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 Robert Gates is to be believed we funded moderate Democratic opposition groups. He doesn't go into much detail about them, but he does list Vietnam as one of the Soviet proxies we bloodied during the Reagan years
Edit: Though during the Ford administration we condemned Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia, as a way to suck up to China and make our alliance work. That is also the reason we supported Pakistan against India, well that and their dictator was best buds with Nixon. It is hilarious how much of Nixon and Ford's bad behavior can be traced to trying to make friends with China, though that is certainly not responsible for all of it.
edited 6th Mar '16 1:04:09 PM by JackOLantern1337
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.So I found a new fun toy, 270towin, have electoral college predictions based on current polls for possible candidates, for states without polling you can add in 2012 results. There's Clinton vs Republicans[1]
and Sanders vs Republicans[2]
maps.
Here's are the match ups against Clinton, it's just a three layer system, Dem, Republicans or competitive.
- Clinton vs Cruz: Clinton 250, competitive 139, Cruz 149. That's with Florida, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania being for Clinton, Colorado for Cruz and the competitive states including Missouri, Minnesota and Wisconsin .
- Clinton vs Rubio: Clinton 239, competitive 141, Rubio 158. Florida, Nevada and Pennsylvania would be back in play with the Colorado, Minnesota and the South apart from Louisiana, Kentucky and South Carolina solid red. But there's one problem, Kansas and Texas are in the blue camp.
- Clinton vs Trump: Clinton 224, competitive 172, Trump 142. Pennsylvania, Florida, Missouri and Minnesota all up for grabs, alongside Texas, Kentucky, both Carolinas and Alaska. However Virginia and Wisconsin solid blue.
So they all look like pretty interesting races, I'm rather curious as to why Colorado seems to be the "anyone but Clinton" state based off polling.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranOh yes, 270towin is superb. I generally forget that it's not very well known outside of PoliSci circles, but hooray for more exposure!
edited 6th Mar '16 2:03:41 PM by darksidevoid
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.Marco Rubio wins Puerto Rico primary.
By looks of it, he'll be taking all 23 delegates.
edited 6th Mar '16 2:24:12 PM by Demonic_Braeburn
Any group who acts like morons ironically will eventually find itself swamped by morons who think themselves to be in good company.
X3 That's nationally, 270towin use state by state polls.
Also it's not so much that Trump is the most likely to win as the race is at its most competitive. Trump makes many states Clinton would win against others competitive, but he also makes many states that others would win against Clinton competitive. Clinton could win 396 EV if she took all the competitive states against Trump, compared to 389 against Cruz and 380 against Rubio.
However Trump could also win the biggest, with him being able to get 314 EV, compared to Cruz's 288 and Rubio's 299.
In primaries yes.
edited 6th Mar '16 2:34:03 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
I think my aunt (who lives in the UK but comes from Connecticut) has to wait for her home state's primary. At least, that's what she told me.
Micheal Reagan endorses John Kasich.
He's the crazy one, the normal one is backing Sanders.
To quote him in 2013 on gay marriage "There is also a very slippery slope leading to other alternative relationships and the unconstitutionality of any law based on morality. Think about polygamy, bestiality, and perhaps even murder.". He also called for 9/11 truthers to be killed (while they're assholes that's a bit much) and supports racial profiling.
edited 6th Mar '16 4:25:27 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranReagan reaped a lot of the benefits from being in office right when Carter's policies economic policies kicked in and reversed the recession.
Many people also believe Reagan's campaign secretly negotiated with Iran to postpone the release of the hostages until after the election, much like Nixon did with Vietnam.
Watching the Democratic debate from Flint Michigan
, and even Hillary laughed at Sanders' line about "You want others' speeches to Wall Street? Here's mine. (Beat) Nothin'! I haven't given speeches to them!"

Wikipedia suggests Adric is right, and that the Ayatollah had initially torpedoed the initial round of negotiations for reasons of his own until the Shah died and Iran-Iraq War broke out. The changing situation made antagonizing the US pointless at best.