 1:22:37 PM

You guys chose our leader at least twice. I wanna be the US president!

McCain, my compatriot, tried, so I can too.

Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#111058: Feb 4th 2016 at 1:56:19 PM

[up]

There's valid reason to be critical of the drone program, primarily its combat parameters. A person is considered a valid target if they're a male between the ages of 18 and 40 or so if I recall right. Also, they're considered "acceptable collateral" if they're in range of the primary target at the time of the strike.

I understand the mentality behind the Drone program - protect our forces while demoralizing theirs by removing the Taking You with Me aspect of a firefight, but it's still pretty dark-grey.

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
BonsaiForest Since: Jan, 2001
#111060: Feb 4th 2016 at 1:59:50 PM

I'm now seeing headlines that young Democrats prefer Sanders much more.

vandro Shop Owner from The little shop that wasn't Since: Jul, 2009
Shop Owner
#111061: Feb 4th 2016 at 2:08:33 PM

...Chavez and Maduro are autocrats, no lip-service to women's liberation can change that.

PotatoesRock Since: Oct, 2012
#111062: Feb 4th 2016 at 2:18:51 PM

I'm now seeing headlines that young Democrats prefer Sanders much more.
The vast majority of people in the 18-30 age bracket at the Dem Iowa Caucases voted overwhelmingly for Sanders, with a majority of those 33 to 45 voting for him as well. Clinton captured the 45+ vote.

As to why, it appears to be a combination of:

  • He's basically been pro LGBT rights since 1972 in one form another, plus-minus evolving on sections, which is a growing youth issue, as more young people come out of the closet.
  • A lot of younger people are heavily affected by student debt policies of colleges/universities and the Government which is seen as crushing them out of buying homes, cars, starting a family.
  • He's basically saying torch Wall Street, and it's very possible for the Millenial generation, the 2007-2099 financial crisis was basically the moment that will crystalize in their minds. And there are likely a large number of Millenials and younger adults who basically saw jobs get lost, homes get foreclosed, health insurance dropped, and retirement and bank accounts get obliterated.

Basically, young people want to see heads roll with regards to the banks, and it's only recently Clinton pivoted on gay rights, so she seems like a faker.

Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#111063: Feb 4th 2016 at 2:18:54 PM

vandro is making a reference to this paragraph on the jacobin article linked above

In Latin America, too, many working-class feminists argue that the fight for gender and sexual liberation is inseparable from the struggles for self-determination and a just economic system. Speaking to NACLA Report on the Americas, Venezuelan organizer Yanahir Reyes recently lauded “all of the social policy” that has “focused on liberating women” under Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro, those evil autocrats so despised by Clinton.

Which is basically demonstrating the investigative powers of a headless chicken.

P.S: Both Dems and Reps have real bad foreign policies cuz' the solution from both has been guns guns and more guns :P

edited 4th Feb '16 2:20:46 PM by Aszur

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
SolipsistOwl Since: Jan, 2016
#111064: Feb 4th 2016 at 2:50:21 PM

Any thoughts on why Sanders is willing to socialize/nationalize healthcare, but not banking? There's certainly as much justification for it, so it comes off almost moderate on Sanders' part.

Nihlus1 Since: Jul, 2015
#111065: Feb 4th 2016 at 2:57:44 PM

There's valid reason to be critical of the drone program,
No there isn't, unless you just oppose the conflicts they're used in to begin with. It causes less collateral damage than any other way of doing it. Even the fanatically anti-drone Pakistani government puts civilian casualties from the drone campaign at 3%, less than pretty much every major counter-insurgency campaign ever. The reasons for this are very obvious; with a drone, you can afford to loiter and take your time with picking targets. While with troops on the ground, you're panicking because they're also in danger, and with a normal airstrike, you feel the need to act because you can't be in the air that long.

I've actually read those documents they're talking about that supposedly reveal 90% of those killed "weren't the intended targets". They're for Operation Haymaker, in eastern Afghanistan from January 2012 to February 2013. What the documents actually say is that, in the course of 56 strikes, 219 of the kills were EKIA (enemy killed in action) while 35 were JP- jackpots, i.e. high valued targets. The last slide lists 14 civilian casualties, but it doesn't say if those casualties were inflicted by the drones or something else, since that last slide includes the effects of all missions conducted by TF 3-10. Regardless, assuming that everyone in that last slide was killed by a drone, that'd mean 13% of the killed are the intended targets, 82% were other militants, and 5% were civilians. Even those journalists in that article you posted estimate 476 civilians killed out of 3,852 people, a civilian casualty rate of 12% (which is way higher than what the Pakistani government or the US military's classified docs say, but eh). Much less than in pretty much any other type of operation.

The individual who leaked these documents to the media argued that there is insufficient evidence to be sure all those labeled EKIA were actually the enemy. It was his fear that the procedure for labeling other individuals killed in those strikes as EKIA was too loose, and conducted with too little verification, relying on little more than they be military aged males in close proximity to the intended target, and that the number of civilian casualties must actually be much higher. He offered absolutely no proof of this, but who needs proof? Of course the military lies on their own classified internal documents.

