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

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
#127176: Jun 20th 2016 at 2:43:15 PM

[up]X3 "Doesn't do what the US wants" or "doesn't abide by a binding international agreement signed of on by a multitude of parties, and instead developed nuclear weapon capabilities or makes a serious and proven attempt to do so in violation of the NPT that it's agreed to"?

Those are two very different things.

Also not ruling something out doesn't mean they won't do it, my goverment won't rule out sending a nuclear armed submarine to the Caspian Sea, doesn't mean we're going to do it (or could).

edited 20th Jun '16 2:43:53 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
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#127177: Jun 20th 2016 at 2:44:34 PM

[up][up][up]She didn't. She's said that she will not take military force off the table as an option. Which is something every president says. Obama has not taken military force off the table as an option. Yet somehow we aren't at war with Iran.

@Galadriel

Sanders was bleeding African-American votes and would have been highly vulnerable on any number of key issues. It's obvious you don't like Clinton, which is fine, but you're giving Sanders a serious whitewash that he does not merit.

edited 20th Jun '16 2:44:54 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

Galadriel Since: Feb, 2015
#127178: Jun 20th 2016 at 2:45:13 PM

Last fall Clinton stated that she "would not hesitate to take military action" if she thought Iran was resuming nuclear activity with the goal of obtaining weapons. It's in the NYT.

And yes, Sanders did poorly with black voters. But given Trump's record of virulent racism (and Trump's emdorsement by the KKK), there's no question that black voters would have supported Sanders against Trump.

edited 20th Jun '16 2:47:51 PM by Galadriel

LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#127179: Jun 20th 2016 at 2:46:34 PM

Sounds reasonable to me. Sounds reasonable to Iran too, which is why they signed the agreement to not pursue nuclear weapons.

Oh really when?
TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#127180: Jun 20th 2016 at 2:47:57 PM

Yup, can't fault her for that.

Her war policies, presented the way they are here, present a more nuanced portrait than just "she's a HAWK".

She still scares the shit out of me.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#127181: Jun 20th 2016 at 2:49:30 PM

I think Sanders would be doing much worse against Trump than Hillary-particularly because he's like Trump.

Then again, I'm a #Never Trump Republican who kind-of-likes Hillary for basically the reasons Sanders supporters don't like her. I want a kind of hawkish establishment leader. I wish she saw things my way on a few social issues, though.

edited 20th Jun '16 2:53:16 PM by Protagonist506

Leviticus 19:34
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#127182: Jun 20th 2016 at 2:49:40 PM

Sanders approval numbers are higher because the GOP attack machine hasn't turned its guns on him yet.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
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
#127183: Jun 20th 2016 at 2:49:51 PM

[up]X4 I believe it's also reasonable to the Russians, the EU and the UN, who also signed off on the deal.

edited 20th Jun '16 2:50:12 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
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#127184: Jun 20th 2016 at 2:50:44 PM

@The Handle

Article on the Clinton doctrine that might put you more at ease.

edited 20th Jun '16 2:51:02 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#127185: Jun 20th 2016 at 2:52:09 PM

[up][up]Yeah, really we're almost legally obligated to kick Iran's ass if they pursue nuclear weapons at this point.

Like we can't not do that.

edited 20th Jun '16 2:52:49 PM by LeGarcon

Oh really when?
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#127186: Jun 20th 2016 at 2:53:08 PM

When you sign a treaty saying 'I will not do this thing' and then do that thing, you are going to get bombed. That's how it works.

Galadriel Since: Feb, 2015
#127187: Jun 20th 2016 at 2:53:22 PM

Doesn't sound reasonable to me. I'm very happy and relieved about the nuclear deal, but there's an obvious and fundamental hypocrisy in saying "We will attack you if you attempt to obtain weapons that we possess and intend to keep."

The only remotely justifiable causes for war are an invasion of your country, of an ally, or of a neutral party who has requested assistance. Any time a modern nation chooses to engage in war, they are accepting that they will kill thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands, of innocent civilians, therefor I set my threshold of provocation very high.

The sanctions were having a severe effect on the Iranian economy. They break the deal, the sanctions go back on. That's more aling the lines of a reasonable reponse to me.

edited 20th Jun '16 2:55:08 PM by Galadriel

LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#127188: Jun 20th 2016 at 2:54:54 PM

Here's the thing, Iran and it's allies signed it too. In good faith they said we're allowed to invade if they pursue nuclear weapons.

We told them very bluntly that we will level and occupy Tehran if they break the terms of the treaty and they signed it and said yes.

It's not like we snuck that into the fine print or anything. They know and they're fine with it. They're expecting it.

edited 20th Jun '16 2:56:20 PM by LeGarcon

Oh really when?
flameboy21th The would-be novelist from California Since: Jan, 2013 Relationship Status: I <3 love!
The would-be novelist
#127189: Jun 20th 2016 at 2:55:18 PM

Just because I can possess a gun doesn't mean everyone else can.

