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
@Angelus Nox There's another problem. People are trying to have there cake and eat it to. Around the time it was officially revealed that the DNC was in the tank for Hillary, these neo Mc Carthyite smears were lobbed at Trump. The clinton Campaign pushed the idea that Trump was an agent of Putin knowingly or not. At the same time, he's a dangerous guy that's going to start a nuclear war. The only country with a nuclear arsenal the same size as the US is Russia (there's is actually bigger). So either he'll start World War 3 with Russia or he's Putins stooge. He can't be both.
![]()
![]()
I mean, if she's worried about big pharma, I can understand that - we've had some cases of people raising the prices on certain drugs dramatically, so there are definitely concerns there.
But those people remain part of her base, and that's a problem for her.
Even if he doesn't start World War III, a nuclear exchange of any kind could still be catastrophic, and he has definitely been cavalier about the idea.
Using nukes at all would be a horrible idea.
edited 19th Sep '16 8:14:51 PM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!
x3 One can start World War Three without attacking Russia, China, the EU or say South America are all big enough for a World War to start.
Plus it's not like Russia is the only nuclear power out there beyond the US, or is it a thing that if you go nuke crazy you can only go nuke crazy against other nuclear powers.
edited 19th Sep '16 8:13:36 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.” ~ CyranHe doesn't need to oppose Russia to start a nuclear war. He just needs to use a nuke literally anywhere. That's how that works. And he has made some comments that made it seem like he was unclear on why that would be a bad idea. Probably he had it explained to him, and hopefully he took that explanation to heart, but, well, I'd much prefer if that power was in the hands of somebody who didn't need the explanation. The chances of him causing a nuclear war is probably fairly low, but it's somewhat higher than with most candidates, and any chance above 0% is terrifying.
And, I mean, I don't think anybody accuses him of literally being in Putin's pocket. Just that Putin's probably hoping he'll win.
@Silasw I'm pro democracy. The people voted to get out of Brexit.
I like Jill Stein for a lot of reasons. She's not a climate change denying, race baiting demagogue (Trump) or a corrupt, inauthentic warhawk (Hillary). She's a non-interventionist, she's against fracking, she's critical of Nato expansionists, she's against drone strikes, she's for single-payer health care, she wants to free whistle blowers. There's a lot to like about her. I liked Bernie too, but he supported drones and a kill list. The progressives that I've been following ignored that. Do I agree with her on everything? No. But her positions are a lot more like my own than anyone else running.
There's also a risk of starting World War 3 if you shoot down Russian planes.
@Tactical It's interesting that you've said that, because Hillary threatened to obliterate Iran.
edited 19th Sep '16 8:25:13 PM by 940131
@ Kostya It would be entirely dependent of the target, so far only Russia has the capability to survive a counter force nuclear attack aimed at destroying their nuclear arsenal and that is only thanks to the second strike capabilities provided by mobile ICB Ms like the Topol-M and the Russian Boomer fleet packing SLB Ms.
China, North Korea, Pakistan and India have no means of surviving a counter force first strike thus making a US led first strike against their nuclear facilities one sided. China may be able to launch a limited number of warheads against the US soil or foreign bases with a limited chance of success, even in the case of a nuclear strike on US soil the damage would be comparatively minimal against the US but catastrophic against China. Currently China has an arsenal of 300 nuclear warheads in total with the majority of them in a not-ready-to-fire state. Meanwhile the US has a force of 750 Silo Based ICB Ms on a ready-to-fire state.
Inter arma enim silent leges@Kostya When did Trump ask "Why we can't nuke people we don't like"?
@Le Garcon Let Russia run what? Let Russia exert influence in Eastern Europe as it's done for centuries? Sure. How did America respons when the Russians started getting close to Cuba?
edited 19th Sep '16 8:35:55 PM by 940131
There were legitimate reasons to want to leave the EU. People on all sides of the political spectrum joined the Leave campaign. Farrage and the rest did a bitof race baiting, but that doesn't mean their was no argument for leaving. There were pros and cons for staying and leaving.
edited 19th Sep '16 8:38:35 PM by 940131
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/03/trump-asks-why-us-cant-use-nukes-msnbcs-joe-scarborough-reports.html
edited 19th Sep '16 8:39:37 PM by sgamer82
![]()
Maybe so, but leaving will fuck a lot of people over. And I think "a bit of race-baiting" is drastically underplaying what has become a very real problem in the UK, and the West as a whole.
edited 19th Sep '16 8:41:42 PM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!
x2 I thought that's what you were referring to. Here's the thing, Scarborough didn't give us a name. It's like saying a friend of a friend told him Trump didn't know why we can't use nukes. Another problem is in that exact same segment, Joe Scarborough said Trump didn't have advisors arond him. That's blatantly false. He's released a list of his foreign policy advisors and many of them are realists.
The establishment has a vested interest in keeping him out of power. Some of their reasons are legitimate (he's unstable and isn't very knowledgeable about the world). But some of it is because he might upset the status quo. He's not controlled by donors. He wants to work with Russia. He questions the necessity of NATO. I remember him being attacked visciously for suggesting that the US should be a neutral broker to get peace for the Arab-Israelis. The establishment was furious even though that's the American governments official position. The beautiful part of it, is that it's believable. But this fearmongering about Republicans with their fingers on the button isn't new. It happened to Ronald Reagan and it happened to Barry Goldwater. For me to believe it, I'd have to see the context and know who said it.
That's true, but either way someone was going to be scewed. I don't think it's racist to want to preserve your countries culture or to control your borders. What would be racist is if Nigel Farrage had said they should only let white people immigrate to the UK, but he didn't say that.
edited 19th Sep '16 8:51:00 PM by 940131
Stein's military cutbacks would cripple the economy, like it or not the military industrial complex employs a lot of people and generates a ton of revenue/spending/etc.
And there really weren't legitimate reasons to leave the EU, unless you want to claw back human rights and/or are guided by a misplaced sense of nationalism.
edited 19th Sep '16 8:51:19 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
1) It also wastes a lot of money and gets a lot of people killed. Anti-Americanism is on the rise. I think the US would better off spending more moneyon education, infrastructure and social programs.
2) No. There were definitely good reasons to leave the EU. And regaining their sovereignty is one of them.
edited 19th Sep '16 8:54:44 PM by 940131
![]()
Then do it gradually, and after the world is safe from things far worse than the US. Blatant isolationism and pacifism would be ruinous for the US and the world at large.
What, regaining their sovereignty to claw back human rights and gut the judiciary?
In other news, Trump Jr. compared Syrian refuges to skittles in speech.
edited 19th Sep '16 8:56:16 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
x6 Well, that was hardly the only
occasion where Trump advocated using nukes
.
edited 19th Sep '16 9:01:38 PM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!

Honestly the state of democracy in the world worries me.
Trump in the US, Brexit in the UK, the political uncertainty in South America, the rise of ultra-nationalists in Europe as a whole, the Kremlin aiding such parties, Duterte overt drug war on Philippines being seen as something good, South Africa and other African nations falling victim of despots hijacking democratic governments, China undermining the democratic process in HK and Taiwan, the failure of the Arab Spring resulting in making things worse and so on.
Inter arma enim silent leges