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

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#123677: May 27th 2016 at 8:02:36 AM

Territorial annexation went out after WW 2, and for everyone not just the US, it was the decline of empires that killed it.

As for Sander, his problem is he's not looking like he's after a re-ballencing to address the rise of new powers, he seems to be after a full withdraw and ignore system.

edited 27th May '16 9:04:49 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.” ~ Cyran
TotemicHero No longer a forum herald from the next level Since: Dec, 2009
No longer a forum herald
#123678: May 27th 2016 at 8:08:46 AM

Which, interestingly enough, puts him in line with classic libertarian belief, since military isolationism is part of what they preach. (If someone calls themselves a libertarian and doesn't advocate this, they're the modern version.)

Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)
DrDougsh Since: Jan, 2001
#123679: May 27th 2016 at 8:13:11 AM

[up][up] That didn't stop Russia from taking Crimea.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#123680: May 27th 2016 at 8:16:03 AM

The Russian occupation of Crimea was such a clusterfuck that it's hard to imagine them succeeding at any kind of large-scale territorial conquest, and even if they tried, we've got thousands of tanks and shit sitting in mothballs just waiting to be hurled at them, plus a pile of nukes.

No, Russia is not a threat to anyone other than themselves and their very close neighbors. Russia could start a global war if it wanted, but it would be a suicidal one. At best it could accomplish a Taking You with Me style of victory.

edited 27th May '16 8:16:45 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#123681: May 27th 2016 at 8:31:29 AM

One theory I've seen more often recently is that one of the top candidates for being an economic superpower is India, as long as they can get their education system up to snuff and big enough to cover everyone. They're already beginning to pull ahead of China when it comes to the technology sector, possibly because Chinese tech companies appear to default to copying everyone else, while the Indian companies seem more interested in making new things.

Ogodei Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers from The front lines Since: Jan, 2011
Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers
#123682: May 27th 2016 at 8:47:50 AM

Territorial annexation these days relies on special cases like Crimea (where it was part of the Russian SSR until the 50s when it was transferred to the Ukrainian SSR, but at the time it was of no greater significance than giving Long Island to Connecticut).

Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#123683: May 27th 2016 at 9:09:50 AM

[up]X4 No but it is why Russia didn't take all of Ukraine, you need special cases these days. Russia and Crimea, China and Taiwan, Cuba and Guantanamo Bay.

You can shift a border a bit as a regional power or annex an unrecognised state, but you can't just anex a recognised country even if you are a world power, Saddam tried it as a region power and it didn't go well for him.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor
#123684: May 27th 2016 at 9:31:16 AM

Well the world had a vested interest in kicking Saddam out of Kuwait.

The US doesn't with Crimea.

New Survey coming this weekend!
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#123685: May 27th 2016 at 9:33:38 AM

Even Russia signed of on Kuwait, the vested interest for many in kicking Saddam out was maintaining the "you can't just anex a recognised country" rule. It wasn't just about kicking Saddam, getting oil and protecting allies, it was about enforcing Da Rules, because Da Rules are useful.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#123686: May 27th 2016 at 9:39:55 AM

If anything, the example of Kuwait proves that you cannot just decide to annex your neighboring countries in today's world, because everyone will come down on you like a fleet of trucks. Based on that precedent, our invasion of Iraq can only be seen as an outlier, permitted because we were the biggest kid on the block and could make it stick because we said so.

edited 27th May '16 9:40:45 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor
#123687: May 27th 2016 at 9:53:52 AM

[up]

We didn't annex Iraq, though, so I don't see how that applies. Most of Western Europe has had wars, especially France, in spite of international "law."

New Survey coming this weekend!
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#123688: May 27th 2016 at 10:33:37 AM

Yeah Iraq isn't even an outlier, it's proof of concept, even the biggest kid around (the US) still had to play by the rules and not annex, instead you set up a new goverment that you liked, you also had to come up with a (fake) legitimate legal reason for war.

Even Bush wasn't willing to strait up say to the world "We want Iraq's stuff and none of you can stop us".