Non Indicative Username
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#127190: Jun 20th 2016 at 2:55:39 PM

Iran is far more likely to use said weapons than the US is.

Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#127191: Jun 20th 2016 at 2:55:42 PM

The US has explicit legal permission to own nuclear weapons that Iran does not have. Iran has repeatedly threatened a US ally, so we really don't want them to have nukes.

edited 20th Jun '16 2:56:07 PM by Protagonist506

Leviticus 19:34
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#127192: Jun 20th 2016 at 2:55:56 PM

When an unstable regime won by people who espouse a philosophy that roughly boils down to "everyone will follow our religion or die with us" tries to get their hands on a nuclear weapon, that is of concern to everybody.

Now, before somebody corrects me, I'm not saying that the Iranian government is near as crazy as their past rhetoric would indicate, but the moment you have people saying that sort of thing, you have every reason to want to make sure that no one within earshot gets a nuke. All it takes is for one Iranian Supreme Leader to decide that Allah wants him to nuke Israel or the US or whoever and we've got ourselves a uranium ball game.

edited 20th Jun '16 2:56:34 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

Galadriel Since: Feb, 2015
#127193: Jun 20th 2016 at 2:57:42 PM

Thanks for the link, The Handle.

Man, she doesn't even acknowledge that the Libya intervention went seriously wrong. (I don't mean Benghazi. I mean the whole conflict spilling over into Mali, creating a civil war, and putting an Islamist group in control of northern Mali. It's a textbook case of how much damage can be caused by even relatively well-meaning military interventions.). That's a downright dangerous level of denial.

edited 20th Jun '16 3:00:35 PM by Galadriel

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
#127194: Jun 20th 2016 at 2:59:02 PM

The Iranian regime isn't particularly unstable, though your point holds.

The basic point is that Iran signed the NPT and did not withdraw after the revolution, if it had then it would have a perfect legal argument for gaining nuclear weapons, the same as Pakistan, India and Israel, but Iran has chosen to not go down that route, it's stuck to the NPT and gained the benefits of it.

[up] I'm happy to join her in that denial, it didn't go as well as it could due to an unwillingness to commit ground troops for a long term stabilisation mission, but it went a shit ton better then the non-intervention in Syria did.

edited 20th Jun '16 3:00:02 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
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#127195: Jun 20th 2016 at 2:59:58 PM

What? Gaddafi was outright saying he was going to mass murder. And the US was asked in. How in Pele's name is that wrong?

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#127196: Jun 20th 2016 at 3:02:13 PM

Pakistan having nuclear weapons is bad enough. That their Indian neighbours, who they hate, have them is worse. Let's not have another one of their neighbours getting a nuke.

edited 20th Jun '16 3:03:23 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

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
#127197: Jun 20th 2016 at 3:04:38 PM

I agree that it's a bad idea, honestly there's solid evidence that Iran has never wanted nuclear weapons, it only started looking into the possibility when the US kept insisting that it was going after them, Iran almost went Then Let Me Be Evil but eventually backed down from it because it was a stupid idea.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
kkhohoho (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#127198: Jun 20th 2016 at 3:06:33 PM

edited 20th Jun '16 3:06:49 PM by kkhohoho

Bat178 Since: May, 2011
#127199: Jun 20th 2016 at 3:06:40 PM

[up][up][up] Especially not Afghanistan (Who are also part of South Asia).

edited 20th Jun '16 3:06:51 PM by Bat178

Galadriel Since: Feb, 2015
#127200: Jun 20th 2016 at 3:07:27 PM

In that the region is complex and any action is going to have unintended consequences. The US didn't intend to create a civil war in Mali and increase the power of an ISIS offshoot, but they did.

The Syrian civil war is a disaster, but it's gard to see i tervention making things any better. It's rxactly what ISIS wants - they bombed France and Belgium as delu erate attempts to provoke an invasion - because they can get far more recruits by saying "help us fight the imperialist invaders!" than by killing and terrorizing Muslims. Syria has the additional porblem that yhere isn't any side for the US to support - the two sides with any power are extremist terrorists fighting against a dictator who used chemical weapons on his own people. You're not going to be able to just conjure up some broadly-supported liberal democratic opposition to Assad, no matter how much you want one.

If you want to save lives, invest in disease research and clean water sources in developing countries; provide funding for medical personnel and hospitals; develop and provide famine-resistant crops. You'll do far more good and save far more lives per dollars spent, and do far less harm, than by any attempt at a humanitarian military intervention. Once nobody dies of starvation or if preventable disease, then maybe we can discuss the value of trying to save lives by the far more expensive method of shooting people.

edited 20th Jun '16 3:14:47 PM by Galadriel


Total posts: 417,856
Top