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

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#112251: Feb 16th 2016 at 9:25:28 AM

If that held true statistically, the higher the expenditures in military arrangements, especially compared to its raw income, the more peace there would be.
That's not what the saying means. Clearly there's not a strict correlation between military expenditure and peace (the most obvious problem with that: military expenditure tends to increase sharply during war, when peace has already failed, so...).

Given a choice, countries generally only fight wars they think they can win. And if you have a bigger, badder army than them, they probably won't think they can win against you. So if you make it clear that you're willing and able to use your bigger, badder army, then you won't actually have to use it.

Obviously this isn't a hard and fast rule, but the point is, saying "we haven't fought a conventional war in decades, why are we still spending all this money on gear for conventional war?" is short-sighted. Having an army does more for you than just actually fighting wars.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
TotemicHero No longer a forum herald from the next level Since: Dec, 2009
No longer a forum herald
#112252: Feb 16th 2016 at 9:30:16 AM

Marco Rubio's morning in America. And by America, we mean Vancouver, Canada. tongue

edited 16th Feb '16 9:30:39 AM by TotemicHero

Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)
Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#112253: Feb 16th 2016 at 9:35:58 AM

Given a choice, countries generally only fight wars they think they can win. And if you have a bigger, badder army than them, they probably won't think they can win against you. So if you make it clear that you're willing and able to use your bigger, badder army, then you won't actually have to use it.

This might come as news, but, people and nations do not appreciate having to give or forcibly trade their lunch money to the kid in class whose hormones kicked in earlier than anyone else's just because he has the ability to punch it out of you. A diplomatic relationship based on sowing resentment is, surprisingly, not something that yields good results in the long run.

Military defense is one thing.

Having a military just for the sake of using it as a base for diplomatic relationships is a whole other thing.

That's not what the saying means.

Of course not. Romans had no concept of net income!.

They also had no concept of peace by any other means than forcible conquest. So sticking to their examples is like taking a humility lesson from Charlie Sheen and Donald Trump

edited 16th Feb '16 9:40:54 AM by Aszur

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#112254: Feb 16th 2016 at 9:36:19 AM

[up]Plot Twist: Every candidate is actually a Canadian Spy. Except Trump, who's a North Korean spy.

Leviticus 19:34
DrDougsh Since: Jan, 2001
#112255: Feb 16th 2016 at 9:46:38 AM

Well, technically Canada is in America.

TheWanderer Student of Story from Somewhere in New England (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
Student of Story
#112256: Feb 16th 2016 at 9:46:51 AM

The Rubio campaign released an ad over the weekend called "Morning again," which starts with the narrator saying, "It's morning again in America."

The only problem — the footage being shown is of the harbor in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

But in this case, the harbor footage of a tugboat in the early morning hours was taken in Canada. The tugboat is in front of the iconic Vancouver skyline and has a small Canadian flag flying on the back.

[lol]

You know what though, what else could they do? Cities in the US are evil hotbeds of liberalism and much more likely to contain people who might look, talk, or act differently from our good old Apple Pie selves. So obviously you can't feature footage of an American city in the Republican primary, even as you try to build up that whole "America is the shining city on the hill" thing, and you especially can't use the most famous or recognizable US cities. I mean, what candidate in the Republican field can appear to endorse a city like New York, Boston, Chicago, or San Francisco without irking all the down home voters?

So in the end, using a non American city as an example of how America is a shining city on the hill was their only choice. Conservative America loves cities on a hill... as long as it's not one of their own cities.

tongue

edited 16th Feb '16 9:48:05 AM by TheWanderer

| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#112257: Feb 16th 2016 at 9:55:29 AM

This might come as news, but, people and nations do not appreciate having to give or forcibly trade their lunch money to the kid in class whose hormones kicked in earlier than anyone else's just because he has the ability to punch it out of you. A diplomatic relationship based on sowing resentment is, surprisingly, not something that yields good results in the long run.
Having more military power doesn't automatically make you an international bully. To continue the schoolyard analogy: you know who the bully doesn't pick on? The kid that's bigger than him who sits in the back of class and minds his own business. And if the bully starts bugging the big kid's friends, then the big kid can say "hey, knock it off" and it's much more likely he'll be listened to than if he wasn't a big kid.

Military defense is one thing.

Having a military just for the sake of using it as a base for diplomatic relationships is a whole other thing.

No, that's actually pretty much the same thing. As I said: military power exists as much to provide options as it does to actually fight wars. Do you think the fact that we can bomb their enrichment facilities if we really had to had no bearing on the negotiations during the Iran nuclear deal?

Diplomacy isn't based purely on who can beat up who, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't matter who can beat up who, either.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
PotatoesRock Since: Oct, 2012
#112258: Feb 16th 2016 at 10:00:54 AM

Fed's Kashkari Floats Breaking Up Big Banks to Avert Meltdown

Even Wall Street thinks Wall Street is too dangerous to be left alone.

TheWanderer Student of Story from Somewhere in New England (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
Student of Story
#112259: Feb 16th 2016 at 10:10:48 AM

Even Wall Street thinks Wall Street is too dangerous to be left alone.