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#123689: May 27th 2016 at 10:48:29 AM

[up] A puppet government acomplishes more or less the same thing as directly annexing a region, and at least in theory doesn't cause as much resistance from the local population.

LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#123690: May 27th 2016 at 10:54:25 AM

What's this about Alabama Republicans pushing for a bill saying you aren't eligible for food stamps if you own a car? I'm on my phone and can't article hunt but supposedly it's being pushed by Senator Arthur Orr or something.

Oh really when?
TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor
#123692: May 27th 2016 at 11:01:11 AM

Most of the GOP are spineless hypocrites who put party over country.

If one of them had the balls to say outright "I may not agree with Hillary Clinton on many fundamental things, but she won't destroy the country." I'd have tremendous TREMENDOUS respect for them.

But none of them won't.

New Survey coming this weekend!
LinkToTheFuture A real bad hombre from somewhere completely different Since: Apr, 2015 Relationship Status: What's love got to do with it?
A real bad hombre
#123693: May 27th 2016 at 11:05:26 AM

I'm kinda worried that the investigations, no matter how stupid they are, will destroy trust in Clinton.

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." -Thomas Edison
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#123694: May 27th 2016 at 11:15:40 AM

A puppet government acomplishes more or less the same thing as directly annexing a region

Not at all, puppet governments have a tendency to eventually start having their own ideas and doing their own things, they're their own power structure and they'll often just be managed as bes tone can instead of directly controlled. The fact that the Iraqi goverment had the nominal power to not sign a status of forces agreement with the US kinda mattered, because in the end it didn't and the US left, an annexed territory doesn't get to tell the national goverment to leave.

Other examples are abundant, North Korea is a Chienase puppet and it keeps doing shit the Chinese don't want, shit it couldn't do as a directly controlled bit of China, Assad in Syria keeps fucking up and doing shit the Russian don't want.

The difference between a puppet and annexed territory is huge, it's the difference between Syria and Crimea.

[up] Clinton doesn't need public trust to win, she just needs public hatred of Trump.

edited 27th May '16 11:16:09 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.” ~ Cyran
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#123695: May 27th 2016 at 11:17:15 AM

Personally I think that Clinton can weather just about anything at this point. Which is a good thing, because running on a platform selected by the likes of Cornel West is going to take some weathering.

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#123696: May 27th 2016 at 11:20:32 AM

[up] Personally, I'm expecting Clinton and co to flat out ignore the platform recommendations put forward by Sanders' appointees.

TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor
#123697: May 27th 2016 at 11:20:43 AM

I'm one of those guys who honestly doesn't care about having a "beer" with the President or any representatives, as I want them to get shit done.

I'll take a ruthlessly pragmatic progressive Frank Underwood, over a weak, timid, cowardly, demagogue any day of the week.

New Survey coming this weekend!
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#123698: May 27th 2016 at 11:24:00 AM

There's a difference between getting things done, and getting things done that benefit the populace. In the latter category, I expert very little from Trump, and a token effort by Clinton which comes at the cost of policies and supreme court appointees that further entrench the oligarchic arrangement of American politics. Which would probably end up happening under Trump as well, though perhaps in a slightly different manner.

edited 27th May '16 11:25:20 AM by CaptainCapsase

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#123699: May 27th 2016 at 11:28:18 AM

I've never gotten the "having a beer with the President" thing either. Like, I get wanting to like the person, and if you do, great, but that should hardly be your first priority.

I wonder if Sanders would have done as well as he did if Clinton was seen as more personable.

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
#123700: May 27th 2016 at 11:30:12 AM

I'm expecting Clinton and co to flat out ignore the platform recommendations put forward by Sanders' appointees.
Clinton cannot cruise to victory solely by reminding Americans why Trump is horrible. She needs the support of the Democratic base, and blatantly ignoring the movement behind Sanders would convince them to stay home, or vote Libertarian, or write-in Sanders, none of which she can afford. She probably won't be as sincere about some of the platform, but she'd better damn well try.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

Total posts: 417,856
Top