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

AdricDePsycho Rock on, Gold Dust Woman from Never Going Back Again Since: Oct, 2014 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Rock on, Gold Dust Woman
#130901: Jul 18th 2016 at 9:20:53 PM

So did anything of note happen?

Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?
Hodor2 Since: Jan, 2015
#130902: Jul 18th 2016 at 9:26:40 PM

Not sure really. Pretty much the expected Benghazi stuff/about Trump making America great/safe/whole again. A lot of (sub)text about the good-old days and how minorities are a blight on America.

edited 18th Jul '16 9:27:48 PM by Hodor2

Demonic_Braeburn Yankee Doodle Dandy from Defective California Since: Jan, 2016
Yankee Doodle Dandy
#130903: Jul 18th 2016 at 9:43:52 PM

[up][up] The NEVER TRUMP movement was smothered by the GOP establishment.

Any group who acts like morons ironically will eventually find itself swamped by morons who think themselves to be in good company.
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#130904: Jul 18th 2016 at 10:03:18 PM

This kind of foreshadows a lot of trouble with the voter base in the future, I think. The upper ranks seem to be banding together, but that doesn't matter if the lower ranks are sufficiently pissed off that they don't vote/go their own way in some fashion.

Medinoc from France (Before Recorded History)
#130905: Jul 18th 2016 at 11:55:51 PM

Well the fact is that Trump, whose electability is below the barrel, is still the most electable GOP candidate at this point. Anyone else will have his entire base staying home.

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."
TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#130906: Jul 19th 2016 at 5:36:08 AM

Trump is a genius at being an egomaniac monster. "I'm much more humble than you could possibly understand." "I love what he just said."

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#130907: Jul 19th 2016 at 6:23:40 AM

And now more "greatest country in the world" and American Exceptionalism bullshit. America got it's ass kicked by a bunch of rice farmers in Vietnam, do they really think they can take on other fully armed technologically modern armies, especially other countries with nukes like the UK, France and Russia?
Do you seriously come into this thread just to shit on the US? The American military is objectively the most powerful in the world, by a wide margin. No one disputes this. Going "lol America lost Vietnam, they're not that great" is a ridiculous attitude (not to mention that calling them "a bunch of rice farmers" is incredibly condescending to the Vietnamese, especially when they were heavily backed by the Soviet Union and China, and thus fielded everything from jet fighters to tanks).

In a total war situation, the US could defeat any other country on the planet, assuming nukes weren't involved. ("winning" a nuclear war is a dicey proposition at the best of times.) US defeats since WWII have come because of a lack of political will to prosecute the war in question, not a lack of military capability. No one actually thinks that they can beat the US in a knock-down drag-out fight — but there are countries (China and Russia being the top of that list) that can put up enough of a fight that the US isn't willing to get into a knock-down drag-out fight with them in the first place.

American exceptionalism is a real thing and a legitimate target of criticism, but "lol you're not really that tough" is an incredibly wrongheaded way to go about it.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#130908: Jul 19th 2016 at 6:26:38 AM

We also killed way more Vietnamese than they killed of us. If you score wars by body count, we devastated an entire generation from that nation. No, the failure in Vietnam was one of political will, not of military might, although one side effect of the political mess was a serious drop in the morale of our soldiers.

The key strategic issue with Vietnam was that we were fighting asymmetrically in a number of ways. We had a conventional army with X numbers of troops; they were throwing their entire population at us: anyone who could hold a gun was sent into the field, often taking weapons from those who had died before them since there weren't enough to go around. The jungle was not their friend; as many died to disease and injury as died to American bullets and bombs.

When China began sending regular army units (the NVA) into the field, the situation became more even, but even so, over 1 million people died on the North Vietnamese side.

edited 19th Jul '16 7:14:24 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#130909: Jul 19th 2016 at 6:31:17 AM

I'm a bit iffy on the idea that we could defeat anyone in a symmetrical war. Iraq and Afghanistan showed our logistics and fighting ability wasn't as perfect as they were on paper. Once conflicts last longer than about a week our power really starts to falter.

Not to mention we haven't fought anyone even remotely near our tech level in a loooooong time.

Oh really when?
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#130910: Jul 19th 2016 at 6:34:06 AM

[up]You could say the same thing about the other Powers to though.

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
#130911: Jul 19th 2016 at 6:34:54 AM

That is certainly true, nobody's really had to do anything serious for a while.

Oh really when?
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#130912: Jul 19th 2016 at 6:43:55 AM

Guerilla tactics are a lot harder for modern militaries to fight. Although if the goal is just to utterly decimate the country then the US could probably beat most of the world.

TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#130913: Jul 19th 2016 at 6:47:18 AM

Thank God for th—hey wait a goddamned minute! What's with this But for Me, It Was Tuesday Phrasing? The "unserious" conflicts you bumble through make and break nations and powers and people. For you, it may be a fart here and there, but for us, it's the fetid winds of destiny!

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#130914: Jul 19th 2016 at 6:47:59 AM

I'm a bit iffy on the idea that we could defeat anyone in a symmetrical war. Iraq and Afghanistan showed our logistics and fighting ability wasn't as perfect as they were on paper. Once conflicts last longer than about a week our power really starts to falter.

Not to mention we haven't fought anyone even remotely near our tech level in a loooooong time.

It wouldn't be clean or pretty, certainly. We'd have to do recruitment (and take casualties) on a scale that we haven't seen since WWII. That's why we haven't done it since WWII — no one actually wants to fight a war like that. But if it came down to a "two countries enter, one country leaves" cage match between the US and anyone else in the world, there's absolutely no doubt that the US would win in the end (as long as nukes aren't involved).

The way you win a war against the US isn't by beating them, it's by being more expensive to fight than we're willing to deal with.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#130915: Jul 19th 2016 at 7:02:10 AM

Does....anyone else want to comment on the fact an RNC speaker quite literally said to suspend the rules of engagement for American soldiers to let them do whatever they feel like to the enemy?

Manafort is also throwing Melania under the bus. Amazing.

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#130916: Jul 19th 2016 at 7:07:12 AM

I didn't hear of this, but given the degeneration that would have to happen for Trump to become their nominee, it's sort of unsurprising.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#130917: Jul 19th 2016 at 7:09:49 AM

Sun Tzu would say that a war fought by perfectly symmetrical sides is a losing exercise. U.S. military doctrine is to meet the enemy with overwhelming force. Never mind that there is no comparable power to us in the world, the idea that we'd meet our foes head on as exact equals is ludicrous. No general would willingly go into such a situation unless our nation was facing a sovereign territorial threat.

Handle, the hysteria ill becomes you, although if Donald Trump gets elected, it might be justified. So maybe you could lay off the Democrats a bit, eh? You won't get your wish of a United States that leaves everyone else the hell alone, so why not at least go with the side that isn't going to act like a cartoon supervillain?

edited 19th Jul '16 7:12:21 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#130918: Jul 19th 2016 at 7:16:38 AM

A US that leaves everyone alone also doesn't guarantee no one will interfere in other countries. If the US didn't get involved you'd probably see a lot more conflict.

majoraoftime (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#130919: Jul 19th 2016 at 7:19:16 AM

Didn't the US just stop selling cluster bombs to the Saudis so that they could bomb Yemenis into pulp? The Democrats aren't exactly angels on that score, they're just not as insane as Ted "genocide" Cruz or Donald "straight imperialism" Trump.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#130920: Jul 19th 2016 at 7:20:39 AM

Also, "asymmetric" warfare doesn't mean that one side has 20% more troops than the other; it refers to a condition in which wars are fought not between regular armies but between armies and civilians, or armies and guerrillas. Asymmetric means that the sides are operating under significantly different tactics and rules of engagement.

Going back to Vietnam for a bit, a conservative estimate would be approximately ten North Vietnamese combatant deaths for every death of a U.S. soldier, not counting South Vietnamese losses — not exactly a defeat in pure numbers, but a loss in the end regardless because we lost the political will to continue the war. (source) note 

[up] We've been funding and arming all sides in the Middle East for decades, under both Democratic and Republican administrations. It's pretty shameful, but it's also not something you can distinctly blame any one person for.

edited 19th Jul '16 7:26:45 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#130921: Jul 19th 2016 at 7:25:55 AM

I'm just saying, in a humourously overdramatic way, that these conflicts that aren't between superpowers are dead serious, and requesting that they be acknowledged as such.

Also, please don't use the word "hysteria", it reeks of sexism and pseudoscience. Phobia and Panic are perfectly fine words.

As for "if I didn't do Dirty Business X, someone worse would be filling the power vaccum", it is, in fact, a legitimate argument. Though one I instinctively distrust, for obvious reasons.

edited 19th Jul '16 7:26:19 AM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#130922: Jul 19th 2016 at 7:40:49 AM

I haven't seen a single day on FOX where they didn't bring on some "expert" saying we need to suspend rules of engagement and that they're the reason we're apparently losing our war against ISIS.

Oh really when?
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#130923: Jul 19th 2016 at 7:43:46 AM

Which rules are we losing because of?

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#130925: Jul 19th 2016 at 7:44:37 AM

They never give any specifics, they just say the rules of engagement are too restrictive and that we need to remove or loosen them.

Oh really when?

Total posts: 417,856
Top