It wouldn't be the first time. In the wake of the Great Depression, FDR appointed Joe Kennedy to reform the rules of play for Wall St. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth about appointing such a prominent business & Wall St. man to reform the market... and then Kennedy went ahead and put in most of the things we take for granted, such as banning insiderer trading, creating the SEC, etc.

This is just the cycle going around again.

| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#112260: Feb 16th 2016 at 10:15:10 AM

And if the bully starts bugging the big kid's friends, then the big kid can say "hey, knock it off" and it's much more likely he'll be listened to than if he wasn't a big kid.

Which is the concept of alliances. Those are fine. When you try to strongarm by implicit threat on things that have absolutely no bearing on you, without being requested, that's when you are planting the resentment that you will harvest later. That is to say, getting the CIA involved in Southern American nations is an example of this: just because the U.S could doesn't mean it should have done it: the result is now in a region unstable due to anti-U.S rhethoric being effective, and this rethoric being also a great motivator in Middle Eastern nations among the economically vulnerable sector.

So yeah maybe the big kid can mind his own goddamn business unless he is explicitly requested by the teacher or the party that has been afflicted, and recognize his faults instead of walking by flexing and mentioning how much he lifts when he is asked his opinion.

No, that's actually pretty much the same thing.

It is only if you make it so. "Hey. Trade me summa that oil at a favorable price" "No" "I am not saying I will bomb you, I am just saying that I have some pretty neat, deadly bombs" "...ok" is not an inherent part of negotiation unless you come with that attitude.

And before you mention that the politics is more like "Stop killing your own people or I will bomb you" let me mention that such things have not worked as we have living examples right now who are not dissuaded by it (Such as North Korea) and that it is also part of the goddamn problem in itself.

Again, it would be stupid if the U.S demilitarized. It has pissed off way too many people to think itself safe. And that implies keeping modern and up to date in its military technologies. But from there to basing trading and diplomatic relationships on the basis of "do u even lift bro" is just a jingoistic narrative without actual benefits when it goes into action that breeds the same problems it supposedly stops.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
JackOLantern1337 Shameful Display from The Most Miserable Province in the Russian Empir Since: Aug, 2014 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
Shameful Display
#112261: Feb 16th 2016 at 10:58:13 AM

[up] We don't base trade off that, but having a large military can be helpful. For instance, the only reason why Taiwan hasn't been forcibly rejoined to the mainland, ether through some sort of non violent coercion like a blockade, or through military actions is because of the US.

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#112262: Feb 16th 2016 at 11:19:34 AM

When you try to strongarm by implicit threat on things that have absolutely no bearing on you, without being requested, that's when you are planting the resentment that you will harvest later.
Which isn't what I'm talking about. Yes, military power can be misused. It can also be used wisely and well. But it can't be used at all if you don't have it, which means maintaining it should be a priority, rather than slashing budgets because "come on guys, the Cold War is over already".

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
3of4 Just a harmless giant from a foreign land. from Five Seconds in the Future. Since: Jan, 2010 Relationship Status: GAR for Archer
Just a harmless giant from a foreign land.
#112263: Feb 16th 2016 at 11:34:28 AM

I wonder. Wouldn't the "Cruz is Canadian" theory mean he is a subject of Her Majesty the Queen?

I.e. his candidacy is one huge scheme to re-conquer the US for English Crown?

"You can reply to this Message!"
JackOLantern1337 Shameful Display from The Most Miserable Province in the Russian Empir Since: Aug, 2014 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
Shameful Display
#112264: Feb 16th 2016 at 11:42:08 AM

Edit: Wrong thread damit[lol]

edited 16th Feb '16 12:57:14 PM by JackOLantern1337

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#112265: Feb 16th 2016 at 11:49:53 AM

We don't base trade off that, but having a large military can be helpful. For instance, the only reason why Taiwan hasn't been forcibly rejoined to the mainland, ether through some sort of non violent coercion like a blockade, or through military actions is because of the US.

The United States has used its armies to get some advantagers from countries. Be it Panama for its Canal, Phillipines for its coal, or Iraq for its oil, Taiwan is no different.

The United States is the top seller of arms worldwide, with South Korea and Taiwan being important trade partners in this subject South Korea being a big name there.

Taiwan is also the cheapest electronics manufacturer with China being the main assembler

I am not into conspiracy theories, I am not saying the U.S army is in service of companies and quick profits. I am just saying that it has demonstrably happened in the past (not just with the U.S), that it has happened for various reasons, in different times (The phillipines, for example, was in great part to a need to fuel the navy and protect the area during WWII so they are not particularly angry at that) and I am not advocating for it to be used as a guilt thing in any case. I am just saying that if you want to avoid the resentment and hatred harboring from nations when you engage in trading with them, then flexing about your muscles just to make sure they know you could beat them up at any time if you so wanted doesnt really help anything. Otherwise then they go bukkake haram and blow themselves up with terrorist attacks.

But needing arms and power to facilitate trade is just faulty as an argument, otherwise countries with equal power levels (around 8999 each) couldn't trade with each other and needing arms to make diplomatic relationships would also not make sense because dammit it simply does not work, and will never work. No one in the world save for terrorist organizations is into the whole "pillage their village, fly our flag with disembodied heads in their castle and now we can call this our land" levels of political maneuvering like we were playing Civilization, or Age of Empires anymore. No one could get away with it.

