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
RE: Republicans/Conservatives hate the environment
It's more accurate to say they hate environmentalists than the environment itself, but the problem is that the hatred of the "ist" leads to them literally spitting at the environment.
As evidence, I present "Coal Rollers"
TL;DR , and Eric Bolling relating his particular way of celebrating Earth Day
on Fox News Channel's "The Five" (it's the video at #4 on the list).
Kaine's speech in Miami
. It starts partway through. What do we all think?
@Capsase and Handle
The US stepped into WWII in 1941. The war was only half over. There were a whole lot more casualties to come. Claiming that America joined late and thus did not do anything important, is only mildly saner than claiming the Soviets joined the war late (also in 1941) and thus did not do anything important.
Yes, America greatly exaggerates how important their role was in the Second World War. But that does not change the reality that without the USA, the war could easily have still gone the other way. Soviet (and later Russian) historians don't like to admit it, but the influx of raw materials and loaned weapons from the USA played a vital role in keeping the USSR on its feet through 1942 and 1943, when much of the Soviets' European manufacturing was still under German domination.
Defeating fascism was a team effort. Take out any of the member countries and things can go the other way.
edited 23rd Jul '16 2:49:30 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
(I'm half-way joking here, FYI. Perhaps ironically, Spider Man's origin story is what I like to point to as why interventionism might be necessary-the call knows where the US lives)
edited 23rd Jul '16 2:53:13 PM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34Kissinger and Nixon may have correctly described reality, but they were horribly short-sighted executors of policy in that area and as such, I don't take Kissinger's word as law in how to do something in foreign policy.
The US's problem isn't that its more immoral than most (in practice, though the news does not cover it enough, the US is very responsible with its power and quite good at doing something for mutual gain, especially since the end of the Cold War, which is the best one can hope for in this world), its problem is that the US doesn't like to commit to anything long term if it can help it.
EDIT-
'd by a whole dojo.
edited 23rd Jul '16 2:51:54 PM by FFShinra
And the You Tube left are already trying to paint Kaine as an evil corporatist Democrat. TYT, Secular Talk, the so-called Humanist Report...way to boil down a career of social justice to a pair to stupid buzzwords.
![]()
![]()
No, it isn't. Term limits don't have anything to do with it, but a general short-sightedness in American foreign policy since the days of Kissinger. The US used to be able to do it, as with the Marshall Plan, but since the 60s, has preferred local outsourcing, which has only caused problems ever since.
edited 23rd Jul '16 3:01:04 PM by FFShinra
The Marshall plan was something concocted IIRC under Roosevelt to deal with the demand side crash that would ensue once the troops returned home if the US didn't offload its massive manufacturing capability to the rest of the world. That's not a good example since we were a borderline dictatorship at the time.
Incidentally, it's also one of the rare examples of a time when our interests were indeed aligned with local populations. That's where the shining examples of Germany and Japan come from, atop a mountain of failed states and brutal dictatorships enabled by American imperialism. The Marshall plan was tremendously beneficial to the US economy, so of course nobody really opposed it.
edited 23rd Jul '16 3:06:45 PM by CaptainCapsase
The Marshall Plan was ace.
General Marshall was ace too, for that matter. He actually took WWII seriously, instead of gloryhounding and cockfighting like his colleagues.
Roosevelt and his New Deal were fucking amazing. If "borderline dictatorship" is what it takes for the US Plutocracy to let the rest of the country breathe, then let it be welcome.
edited 23rd Jul '16 3:06:57 PM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
A benevolent dictatorship only remains benevolent as long as the dictator is alive, and if his successors had held on to the level of executive power Roosevelt had accumulated, America's political structure would look quite a lot like modern day Russia; that sort of dictatorship is sort of like the ancient Roman office of dictator; something brought on by extraordinary crisis, and only sustainable for the briefest of moments in history without collapsing into despotism.
edited 23rd Jul '16 3:13:16 PM by CaptainCapsase
I mean, FDR was a borderline dictator because the opinion at the time was that the US was facing too big a crisis to allow leadership changes.
Leviticus 19:34
He was, but he (effectively through his domination of the other two branches of government, the supreme court in particular) had far, far more power than the executive branch was ever intended to have, more than any previous or subsequent president other than perhaps Washington himself. It's a situation that could very easily have lead to a descent into authoritarianism if Roosevelt's immediate successors had been more ambitious and cunning. Or perhaps, depending on how you judge his character, if Roosevelt himself had remained alive for another decade.
edited 23rd Jul '16 3:19:48 PM by CaptainCapsase
Which is what I always find weird about that amendment in the first place. Like, FDR was voted in overwhelming every single time, I don't see how a two term limit is supposed to preserve democracy.
So he went against a tradition by going for a third (and then fourth) term, so what, the people obviously didn't care about the tradition.
FDR bashing. Lovely. He got voted in overwhelmingly every time. He accumulated power because of extraordinary circumstances—and I'd say his selection of Truman, who gave up all that power afterwards, as VP, is pretty indicative that he wasn't looking to be a dictator.
edited 23rd Jul '16 3:20:57 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

@Cap: While that's largely true, it isn't entirely true. Nations can be semi-altruistic in nature, just rarely (if ever) fully altruistic. Economics are important, but so is culture, which can shape ethics. People do not necessarily mindlessly pursue economic self-interest necessarily, but also things like cultural prestige and self-actualization. Nation-states may forgo helping others if it's not in their own interests, but a nation with the proper cultural values will try to make its interests "good". For example, a doctor might not do his job for free but that doesn't make him amoral nor does it mean he doesn't care about helping others.
Leviticus 19:34