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
Didn't you just judged the bombing? You analyzed the alternatives and then decided that dropping A bomb was the best solution.
Not just them; a Commonwealth Corps
were also to be involved in Operation Downfall
.
@ Demographics: Aren't more Hispanics considering themselves as white?
Keep Rolling OnJust because you personally identify as one way doesn't mean society as a whole does. And I don't think society as a whole sees "white" Hispanics, as well, white. Maybe that'll change in the future as demographics change but for now, that's how it is, I think.
edited 30th May '16 12:09:28 AM by LSBK
Well I don't, why? I am one.
Because the US can't figure out if Hispanics are white or not, because the idea that Latino Is Brown puts a lot of Hispanics in a conflicting position of being part of the privileged white majority/minority in their respective countries but in the US they are an oppressed minority that somehow lost they privilege status once they crossed the border.
Hispanics who aren't brown enough are also not white enough for be considered a "privileged" group inside the United States.
Inter arma enim silent legesRE that article about Trump's position on Iraq and the rest: At least on the Iraq side, according to French propaganda, that was the US position from the start: Invading Iraq over false pretenses, to take the oil there.
Of course, things didn't exactly go that way.
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."Race and ethnicity is one of those concepts that is like looking a fractal.
The overall pattern is relatively easy to see, but you can dive into the depths for an infinite amount of time and still not appreciate all the details because they never end.
Just focusing on East Asian ethnic groups gives me a headache.
I'd probably have a brain aneurysm trying to study Sub-Saharan African ethnic groups.
...like how Tribal Politics and tribal inter-relations affects of the politics of somewhere like, say, South Africa? To an outsider, they might all be black, but the reality is a lot more complexnote .
edited 30th May '16 2:53:35 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling On![]()
It's even worse than you think: there are flavours of White Afrikaanses, some of whom refuse the Boer description because their family either never were Dutch (German settlers who switched to Afrikaans and intermarried with Irish, Huguenot, Portugyuese or others), or because they're actually technically White, but mainly Coloured... Or something like "mostly English background, but switched to Afrikaans at home two generations ago because we moved to an Afrikaans-speaking area". Or, Afrikasans speaking ex-Rhodiasians who won't shut up about being Voortrekkers without being Boers because reasons...
And, their are flavours of English, too (how long your family has been there, how Cape, which boat, Irish, Welsh, Scottish, Australian — effen Rhodesians...) It's a headache. <_<
![]()
Personally I'm wondering if that wasn't Sanders' intent all along; get Donald Trump to make a fool of himself by backing down from a debate. Whether or not it's any more effective than all of the other times he's done that is yet to be seen.
That said, even if Trump agreed to it, I don't think it wouldn't necessarily been a mistake; it would be a good case study for Clinton on how Trump responds to actual questioning of his policy positions rather than what happened during the GOP primary where almost all of the candidates actually agreed with him but weren't allowed to say as much.
edited 30th May '16 9:19:39 AM by CaptainCapsase
I was just on an Alternative article about Reich telling Sanders supporters to suck it up and support Clinton and my God the Co. Men's. These people honestly prefer Trump because in their words "Better a barely survivable heart attack than drawn out death by cancer" Are these people INSANE? Is this a mainstream opinion? How deluded must you be to think that you can tear down the whole system and survive the outcome?
It's not a mainstream position, nor is it more than a few percent of his supporters, but Sanders' anti-establishment rhetoric (and possibly his moderate stance on gun control) did manage to attract some of the white-working class that otherwise tends to support the GOP or just not vote otherwise.
edited 30th May '16 9:23:42 AM by CaptainCapsase
Truly nothing scares the bourgeoisie more than the proletariat questioning his place in society.
On a more serious note, how do you propose they do that? The democratic party is already extremely undemocratic in regards to its presidential primary process; will we now require party brass to sign off on somebody running for office as a democrat?
We are headed towards a major realignment of American politics. It's happened time and time again in American history, and while the current (5th or 6th depending on which expert you ask) party system has lasted longer than any in American history, it cannot hope to persist forever.
edited 30th May '16 9:39:44 AM by CaptainCapsase
Tactical, whatever his many faults, Sanders is not like the Tea Party in any regard. And he's certainly not poised to stage a hijacking of the Democratic party. Your comment is overly paranoid and over combative.
Plus, how do you expect them to be able to do such a thing when a large part of how the Tea Party got in was through stoking up the ire of the people and getting voted in? Sure, the establishment Republicans should have done more to reign in Cruz and the like once they were in office, but you can't retroactively change people's votes, and rigging elections in any fashion is illegal.
Allowing an infection like that to spread amongst the party is completely unacceptable.
I agree, Mc Carthyism is extremely good.
edited 30th May '16 9:55:37 AM by majoraoftime
Also, it's not like it did work better for the GOP when it comes to Trump or the Tea Party. (And what about the definition of "leftist"...)
edited 30th May '16 9:57:43 AM by SeptimusHeap
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman@Ace: You know how confidence in the democratic process in America is supposedly at an all time low? That's the kind of thinking which gets us a fully oligarchic system of government. (a one-party "democracy" or the like)
When there are people up in arms like they are now, no matter what you might think of them, it's important to ask yourself the question "Am I on the wrong side of history?" That goes doubly if you happen to be one of those angry people.
edited 30th May '16 10:42:44 AM by CaptainCapsase
Capsase, that was in no way an actual response to what I posted, which was asking how Tactical Fox actually expects the Democratic party to be able to subvert supposed Tea Party equivalents from taking over given how the Tea Part got into power, or how they're even equating Sanders or anyone else to the Tea Party when said extremists aren't in any way actually posed to take control. And I'm not counting Sanders among those extremists. (Hint; that isn't actually happening at this point, left wing nutters haven't gotten into power and indeed seem to be mostly celebrities rather than politicians seeking elected office.)
So thank you for zigging to the right when I was going left with that commentary and commenting on a different subject I WASN'T commenting on. And what the fuck is even with that self righteous "right side of history" question? Which is kind of insulting, and again, doesn't seem like a response to what I was asking Tactical Fox.
edited 30th May '16 11:29:11 AM by AceofSpades

People end up forgetting that the consequences of the other options were equally shitty or even more shitty than the bombings. As horrible as it sounds the bombings were the least shitty option.
Inter arma enim silent leges