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
Capase the world you're advocating for sounds a lot like the world during the Cold War except more nations have nukes.
edit: Realistically I think the world would be better if it was unipolar with the UN as the dominant power instead of any one nation. Unfortunately that doesn't seem like it will happen anytime soon. In the absence of that I still say the US is the best option. All of the other alternatives are worse or wouldn't be capable of projecting the influence needed.
edited 15th Sep '16 5:56:21 PM by Kostya
@Captain: "A stable multipolar world has to include Russia and China for better or worse."
That's almost like saying a stable world has to include Saudi Arabia and Iran, since they control a large swath of the world's oil despite being so authoritarian and so repressive that not even women would want to go to those countries.
Whether you like it or not, authoritarian countries with a lust for global dominance have zero place in an increasingly democratic world.
"The devil's got all the good gear. What's God got? The Inspiral Carpets and nuns. Fuck that." - Liam Gallagher
Minus the "authoritarian" part, the US fits that bill very well, and even then, we do not tolerate democracy except when its US friendly. Just as Iran prior to the Islamic revolution. Or Chile. Or all of the other democracies the United States has overthrown for being insufficiently pro-American.
edited 15th Sep '16 6:01:16 PM by CaptainCapsase
And Captain, Foreign Policy is immensely complex. Like you wouldn't believe. Hell, even with the USA being the world's only superpower and no Cold War dynamics at play, Foreign Policy is VASTLY more complex today, than even during the late 80s.
It's like staring at a fractal.
The overall pattern is relatively easy to see, but you can dive into the depths for an infinite amount of time and still not appreciate all the details because they literally never end.
edited 15th Sep '16 6:02:39 PM by TacticalFox88
New Survey coming this weekend!Including a country because it's a big physical or economic part of the world does not have to mean including it as it stands today.
Any modern geopolitical order will also have to include Germany and Japan, but that doesn't mean we didn't need to change them. Now Russia and China are not as far gone as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were, but that simply means talking them round may not require direct force so much as inside progress and encouragement.
I wouldn't want the US as it stands today to be a key part of a stable multipolar world if the rest of the world progressed far beyond the US morally, , I'd want it to grow and mature the same way I want every nation to.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranYes, but there's no way the current state of affairs between the US and Russia/China is going to make them any better. Even if they were as bad as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, the nature of modern warfare means trying to change them by force is nothing short of madness.
edited 15th Sep '16 6:06:48 PM by CaptainCapsase
Tragically, that's becoming less evident in other democratic countries as we speak. Especially in Europe with far-right leaders trying everything in their power to undermine the political system and exploiting terrorism fears to sucker people into supporting them.
We would never change them by force. Economic sanctions are a thing for a reason, though that's more so with the Russians, than the Chinese, as the USA would have to be extremely careful with the Chinese economy being tied to the hip to ours.
edited 15th Sep '16 6:08:20 PM by TacticalFox88
New Survey coming this weekend!![]()
We would go for it sooner or later were they not capable of resisting to the point of "breaking the back" of the American Empire much like WW 2 broke the British Empire. (Without even getting into nuclear weapons.)
Which, incidentally, I suspect, is one of the big reasons why the people of Russia and China tolerate their respective regimes. They know as well as we do what the US coming with "freedom" would entail.
edited 15th Sep '16 6:13:55 PM by CaptainCapsase
So, looks like Clinton is campaigning again. She looks fine.
She's also up in a poll of polls according to CNN, though just by 2 points.
Meanwhile, Trump said that birth control should be available over the counter.
538 now has the election projected at 60/40 in Clinton's favor, due to Trump polling ahead in Ohio and Florida after Clinton's shitty weekend. But we've still got the debates, and Trump still has plenty of weak spots that might come up.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Like I said, that first debate will likely have 80 million+ viewers, and it will be Trump's last stand.
If he gets blown out (likely), calls her a name (a possibility), and the media/Twitter creates a narrative where he lost (jury's out on that), then this race becomes a question of what margins will she win by and how many Congressional Seats can she win.
New Survey coming this weekend!![]()
![]()
![]()
The economic sanctions aren't doing enough to stop North Korea from having nuclear weapons, unfortunately. In fact, if this
is to be believed, they might be finding ways to get around them.
edited 15th Sep '16 6:14:48 PM by Mario1995
"The devil's got all the good gear. What's God got? The Inspiral Carpets and nuns. Fuck that." - Liam Gallagher![]()
You're living in an alternate reality if you think this is a done deal. Clinton has a lot more to lose than Trump, since Trump has long since reached a degree of what I like to call "bullshit saturation" where literally nothing he says or does will reflect poorly on him. Much like Gee Dubs, the bar is much lower for him than for his opponent. His goal in the debates is going to be to make her look weak, and whether or not her condition will still be severe enough at that time to help him in that regard (if Trump is standing while Clinton is sitting, she's already lost the debate) is pretty much out of her control.
edited 15th Sep '16 6:19:20 PM by CaptainCapsase
North Korea has (primitive) nuclear weapons. It lacks the delivery systems to threaten anyone but its nearest neighbors (and that's still very dubious). And the US and South Korea have explicitly stated that if Kim even tries something like that, his country gets flattened. If the Chinese don't pull a regime change invasion first.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.How the hell does "not enforcing strict gun control" and gathering the metadata of its own citizens in the US equates it with a government that routinely makes journalist, opposition party members and whistle blowers "disappear", runs with strong censorship laws and media control including blurring official propaganda and news, has a semi-official policy to discriminate anyone who isn't a Christian Orthodox and outright brutalizes its LGBT population?
The US is leagues ahead when it comes to human rights when compared to Russia and specially China. While the US still behind of most Western Europe countries with maybe the exception of France, it is hardly at the same level of its rival states.
This thread is moving fast today...
edited 15th Sep '16 6:19:31 PM by AngelusNox
Inter arma enim silent leges
I'm not. Neither Russia or China are anywhere near being threats to America beyond their nuclear arsenals. A stable mutlipolar world would entail a situation where a mixture of economic ties, strong rule of international law, and a modest deterrent along with each power having a secure sphere of influence as a buffer makes all the powers relatively at ease with one another.
edited 15th Sep '16 6:29:00 PM by CaptainCapsase

The world was multipolar during the lead up to WWI. The clash of competing interests between the 5 Great Powers (four if you discount Austria-Hungary, as I tend to) resulting in one of the most devastating conflicts in human history.
The world was multipolar during the lead up to WWII. There was an even more existential clash between the existing Great Powers (Britain and France), the future superpowers (USA, USSR), and the wannabe superpowers (Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan). The result left sixty million people dead over the course of five years.
Multipolar worlds, it turns out, aren't so great.