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
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Having economic and political freedom are correlated with freer democracies, not prosperity in itself.
Also, while the US might not be directly endangered by China and Russia there are plenty of US allies and client states that are, there is a reason why the ASEAN directly asked the US for support when China began expanding in the South China Sea and the ex-sov block republics also asked for more direct US and NATO support when Russia started rebuilding their military.
edited 15th Sep '16 6:30:42 PM by AngelusNox
Inter arma enim silent leges
Your view seems to be that Russia and China must be under US domination for a stable world order. Mine is "that isn't feasible, we need to learn to live with them." I'd also like a stable EU and a more powerful India to accompany that, though neither is particularly likely.
![]()
How's that different from the US continually expanding NATO eastwards despite agreeing not to via Rules Lawyering (which is how we got to the present crisis)? As for China, can you even imagine what the US would do if another power was mucking around in the Caribbean. Oh wait, we don't have to imagine, we and the Soviets very nearly destroyed the world over it.
edited 15th Sep '16 6:37:20 PM by CaptainCapsase
![]()
![]()
![]()
Capase I pointed this out before but what you're entailing pretty much is the Cold War only several dozen nations have nukes instead of just two. What do you propose we do when one of those nations is stupid enough to elect an idiot like Trump? Realistically that's going to happen eventually.
edited 15th Sep '16 6:35:11 PM by Kostya
![]()
![]()
I am always at odds among my South American peers when it comes to the US losing influence or losing its stage as the main global actor and the main reason of that is that most of them think that Russia and China taking over the US as the main global powers wouldn't be worse than the US remaining as the main supper power.
Again we're bombarded with news about the US screwing up while China and Russia screw ups hardly get into the news.
![]()
Simple, those countries requested the US for assistance despite the Kremlin acting like the Ex Soviet Republics are still their backyard, and those countries both in Eastern Europe and Asia requested the US assistance because the other global powers near their borders make them increasingly nervous. Which is very different since most of the Ex Soviet republics didn't have much of a choice when they got annexed into the Soviet Union and after the end of WWII and they don't want to go back to the Kremlin's sphere of influence and there was no love between the other Asian Nations and China even before the US got involved.
Which prompted them to seek an actor strong enough to block any expansionist attempts. Like Georgia and Ukraine or the Chinese invasion of Vietnam. I said it once and I will say it again: Russia is the best NATO recruiter the US has. China is making sure former US enemies become new allies.
You can blame the US all you want but when the other global powers are pushing their neighbors towards the US sphere of influence they have none but themselves to blame.
edited 15th Sep '16 6:47:39 PM by AngelusNox
Inter arma enim silent leges![]()
That's only the case if globalization is halted somehow. The current state of affairs already makes direct confrontation untenable between great powers, and that trend will only continue with time. By the time this hypothetical state of affairs were to be realized, the backlash against globalization would already be settled one way or another.
But enough about the current global order and our disagreements about it. 538's projection now has Trump winning North Carolina, Iowa, Ohio, and Florida. If he can get one more semi-big state on top of that, he's in the lead.
edited 15th Sep '16 6:56:19 PM by CaptainCapsase
What the hell is that supposed to mean? Not even women would want to go to two of the most misogynistic countries in the world? No, they probably wouldn't. This some kind of "hur hur, not even women are dumb enough to go to a place that treats them like that" comment? Or is it a really bad typo?
I vastly prefer a Russia and China struggling to get out from under American hegemony to a Russia and China free to do whatever they want to whomever they want.
You can go on all you want about America's track record of overthrowing democracies, but the reality is they haven't done it since the Reagan administration, while Russia and China continue to pose a direct threat to every democracy within their sphere of influence.
Republicans and the NRA have been attacking the Democratic candidate for the Missouri senate seat as anti-gun. This ad is his response:
For those of you who can't see it; Democratic candidate and former Army captain Jason Kander is putting together an AR-15 rifle while blindfolded, all the while touting his military experience, explaining his support for background checks and at the end challenging his Republicans opponent to do the same.
Russia and China don't need to be under US control, currently they need to be kept in check and the US is the current best positioned country to do that. I'd much rather India and Japan were keeping China is check than the US, but that's not currently feasible (though with India and Japan building up their military power it may be soon enough), likewise I'd trust the EU more to keep Russia in check than I would the US. Hell I'd like to see the day when USAN is acting to keep the US in check.
The US is not my preferred choice for the role of world or regional policeman, but it's still preferable to the nothing you keep pushing.
X3 I think it's meant to just be that Iran and Saudi Arabia are assholes to women and should thus not be included in the global community, even with their oil wealth. Where the "not even" came form I don't know.
edited 15th Sep '16 7:14:31 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranHere is a little something about NATO that some may not know about: if it weren't for them, we'd be in an unending nuclear arms race against Russia still.
If the former Soviet states and European nations couldn't rely on NATO to protect them from foreign invasion, what kind of arms would they need to protect themselves from such an invasion? Nuclear arms, especially if, God forbid, the invading country has nukes and are not afraid to use them.
Imagine how many nuclear weapons there would be if NATO never existed during the Cold War and then tell me that they're not needed anymore.
"The devil's got all the good gear. What's God got? The Inspiral Carpets and nuns. Fuck that." - Liam Gallagher![]()
To me, people complaining about America's influence to former Soviet republics seem to equate to wanting to undermine or weaken NATO, something Donald Trump advocates greatly.
I heard that Ivanka walked out of an interview because it was too negative. Will this affect anything politically?
Democrats aren't spectacular.
So yeah, Trump is not a birther and never was. Oh, and his team was why Obama released his certificates, putting the whole issue to bed. It was also started by the Clinton campaign just because.
...
At least if you believe's Trump's website's angle on it.
edited 15th Sep '16 8:19:36 PM by CaptainCapsase

So, what, equally divide the pie between the rest of the world, and no one might get hungrier for an extra slice?
Is that right?
New Survey coming this weekend!