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
Hillary is not the Supper Hawk some say she is
Essentially she is the candidate with he most military interventions under her belt because she is the only candidate who got high up enough to actually be capable of working in foreign policy. The article then goes on to list her various more "dovish" accomplishments, which include opening the talks with Iran. Essentially the difference between her and Obama is that she genuinely believes America can make a difference, though both military and diplomatic power, whereas Obama believes America can do little to influence the "arc of History."
![]()
Hah I'm pretty sure the Royal Navy can't retake the Falklands if it came down to that now.
edited 27th Apr '16 5:46:57 PM by JackOLantern1337
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.well taking into account the Argentinian government have a fit whenever a (non nuclear armed) submarine comes around the Falklands... and a single Type 45 Destroyer could shoot down the entire Argentinian air force in 20 seconds... I think you're underestimating The Senior Service a bit
advancing the front into TV TropesWOW, ok. Guys it's seriously stopped being funny when you joke about the US splitting up or whatever.
Handle: I reiterate that the citizens of the US don't actually want this to happen. It's not the people's radar as a problem. It's not the politician's radar as a problem. It's not on the radar. You're ignoring that actual US citizens are not in a position that suggest anyone actually wants to split up or change internal borders. I said this in my last freaking post. And going immediately to the extreme wasn't warranted, I don't think anyone here was going towards secession until you did.
Again, no one in the US actually wants to reorganize our internal borders. It's foolish to suggest it as any sort of solution to our problems. I'm pretty sure that suggesting it to anyone as a practical solution would mostly get you some very strange looks.
@Field: I'm not, I'm just saying I'm not against the idea in principle. I don't advocate for Catalonian or Scottish secession either, but I see where they're coming from. Same for Brexit, though I have nothing but contempt for its advocates.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Or you could stop making bad comedy posts about that are mildly insulting to the US troopers and instead make serious posts...
You know, just an idea.
X3 That was Fry not Handle, you wanna take issue either Fry making insulting jokes aimed at the US go ahead, but don't blame Handle for it, that's Fry's problem.
When Jack has become the serious adult providing real talking points I worry for this thread (well I would but Jack's actually grown a lot and is a very useful contributor, but that fact ruins my joke).
Edit: On the thing Jack posted, Clinton doesn't have to be the biggest hawk in the race to be more of a hawk then people want. Honestly it's not Clinton hawking that worries me, she seems much more willing to tolerate asshole allies then Obama is, and Obama is far to willing to tolerate asshole allies. The Republicans are clearly worse, but that doesn't make Clinton good, just a lesser evil.
edited 27th Apr '16 6:19:07 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 know that wasn't Handle, it was a general address. It's not even the joke itself that annoys me, but how many times people seem inclined to repeat it.
In any case, isn't it often the case that the president simply can't do anything about the asshole allies? Just because it seems like there's a solution doesn't mean it's feasible. And frankly I'm more concerned about how likely any president is to lead us into another war. Clinton seems cautious about that sort of thing, and her attempts at befriending Iran seems to speak well to that. (Not saying that befriending Iran in itself isn't a minefield.)
I mean that as a real question, though. Exactly how much influence/control can and should the president have over allies? How much influence can you have until you're directly interfering with their ability to rule themselves?
edited 27th Apr '16 6:23:07 PM by AceofSpades
![]()
Realpolitik has very little place for morality considerations. If you'd only ever ally with none-asshole allies you'd run out of allies and fast. Oh, and you'd be a hypocrite if your name is the US of A because the States have been plenty assholish in the past.
History doesn't make you a hypocrit, not unless you insist that history is how things should have been.
But yeah realpolitik is a bitch, but the world isn't going to get better unless we freeze out at least some of the assholes, we've managed it in the past, we do enough good over enough time we may eventually end up with a world where you can only ally-non assholes and not have fuck all friends.
edited 28th Apr '16 3:26:47 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThe one thing I don't like about Clinton's foreign policy is her support for Isreal. There's no reason to be so pro-Isreal.
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play*confusion intensifies*
edited 27th Apr '16 8:48:53 PM by desdendelle
On empty crossroads, seek the eclipse -- for when Sol and Lua align, the lost shall find their way home.![]()
The Gazans will thank you and your interventionism, I'm sure.
AKA: How media pundits think that it's possible to ignore Trump's racism, because that's never had an effect on how people vote.
You can't go "border walls and Muslim bans aside", if you could you could also go "high negative perception amongst the public aside", for Clinton.
Also I find the idea that youth voters are stupid enough to favour Trump over Clinton if Trump lies enough mildly insulting, younge people are genrally not that stupid.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

I was simply heading off the logical extreme, in case anyone invoked the Slippery Slope Fallacy.
"Your idea is bad because it would be divisive and stop these people having to interact with each other."
"That's not a bad thing, in my view."
"But what if they decide they don't want to have anything at all to do with each other any more?"
"Well, good for them. Sometimes you have to know when to end a toxic relationship."
There's nothing arbitrary about putting the people who get along together and those who don't apart. At least there'd be a continuum of society, instead of a sprinkling/patchwork of mutually-opposing cultural enclaves that all have the impression of being the only isolated islands of reason in a sea of madness. That, I find unhealthy.
edited 27th Apr '16 5:29:34 PM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.