Partially because of nukes, but mostly because cultural and educational levels worldwide have been steadily increasing.

Which isn't what I'm talking about. Yes, military power can be misused. It can also be used wisely and well. But it can't be used at all if you don't have it, which means maintaining it should be a priority, rather than slashing budgets because "come on guys, the Cold War is over already".

Again. I am not against modernization or proper maintenance and training on armies.

But if a military power's end results end up in having to increase military expenditures because peace isn't coming, I think this money would be better spent elsewhere on things that actually work.

So yeah in a way, I think the ultimate objective of a military would be for military to not be necesary. That is an impossible utopia and I am aware of it; I would love to propose rainbow farting unicorns and a chicken in every pot for everyone but that's just not doable. What is doable is just working on reducing the "with us or against us" mentality that exercising militaries easily breed if misused.

I also have and know examples of when the united states and other countries have used their armies for much better, healthier results but right now that ain't happening and they are not serving that purpose and (to return to the subject that sparked my stupidly long diatribe), a "si vis paces para bellum" attitude is neither historically nor statistically significant in achieving peaceful results..

It is simply not true and is what I am challenging. NOT the modernization or armies, NOT the upkeep of militaries, NOT the slashing of a budget (because that is entering an operational subject) but simply the attitude and belief that an army is objectively necesary to achieve peace in this or every situation

edited 16th Feb '16 11:59:50 AM by Aszur

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#112266: Feb 16th 2016 at 12:10:46 PM

And, of course, one of the most stable countries in Central America is the one with no military whatsoever. Costa Rica seems to be able to set up trade deals and negotiate without having a hammer to threaten with.

Bat178 Since: May, 2011
#112267: Feb 16th 2016 at 12:14:05 PM

And despite the money spent on the US Military, they still have not replaced the M16s and M4s with something better like the HK 416 or ARX-160.

LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#112268: Feb 16th 2016 at 12:16:10 PM

Because both of those weapons are crap for their price range and complexity. Plus they're foreign and that's a huge no no.

But mostly because our procurement system is built on corruption and putting money in the pockets of select contractors, not on acquiring the best gear and technology.

Oh really when?
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#112269: Feb 16th 2016 at 12:47:32 PM

I think we're getting off topic for the general politics thread, but I don't think it'd be appropriate to take over the military thread either. Suffice to say, my ultimate point is that the military is a legitimate and necessary part of the budget for the US, and that "tell the military to make due with a few less tanks/jets/whatever and give that money where it can actually do some good" is a silly attitude to take.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#112270: Feb 16th 2016 at 12:50:00 PM

Yeah, cutting back isn't the answer. If anything we've got some modernization to do to keep up with the Russians.

What we need to do is start some aggressive renegotiations with certain contractors and stop making procurement about making them money.

Oh really when?
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#112271: Feb 16th 2016 at 12:53:06 PM

Well, considering that people at the Pentagon have said they don't need the money the Congress wants to give them in the past, it seems less silly. Because then the military has to spend that money on boondoggles like flying humvees. If there's one thing the military officials are good at, it's efficiently using the resources given to them. It's this military/industrial complex issue that seems to cause a lot of the waste.

Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#112272: Feb 16th 2016 at 12:55:49 PM

The United States' foreign policies and military spending are a crux to the already polarizing political system of the united states's politics so I'd like to think it is a relevant subject of discussion, but ok.

In other news, commercial flights to Cuba have been opened so you guys can go to Cuba and enjoy the sights and goods Cuba has to offer like cigars and Che Guevara shirts.

edited 16th Feb '16 12:56:52 PM by Aszur

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#112273: Feb 16th 2016 at 1:17:44 PM

The US military should cut down on stupid toys that don't work and redirect that money to pensions, medical treatment, and the GI bill, as well as improving the working conditions on and off the field. The Men First.

Also, that's a crapload of low-hanging-fruit votes right there.

edited 16th Feb '16 1:18:37 PM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
JackOLantern1337 Shameful Display from The Most Miserable Province in the Russian Empir Since: Aug, 2014 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
Shameful Display
#112274: Feb 16th 2016 at 1:30:39 PM

[up] The fact of the matter is we need a new fighter. The old ones are increasingly becoming outdated, and in some cases literally falling out of the sky. And thanks to the whole "the Cold War is over" attitude. The US delayed various modernizations for years. The F-35 is indeed a peace of crap, but it is much to late to start from scratch.

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#112275: Feb 16th 2016 at 1:33:34 PM

Partially "The Cold War Is Over" but also because it's much more lucrative for contractors to make lots of very expensive prototypes and long winded development projects that never see fruition than to actually make a workable product and put it into production.

And honestly until that war with Georgia there really wasn't any reason to be worried about keeping up with Russia, they were barely a regional power. This revival of their military might is very sudden.

It practically happened overnight.

edited 16th Feb '16 1:35:22 PM by LeGarcon

Oh really when?

Total posts: 417,856
Top