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
They have plenty of MRBMnote and warheads capable of being fitted inside mobile launch vehicles.
The Pentagon worries over Pakistan is either the radical elements of the Pakistani government taking over and starting a open war with India, which is a low probability scenario but real enough to be concerned with, or the civilian government imploding thanks to its incompetence and sabotage from radical Islamists within the government, resulting in a Syria scenario. One which there would be several different factions fighting among each other and a near complete loss of control over the Pakistani military and as a result a loss of control of Pakistan's nuclear forces. Which could result in an Empty Quiver by terrorist organizations or rogue military forces or someone being stupid enough to launch a live nuclear warhead against India, US bases in Afghanistan, US bases or US allies in Asia.
But then I wouldn't be surprised the Pentagon has a contingency plan for Pakistan's nukes, which probably would involve the USAF bombing the living shit of every Pakistani military installation capable of storing and launching nuclear tipped missiles and then bomb those bases some more.
So far the military aid AKA have been able to keep the corrupt elements in the Pakistani military from doing something incredibly stupid. However the Pakistani Intelligence Service is acting like a bunch of morons by still supporting the Islamists elements in Pakistan and part of this reason is how they can be used against India and Afghanistan without explicit involvement of Pakistan.
Inter arma enim silent legesThe civilian government there de facto doesn't control the nukes or even foreign policy. It's fall or stay is quite irrelevant. What matters in the case of the US's worries, is who is the Chief of Army Staff (which, as it happens, is about to become vacant, with several contenders for the post to be put in between now and the end of November, unless the current chief gets an extension, which has a lot of political ramifications) and who heads the various Army Corps (there are 11 of them, one of them nuclear) and the ISI.
@Game Guru From what I've seen, no ones taking Trumps birther deflection seriously. Hillary's E-Mail scandal was very real. People were right to suspect she wasn't healthy and the Clinton Campaign tried to cover it up. I understand why she'd want to hide the fact that she was sick, but ultimately I think it hurt her. She already has a transparency problem. You're right about Benghazi though. From what I've read, the Republicans have been attacking the Clintons and Obamas for a lot of stupid and insignificant things, but Americans have good reasons to dislike Hillary Clinton. Honestly, I have a problem with the Libyan intervention period. That country has been destroyed. Now American politicians on both sides are talking about doing the same thing to Assad. Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad... these aren't good people, but they keep stability. Now their countries are breeding grounds for ISIL.
edited 19th Sep '16 1:48:40 PM by 940131
That she happened to get sick isn't nearly the same thing as the implication that she's likely to drop dead the next day after being elected. Which is what that means, and oddly enough doesn't seem to be applied the same way to Trump.
I mean, people ask questions like this all about all older candidates, but it doesn't usually have the air of conspiracy around it.
Edit: And people still haven't clarified how she was hiding it. Because it wasn't announced the very next day or at the time of the incident?
edited 19th Sep '16 1:50:13 PM by LSBK
x2 Does Trump look sick? Apparently he's overweight, but he's not low energy. He goes to Mexico and Phoenix and Washington. He goes for so many interviews. Hillary collapsed. She's human. Humans get sick. She should have just said she was sick and she was going to take a few days off to get better.
edited 19th Sep '16 1:55:26 PM by 940131
x3 Which is why I don't give Trump credit for saying (paraphrased) "I hope she gets better" when the news broke that she had pneumonia. You can't say the equivalent of "She's secretly terminal!" for months and then suddenly get to play the sympathy card. By then, your damage (by "damage", I mean feeding into the conspiracy theories) had already been done.
edited 19th Sep '16 1:54:33 PM by speedyboris
I mean, lets be real here, she doesn't come across as the healthiest and most lively person around. And I can't really blame it on age because both Trump and Bernie are the same age and older (respectively) than her and come across as much more energetic.
I suspect it has more to do her personality. Or, at least, the cool, laid-back and professional image she puts on.
It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane.The email scandal was not real. Like, the FBI investigated it, and discovered that nothing scandal worthy was going on there. Everything that wasn't perfectly by the book was standard operating procedure.
Also, I'm pretty sure saying she was sick and then taking a few days off to recover was exactly what she did do.
edited 19th Sep '16 1:57:52 PM by Gilphon
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Did you actually pull the "low energy" card? Really?
And Trump's health report hasn't been fully released yet, and if it is I wouldn't put it past him not to doctor it.
The email scandal is a sign that departmental culture towards online security needs to adapt, it was hardly limited to Clinton.
edited 19th Sep '16 1:57:58 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
x3 They're both older. But that's a good point. Bernie's ancient, but he wasn't in poor health. Hilary had coughing fits. Again, there's nothing wrong with her being sick. She's human. But covering it up was a big mistake, because she already has transparency issues.
@Gliphon Only after she collapsed. I saw the video. Her aides tried to block people from seeing it.
So even if he realeses his records, you're going to assume their fake? Look. They're both very old. Americans have a right to know if they're healthy and Trump should release his records. But the facts are that nothing indictes that Trump is unhealthy. Hillary has coughing fits and collapsed. In the Colin Powell E-Mail leaks he said she didn't look well and he's not working for the Trump campaign.
edited 19th Sep '16 2:07:57 PM by 940131
Why so many red states are turning blue - commentary
No real surprises here, but still,
With Trump as their standard-bearer, Republicans may be inviting a similar fate. They are becoming the party of declining America. Democrats are becoming the educated cosmopolitan party.
So apparently a Sioux tribe won a case against an expanding oil pipeline that was tainting their water supply.
Is it weird that no-one has talked about this? Or is it just business as usual?
![]()
![]()
Trump is borderline obese (at least), and has been prescribed drugs to control his cholesterol. This is by his own admission, but he still won't release his full physical report (unlike Clinton).
But he went to goddamn Dr.Oz to release the details, which either means that he isn't taking this seriously or that a doctor who wasn't a hack would call him out on something.
This focus on health is pretty weird, FDR lead the US from a wheelchair, Bush senior puked into the lap of the Japanese PM, and Reagan may have been in the earliest stages of dementia while still in office. Clinton and Trump are fine by those standards, the former suffering from a common bacterial infection notwithstanding.
edited 19th Sep '16 2:25:27 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.No, it was revealed sometime after his death. The fact that he managed to govern as president with more competency than the ones not in the know would've ever expected had they known he was suffering from that illness is a sign that such worries can very well be overblown.
edited 19th Sep '16 2:32:08 PM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.What lines?
Also, good for the Sioux. Well done.
I'm only a bit shocked that they would make leaky pipelines to begin with. I had always wondered why exactly people didn't want those things around...
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Few people have had it worse than the Native Americans. I'm glad any time I see them get justice.
@Rational Insanity Claire Mc Caskill put it best. Trump and Oz are two con artists trying to sell each other snake oil. They're a match made in heaven. At the same time, I have to point out that you're contradicting yourself. You're saying that we shouldn't focus so much on health because of FDR. That's a fair point. However, at the same time you're focusing excessively on Trump being overweight even though he looks fine, and downplaying Hilary's coughing fits and that she collapsed in the street.
edited 19th Sep '16 2:50:20 PM by 940131

They may not have to. Depends on who their allies are.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.