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

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#125126: Jun 7th 2016 at 8:28:53 PM

War isn't the only kind of intervention in foreign affairs, man. The Marshal Plan was a great success, as well as the stuff we did in Japan. We can do it well, there just needs to be the will. And just about anyone who's not Trump at the head of it. Obama's pretty much done his best to reduce violent conflict and Clinton will, too.

You're being a bit hyperbolic in this case.

edited 7th Jun '16 8:29:17 PM by AceofSpades

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#125127: Jun 7th 2016 at 8:31:18 PM

[up] Obama is stalling; air campaigns alone is strategically useless, since ISIS will and has just dispersed its forces to minimize casualties from air strikes. To capitalize on it requires effective ground forces, and there's none in the area I believe the US is willing to trust.

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#125128: Jun 7th 2016 at 8:32:53 PM

So instead we should leave ISIS as they are, killing pretty much everybody they can get their hands on?

Look, when you talk intervention the question that you have to ask is whether intervening will do more damage than is already being done. I opposed the war in Iraq from day one because even in Grade 7 I could figure out that a war with Saddam Hussein was going to hurt more people than leaving him alone was (having a dad who teaches history helps with this thinking at that age, I freely admit).

That's not the case here. ISIS is already engaged in a genocidal campaign of ethnic, religious, and political cleansing. Barring nuking the region there's little the USA could do to make the death toll higher than it's going to be if they are left alone. The worst American intervention might do is shift some of the deaths to American servicemen, and while that is indeed a tragedy, they at least signed up for it, which the civilians of Iraq and Syria did not.

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#125129: Jun 7th 2016 at 8:36:08 PM

None of that actually refutes what I just said. We are perfectly capable of helping the locals build up their own defense forces, it just takes the political will to do so. And a lot of political relations start out between people who don't necessarily trust each other totally at the start.

International relations basically take a lot of time and effort. And it doesn't look like we're going to increase the amount of people going over there any time soon.

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#125130: Jun 7th 2016 at 8:38:44 PM

[up] I hope you're right in regards to what Clinton will decide to do, but I distinctly recall she was in favor of escalating the current low level intervention in the region substantially.

[up][up] Where we disagree is the notion that "intervention" is ever done for humanitarian reasons. I have yet to see any convincing evidence that "humanitarian intervention" is anything other than a convenient Casus Belli to justify geopolitical maneuvering that's ultimately every bit as selfish and ruthlessly pragmatic as the imperialism of the 19th century great powers. Intervention can benefit a region, just as imperialism can theoretically be beneficial to a state, but that only happens when the interests of the local population are strongly aligned with the interests of the belligerent.

edited 7th Jun '16 8:42:43 PM by CaptainCapsase

TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor
#125131: Jun 7th 2016 at 8:42:31 PM

Foreign Policy is taking the world as it IS, now how you WISH it to be. Everything the US does abroad is extremely complex and it's not done in a vacuum.

That's why, outside of enormous fuckups like the Iraq War or Vietnam (to a certain extent) I really don't judge Presidents or the State Department too hard for setbacks, as I don't know the ridiculous kinds of things that goes on behind the scenes.

New Survey coming this weekend!
flameboy21th The would-be novelist from California Since: Jan, 2013 Relationship Status: I <3 love!
The would-be novelist
#125132: Jun 7th 2016 at 8:42:59 PM

No one does good things out of selflessness, it doesn't mean we shouldn't do good things.

[up]Hey, Winter Soldier.

edited 7th Jun '16 8:43:23 PM by flameboy21th

Non Indicative Username
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#125133: Jun 7th 2016 at 8:47:58 PM

[up] No, but modern states are, as a rule, ruthlessly pragmatic and self-interested. As Henry Kissinger put it, "America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests." Opposing intervention on principle is the best way, in my opinion, to restrain the heartless nature of geopolitics; resistance from a nations population is the only thing that forces a state to act with even a modicum of decency in foreign affairs.

edited 7th Jun '16 8:50:12 PM by CaptainCapsase

flameboy21th The would-be novelist from California Since: Jan, 2013 Relationship Status: I <3 love!
The would-be novelist
#125134: Jun 7th 2016 at 8:49:10 PM
Thumped: This post was thumped by moderation to preserve the dignity of the author.
Non Indicative Username
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#125135: Jun 7th 2016 at 8:53:54 PM

Opposing interventionism can be equally ruthless and heartless as military deployment.

Case study #1: Rwanda.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#125136: Jun 7th 2016 at 8:54:06 PM

[up][up] It's also a world where, if we see an opportunity, the US wouldn't hesitate to help ISIS carry out their genocide if it means getting a leg up on potential rivals in the region. While I will acknowledge that intervention can sometimes be necessary, its for the best if the general population is extremely wary about it, perhaps even opposing it on principle except when it becomes impossible to avoid. The moral qualms of a state's population is the only thing capable of keeping its darker nature in check.

edited 7th Jun '16 8:55:19 PM by CaptainCapsase

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#125137: Jun 7th 2016 at 8:54:24 PM

@Captain Caspase

And your point is what exactly? You keep trying to critique me from a philosophical point of view when I'm not making a philosophical argument.

