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

Antiteilchen In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good. Since: Sep, 2013
In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good.
#129901: Jul 12th 2016 at 7:48:03 PM

[up][up]You're right. It was Spain and Italy's population who were against it. I conflated it with a report about British protests from back then. Look, it's been 13 years.tongue

Many of the people seriously talking up the need for war honestly believed the fake stories because the entire media establishment...was busy repeating each other
Did your congress people never consume media from outside the US? I forget how insular you guys are.

In any case, voting to go to war without an imminent threat, is still not something to be proud off. Even if you believed the lies.

edited 12th Jul '16 7:48:13 PM by Antiteilchen

Bat178 Since: May, 2011
#129902: Jul 12th 2016 at 7:49:43 PM

The French were the major power who were against the war, and the Americans pretty much insulted and demonized them because of it. Remember the whole "freedom fries" thing? (Even though french fries are actually Belgian, not French)

smokeycut Since: Mar, 2013
#129903: Jul 12th 2016 at 7:50:08 PM

No one said they were proud. Hillary has said it was a mistake, and if she was back in that position with the proper knowledge, she'd have voted against it. She doesn't go into a foreign country, guns blazing, like so many people paint her as.

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#129904: Jul 12th 2016 at 7:52:21 PM

None of us were claiming anyone was proud of it, either, or that anyone should be. In fact, whether or not someone should be proud was never even a question anyone was asking in this conversation. The point is I find it highly unlikely that Hillary Clinton is going to go start another war or conflict the way Handle thinks she is. And if she does, there's going to have to be a preceding incident because the president can't just do a thing like that without cause.

Also, I'm pretty sure that congressional reps do in fact pay attention to more than just American media, but who are your representatives going to trust more, the people from your own country and who are supposedly on your side and who you trust to give you good information because you basically work with them, or foreign news outlets?

edited 12th Jul '16 7:53:47 PM by AceofSpades

TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#129905: Jul 12th 2016 at 7:59:38 PM

Foreign news outlets, if they source things properly. My friends tell me what I want to hear.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Antiteilchen In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good. Since: Sep, 2013
In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good.
#129906: Jul 12th 2016 at 8:00:40 PM

Guys, I was trying to be polite with the "pride" thing. I think voting for a war of aggression makes you a fucking asshole. Even without proper knowledge she should have been against it. It was a mistake even with the knowledge she thought she had.

And considering even Obama has his drones kill everywherenote , I'm not so sure you guys won't be invading again. And you guys just said, that your higher-ups are masters in self-delusion. How's that reassuring?

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#129907: Jul 12th 2016 at 8:00:48 PM

[up][up]That's not actually an accurate analogy of the government at all.

[up]What makes you think we were trying to be reassuring, or again that this kind of commentary was the point of the conversation? And again, even with all the 'self delusion' there was a ready made excuse for the whole thing that preceded that; 9/11. We don't have a 9/11 of this decade. We have a war-weary populace much more inclined to question any such action, and one that wants the troops to come home. There needs to be a preceding incident that, again, "allows" the situation to happens, that can be used as a reason.

There's not exactly much reason I'm seeing that Hillary could use right now, even if I believed she wanted to do such a thing.

edited 12th Jul '16 8:03:36 PM by AceofSpades

Irene (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Crazy Cat Lady
#129908: Jul 12th 2016 at 8:02:05 PM

There's legitimately no way she could've known it was a mistake outside of hindsight. Quit with the hyperbole. It's tiring at this point.

Shadow?
Antiteilchen In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good. Since: Sep, 2013
In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good.
#129910: Jul 12th 2016 at 8:07:26 PM

There was nothing to know. Invading a country that isn't waging a war (against others or it's own populace) is wrong. There's no hindsight needed for that.

FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#129911: Jul 12th 2016 at 8:09:32 PM

Except thats simplistic in the extreme. Assuming the evidence had been real and given Saddam's track record and the political environment at the time of not wanting to once again do nothing until its too late ensured that such a vote in the negative would be seen, as I said before, as gross negligence.

Antiteilchen In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good. Since: Sep, 2013
In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good.
#129912: Jul 12th 2016 at 8:10:12 PM

No it wouldn't have.

TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#129913: Jul 12th 2016 at 8:10:38 PM

[up][up][up][awesome]

[up][up]Gross negligence seems to be a doctrine, in US policy, both foreign and domestic. Not much different. As for your track record on dictators, not only do I call bullshit, but, assuming that were correct, why shouldn't I use the US's track record on frequently spilling foreign blood to expect them to do so again in the future?

edited 12th Jul '16 8:14:42 PM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#129914: Jul 12th 2016 at 8:17:19 PM

[up][up]Had that evidence been real? Yes it would have been seen as such because then Saddam would have launched yet another war of conquest. And given that, in the aftermath of 9/11, errant regimes such as his (or the Taliban's or whoever) were seen as safe havens for those who would wish the United States harm, only the most naive would (and did) vote no.

