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
FDR wasn't looking to be a dictator, no. Doesn't mean he wasn't one, either. Mind you, he only became one because of extraordinary circumstances (depression, WWII). If neither happened, he probably wouldn't have made it to the second term.
Personally, I'm neutral on the term limits thing, but in defense of it I'd say that a person already in office can theoretically consolidate support better than a person who isn't. Eventually, this might lead to a sort of self-reinforcing system where the status quo becomes unbreakable.
Leviticus 19:34![]()
It's pretty much all Sulla's fault at the end of the day. Though I suppose that's a topic for another thread.
It's never happened to us in Canada, and we not only don't have term limits, but we make it easier for the Prime Minister to have a compliant Congress. I didn't enjoy twelve years of Stephen Harper. But he never made himself dictator.
@No US foreign policy stomach for committing resources. The US government has been in a state of paranoid trauma ever since the protests adjacent the Vietnam war. Even before then other nations thought we were soft. Since then our own government has believed it. That's partially why we spend so much on our military. The idea is that the US not only must be able to win, but it must be able to win with virtually no casualties, or else our public will turn on the war again.
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.![]()
Harper was in power for nine years. But Mackenzie King and Pierre Trudeau, who were in for longer, didn't become dictators either. Neither did Mulroney, who was in power for just under nine years, despite all my immense dislike for him.
edited 23rd Jul '16 3:37:40 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Ah. Yeah, I'm not particularly up to date on how Canada works politically. That said, Canada is a parliamentary democracy, is it not? The circumstances which lead to dictatorships in those kinds of systems tend to differ from Presidential democracies.
Since a parlimentary democracy's executive branch is elected by the legislature, there's an inbuilt mechanism against dictatorship that doesn't exist in Presidential democracy, which means an executive holding power for a long time is much less dangerous.
edited 23rd Jul '16 3:41:31 PM by CaptainCapsase
Yeah, party discipline in Canada is much stronger than in the US (and the rest of the Commonwealth). If the PM says jump, you jump or resign. And only the courts can stop a PM (though our courts are very independent and, unlike their American counterparts, apolitical).
edited 23rd Jul '16 3:42:17 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.The Prime Minister appoints Supreme Court members from the ranks of the judiciary (usually, though if they hold a law degree and meet other prereqs that's enough) but that doesn't guarantee their loyalty. Most of the SCC is made of Harper appointees, yet they smacked down nearly all of his contentious laws.
Also, just listened to Kaine's speech. Pretty solid. If he can energize the Latino vote and win over a few swing states, he could be a real boon to Clinton. He's also less risky, which in a campaign where you can't afford a Palin dragging down your ticket is something to consider.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Cross posting from the Eastern European politics thread, Hungarian PM Viktor Orban has said that Trump as President would be better for Europe. Cause terrorism.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/hungarian-pm-praises-trump-as-beneficial-for-europe-1.2999412
I guess he really is a dictator, because democratic leaders aren't supposed to comment on each other's elections like that.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Just to give this thread some breathing room I thought I'd mention T hat OTC does have two topics on interventionism. A very old "Military Intervention in Humanitarian Crises" [1]
thread and the slightly more recent "International Interventions and their comparability"[2]
thread that did include discussions on what made a good intervention and if nations ever acted for selfless reasons. The second thread was incidentally started back when Shinra was the main person I disagreed with over interventionism, oh how times change.
I understand that Warren isn't comparable to Palin. To begn with, she is not insane.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.One big argument for Tim Kaine over Warren is that Virginia has a Dem governor, meaning that Kaine will be replaced with a Democrat and not a Republican, as would be the case with Warren.
Kaine has solid Dem credentials even if he's not a firebrand from the left of the party, he comes from a competitive state, wouldn't cost the Dems his senate seat and is of an age that he could run himself in time.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThat was my thought earlier.
Also, as much as Trump is a racist asshole for the whole "calling her Pocahontas thing" (as is whoever of his surrogates made a whooping sound in front of a crowd), her identification with non-existent Native American ancestry gives me pause. She's no Rachel Dolezal and it's popular for people to make a claim like Warren did, but I think it hurts her ability to effectively argue against Trump's racism.
Semi-
. I could be wrong. I think at this point people pay more attention to the racist attacks on her than the fake ancestry, but I'm basing this on the sources I read- which are liberal ones.
edited 23rd Jul '16 4:35:47 PM by Hodor2
—
About Warren's Native American heritage: it's a faux scandal. It's explained on her Wikipedia page:
Beown would cost the Dems a Senate seat and Perez has limited expierance in high elected office.
Oh and in terrifying news, 536 has Trump at 42% to win the presidency, that number will probably change as the election gets closer though. Right now their state by state split would have Clinton win 279 electoral votes to 259 electoral votes, with Trump taking Florida, Ohio and North Carolina, but not Virginia. New Hampshire, Nevada, Colorado or New Mexico.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

Surely you mean an Octavius?
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.