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
She literally said "I'm sorry".
What more do you want?
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesedited 11th Mar '16 2:39:38 PM by PotatoesRock
You can call someone out on their mistakes while still supporting them. At the same time, you can admit that someone has a legitimate point while still opposing them. Admitting that Clinton screwed up doesn't mean you have to stop supporting her. Lord knows that no one's perfect, politicians included, and their screwups don't always happen behind closed doors.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.I agree with potatoes, except i don't see it as "upper class twit," instead i think it's the pure 3rd Way Democrat that's still in her, since the Democratic Leadership Committee was more or less founded as a reaction to the Reagan Revolution, it makes sense that she would have an instinct almost to be respectful towards the Reagans whether they deserve it or not. Similar to her pro-Kissinger comments earlier (as the guy is still very highly regarded by foreign policy Very Serious People).
I'm calling her an Upper Class Twit because she's in the Party's Upper Class/Elite, and she's a lousy public speaker. She lives and talks with her proverbial country club friends, and rolls in those opinions.
And I will be voting for her in the General, because she's a wall or Maginot Line against the Republican's current insanity.
But that doesn't mean I can't cast stones at the fact I think she's a gigantic tool and the DNC and their allies in the Beltway and Beltway Media are ramrodding her to victory, in an extremely lousy manner.
edited 11th Mar '16 2:50:46 PM by PotatoesRock
Legalization of Drugs and removing Guns in the US from their mass circulation, arguably.
Take away their revenue streams and remove their ability to retain guerilla esque power. They'd still end up with guns probably, but nowhere as many, which would hurt their flow of weapons. Then again, they might get guns from someone else.
I have a book you may find interesting
- or rather, depressing and disillusioning.
yeah the guns wont be a problem. You can get guns from anywhere as the several terrorist insurgency groups all over the world have proven
but remove from them the means of capitalizing on their product...and there will not be a reason to use those guns for
And legalizing drugs isnt removing them their capital source. It is doing something worse. Something much, much worse. It is going to give them the competition of the U.S industry. No cartel can deal with that.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Define better. Without US demand and the subsequent crackdown the Drug war would not have happened. However, the fundamental problems of week institutions and poverty would have existed with or without the US. And while without the US Mexico could have still held California and Texas, though seeing as Britain and Russia were both viewed as eying the territories at the time this is a very big iff, but they would not have developed them to the extent they are today, for one thing they found it so difficult to convince a great number of their own citizens to settle the region that they had to recruit Americans, which of course did not turn out very well for Mexico.
Have you seen our cars? Competing with US industry should be no problem for anybody.
edited 11th Mar '16 3:08:59 PM by JackOLantern1337
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.The problem with Mexico is that it was a country too rich for its own good. Thanks to its vast natural wealth, New Spain rulers and its elite (what Mexico was called during the colonial era) didn't really have to work.
Not to mention that the New Spain ruled/managed the Spanish territories from the south western coast of Canada to parts of what it is today Colombia, giving a lot of power to its viceroy and the nobles EVEN if they had to answer to the Spanish crown (fun fact: the viceroy managed Filipinas because the Spanish monarchy couldn't be bothered to do it themselves).
After Mexico lost a lot of territory, wealth and power during the 19th century, the ruling class didn't change with the times and still run things as if they were as rich and powerful. This gave rise to a lot, and I mean A LOT, of corruption, which is THE main problem of Mexico.
Unfortunately, as it almost always happens, the mindset from the elites has found its way unto every corner of Mexican society, meaning that even at the lowest classes you're likely to find corruption.
I fear that short of having a ground-breaking revolution (something like the French, maybe?) or the destruction of Mexican society as it is (like Germany or Japan after 1945), I don't think things will change too much.
So no, just having better neighbours wouldn't be enough. Unless said neighbours want to invade, occupy and nation-build Mexico and everything south of border.
My opinion is that we should send our military off to fight the Mexican drug cartels if Mexico will allow it. It's probably a more immediate threat to our nation than most Islamic regimes, after all.
Leviticus 19:34

edited 11th Mar '16 2:30:45 PM by SolipsistOwl