That the evidence turned out to be false was just after the fact justification for such a vote.

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#129915: Jul 12th 2016 at 8:18:56 PM

You guys seem to be arguing from two fundamentally incapable view points. For Handle and Anticellian(?) I don't think it matters whether the evidence was real or not.

I'm not sure if that's right or wrong, but Handle's viewpoint hardly seems to be unbiased, and none of this seems to be justifying his paranoia.

edited 12th Jul '16 8:20:00 PM by LSBK

Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#129916: Jul 12th 2016 at 8:19:05 PM

Let's also not overlook Hilary did not say to go in guns a-blazing with a horrible lack of foresight.

Antiteilchen In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good. Since: Sep, 2013
In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good.
#129917: Jul 12th 2016 at 8:19:25 PM

[up][up][up]If the evidence was so overwhelmingly pointing to disaster, you would've had a UN resolution, so I'm calling bullshit on that.

edited 12th Jul '16 8:19:58 PM by Antiteilchen

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#129918: Jul 12th 2016 at 8:21:53 PM

Why is the UN any more infallible than the US?

majoraoftime (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#129919: Jul 12th 2016 at 8:23:30 PM

only the most naive would (and did) vote no.

A bomb is gonna go off in a Shia mosque every other week for the rest of our lives.

edited 12th Jul '16 8:23:37 PM by majoraoftime

Antiteilchen In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good. Since: Sep, 2013
In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good.
#129920: Jul 12th 2016 at 8:23:47 PM

[up][up]Because there are more people involved than just the shocked country after an attack.

[down]That's true, I guess.

edited 12th Jul '16 8:26:04 PM by Antiteilchen

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#129921: Jul 12th 2016 at 8:25:13 PM

I was never trying to justify the Iraq war. I'm trying to point out that the situation that allowed the Iraq War to happen aren't repeating themselves currently, so just assuming that Clinton's going to start another one is fallacious and kind of foolish. The war happened because of a specific set of things, which while still relevant are relevant in a very different way.

[up]That's not actually a convincing argument at all. "More people" doesn't automatically equate to "no war" or wiser decisions. Also, the UN has very little in the way of authority to enforce its resolutions. It's not actually a government force, it's a diplomatic platform.

edited 12th Jul '16 8:26:26 PM by AceofSpades

FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#129922: Jul 12th 2016 at 8:26:16 PM

[up][awesome]

EDIT- Not justifying the Iraq War either, for the record. Only that the situation at the time, in context, made that vote obvious.

As for the UN, the UN isn't giving much pressure in Syria either, and that crisis affects most of the world's nations via the refugee crisis. In matters where the UNSC doesn't see eye to eye on a situation, the UN dithers by design.

edited 12th Jul '16 8:28:36 PM by FFShinra

TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#129923: Jul 12th 2016 at 8:39:56 PM

From this timeline, it was a rare year indeed since 1945 where the US wasn't warring somewhere. I have no doubts that Hillary will find you something to kill.

DAESH seems like the obvious target. There remains unfinished business in Afghanistan and Northwest Pakistan. We also have genocide emergencies in Sudan, Somalia, Central African Republic, Myanmar, Nigeria, and Burundi.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#129924: Jul 12th 2016 at 8:41:18 PM

My memory of the popular pre-Iraq public opinion was that it was split along party lines, FWIW. I was in college in Massachusetts at the time and anti-war demonstrations were a passtime of several of my peers. Some of that was far-left but not all. Most of the rhetoric assumed that it was "blood for oil" which I can't say whether or not that panned out to be accurate. They were right in pointing out that the Taliban was not in Iraq (then) and did distrust the WMD evidence.

At the time, I wasn't cheering for war but neither did I protest it; I did (and still somewhat do) believe that whatever the reason, toppling Saddam and paving the way for Iraqui self-governance was a positive result. Now it turns out to be more of a mixed blessing ("won the war, lost the peace") but it was still not without benefit for the people of Iraq. The people who really should have the final word on whether it was worth it is them; we're arguing principles, they have to live with it. I would say the Kurds at least are happy, the people in the cities being fought over by Daesh less so.

edited 12th Jul '16 8:45:36 PM by Elle

majoraoftime (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#129925: Jul 12th 2016 at 8:55:00 PM

It's pretty depressing to think that the people with a ton of Iraqi blood on their hands mostly just have jobs at think tanks now.


Total posts: 417,856
Top