I said: "ISIS is already committing genocide; the USA can't make things worse short of nuking the place."

You said: "States don't intervene for humanitarian reasons."

In what version of reality is what you posted a response to what I—or anybody else—has said about the subject?

flameboy21th The would-be novelist from California Since: Jan, 2013 Relationship Status: I <3 love!
The would-be novelist
#125138: Jun 7th 2016 at 8:55:16 PM

Rwanda is also a case where people fail to intervene.

Non Indicative Username
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#125139: Jun 7th 2016 at 8:58:28 PM

[up][up] Its a response in the sense that it's not in the US's interest to stop ISIS without also doing something that would almost certainly destabilize the region further in the long-term, namely deposing Assad.

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#125140: Jun 7th 2016 at 8:59:44 PM

CNN calls South Dakota for Clinton.

EDIT: And New Mexico.

edited 7th Jun '16 9:00:21 PM by Rationalinsanity

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#125141: Jun 7th 2016 at 8:59:53 PM
Thumped: This post was thumped by moderation to preserve the dignity of the author.
Oh really when?
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#125142: Jun 7th 2016 at 9:01:12 PM

This again. You've said this before. It made no sense before. It makes no sense now.

First you say "Clinton will intervene against ISIS."

People point out why that's not so bad.

You say "States don't intervene for humanitarian reasons."

People ask what that has to do with the topic at hand.

You say "It isn't in America's interest to intervene against ISIS".

Which is it? Is she going to intervene against ISIS or not? Is she going to act in America's cold-blooded, imperialistic geopolitical interests? And if so, do those interests dictate intervention or no intervention?

When you've made up your mind we can have a conversation. As is, I've had this conversation with you before, it followed this exact same track, and it went nowhere, because as near as I can tell you aren't making an argument.

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#125143: Jun 7th 2016 at 9:02:36 PM

[up][up] Attemping to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time was a big part of why Iraq was such a disaster; while its true Afghanistan is called the "graveyard of empires" for a reason, I'm not confident that US can effectively occupy both regions without falling victim to the same problems that doomed the war in Iraq to failure.

[up] My argument is that it's not in America's interest to intervene if we're only going after ISIS, and that being the case, should we decide to go in, it'll be in an attempt to take out both Assad and ISIS with one fell swoop (and perhaps even Iran as well if the people planning the operation are particularly bold), which would be in American interests assuming it actually worked rather than completely falling apart upon contact with the enemy. I'm worried such an operation would fall victim to the same logistical problems that turned Iraq into the disaster it was. I believe the situation in the middle east is one where the only 'winning' move is not to play.

edited 7th Jun '16 9:08:34 PM by CaptainCapsase

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#125144: Jun 7th 2016 at 9:09:34 PM
Thumped: This post was thumped by moderation to preserve the dignity of the author.
TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor
#125145: Jun 7th 2016 at 9:11:13 PM

Only Neocons want to go to war with Iran.

Unless you believe Hillary is a secret Neocon, that makes no fucking sense.

New Survey coming this weekend!
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#125146: Jun 7th 2016 at 9:14:38 PM

[up], [up][up] Not a war to dismantle Iran (what the Neoconservatives would prefer), just a Bay of Pigs-esque surprise attack to seize the straight of Hormuz, than a bombing campaign to force them to peace tables where they'll cede the straight to the comparatively US friendly Saudis/the UAE. That's the main reason the US is so concerned about Iran in particular over say North Korea; because its geographic location gives it the ability to cut off all oil shipping out of the Persian gulf.

edited 7th Jun '16 9:24:00 PM by CaptainCapsase

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#125147: Jun 7th 2016 at 9:16:32 PM

Thinking about it, why would Sanders drop out now? He's already said plans on going for the super-delegates, and seeing it doesn't seem Clinton is getting a majority of the regular ones, I don't see why that would change.

It's still in bad taste but tonight doesn't really change anything unless he was never planning on going through with it.

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#125148: Jun 7th 2016 at 9:17:52 PM
Thumped: This post was thumped by moderation to preserve the dignity of the author.
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#125149: Jun 7th 2016 at 9:36:35 PM

Again, nobody has said they want war with Iran except the neocons. You are literally inventing something to be afraid of.

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#125150: Jun 7th 2016 at 9:38:43 PM

[up] I'll freely admit that the Iran part was a bit of a long short, but Syria+Iraq together along with continuing commitments in Afghanistan would be enough to make a repeat of the first war in Iraq unacceptably likely in my view.


Total posts: 417,856
Top