Given how worked up Karzai was getting about civilian casualties from airstrikes in 2012 there's no way the drone operators could've afforded to just blow away every male between 16 and 50 and label them as EKIA (which is also ludicrously inefficient given the amount of pre-planning and intelligence work that goes into picking a strike; btw why are these terrorist leaders seemingly never surrounded by civilian children or women?). Karzai would've shut down the operation immediately if that was the case, which is blowback that the US doesn't need.

I understand the mentality behind the Drone program - protect our forces while demoralizing theirs by removing the Taking You with Me aspect of a firefight.
Less that, more "wow, these drones are very good at delivering firepower with precision!".

The drone strikes are the best idea that the NATO forces in Afghanistan ever had. They've killed hundreds of important terrorist leaders in their supposed safe havens in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, and basically have denied them the ability to safely hide there. That's far more important to defeating an insurgency than just killing more mooks. All with a negligible amount of civilian casualties, and no losses for your own soldiers. Do you have a better idea of what they should be doing?

edited 4th Feb '16 3:25:12 PM by Nihlus1

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#111066: Feb 4th 2016 at 3:22:03 PM

[up] I have to agree with Nihlus1 here. Drones are a vastly more precise and efficient way of conducting asymmetric warfare than manned aircraft.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
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
#111067: Feb 4th 2016 at 3:28:51 PM

FUCK! I agree with Nihlus...

edited 4th Feb '16 3:29:03 PM by FieldMarshalFry

advancing the front into TV Tropes
FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#111068: Feb 4th 2016 at 3:33:48 PM

What I've always consistantly heard about drones is it ain't the tech, but the guys who operate them that can be a problem. CIA vs regular military or some such.

LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#111069: Feb 4th 2016 at 3:47:22 PM

The CIA really just couldn't give less of a fuck about the rules of engagement and civilian casualties. Almost all civilian casualties are from CIA controlled strikes.

When the drones are in the hands of the actual Air Force you'll find civilian casualties are few and far between. Not to mention that they tend to do a better job at destroying important targets in the first place.

Oh really when?
Nihlus1 Since: Jul, 2015
#111070: Feb 4th 2016 at 3:50:13 PM

The CIA operates the drones in Yemen and Somalia, yes? Civilian casualties there are still very low, especially when you remember that the civilian casualty numbers given by these journalists are still about three or four times higher than the numbers given by classified military documents and the Pakistani government.

Yemen:

  • Confirmed drone strikes: 108-128

  • Total killed: 496-729

  • Civilians killed: 65-101

[~10-15% civilian casualties]

  • Possible extra drone strikes: 80-96

  • Total killed: 334-486

  • Civilians killed: 26-61

[~6-10% civilian casualties]

Somalia:

  • Drone strikes: 18-22

  • Total killed: 38-126

  • Civilians killed: 0-7

[~0-5% civilian casualties]

Contrast the manned aircraft and cruise missile strikes:

Somalia:

  • Other covert operations: 8-11

  • Total killed: 40-141

  • Civilians killed: 7-47

Yemen

  • Other covert operations: 15-72

  • Total killed: 156-365

  • Civilians killed: 68-99

edited 4th Feb '16 4:05:46 PM by Nihlus1

LogoP Party Crasher from the Land of Deep Blue Since: May, 2013 Relationship Status: You can be my wingman any time
Party Crasher
#111071: Feb 4th 2016 at 3:53:12 PM

Yemen is a slaughterhouse. Though it has more to do with the actions of the Saudis than the CIA.

It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane.
FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#111072: Feb 4th 2016 at 4:03:34 PM

No. Prior to the civil war, there was reporting of large civillian casualties in Yemen from drone strikes. We don't hear more extensive coverage because even before the civil war, Yemen was just too dangerous for journalists. Somalia even more so, though to your point, there isn't much anecdotal reporting about drones in Somalia and civillian deaths, so its possible things are okay there.

EDIT-

On the statistics of manned aircraft, I'll need the dates and the nationalities of the aircraft for Yemen for obvious reasons. But I'd not consider those numbers gospel anyway due to aforementioned factors.

edited 4th Feb '16 4:05:23 PM by FFShinra

Nihlus1 Since: Jul, 2015
#111073: Feb 4th 2016 at 4:10:02 PM

Just check the datasheets I linked, they have charts which list all the strikes and differentiate between regular airstrikes and drone strikes. Though I think these figures for civilian casualties should be taken as high ends, for the reasons I stated previously.

Joesolo Indiana Solo Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Indiana Solo
#111074: Feb 4th 2016 at 4:10:59 PM

@Solipsist Owl

For one things, the banks would put up way more of a fight. Doctors and nurses will still get paid with national healthcare. Even the different medical companies would still sell their drugs and other supplies.

Nationalized banking? The banks are GONE. They'll fight tooth and nail against that.

I'm baaaaaaack
FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#111075: Feb 4th 2016 at 4:12:01 PM

I did. Still require what I asked in my previous post. You can't assume thats the high end given the factors I have laid out. Merely assuming the CIA is as careful as the military does not match the reporting from the area.


Total posts: 417,856
Top