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
There's that phrase about "the liberal media" again. This never fails to make me laugh. The only overtly mainstream media in the US with any sort of national reach is MSNBC. And even then only in the evenings, given that their morning show is hosted by Joe freaking Scarborough.
Did I say they did? I speculated on what string-of-numbers wants not what's reasonably possible. He's made it very clear he wants the USA to stay out of Russia's so-called "sphere of influence" and that he believes Russia should be allowed to do whatever it wants, to whoever it wants.
edited 22nd Sep '16 6:16:35 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
@Ambar When people start complaining about the lack of US support for the "legitimate" regimes of Assad and Qaddafi while whining about how America is threatening precious Russian interests, they cross the line into "no possibility of discussion" for me.
See. That's a lie. I didn't say that we should support dictators. In fact, if you read my posts without bias I said the US should stop propping up middle eastern dictators and stay out of their affairs. If the West wants to help the Syrians, we should take in refugees.
edited 22nd Sep '16 6:28:51 PM by 940131
![]()
![]()
I don't really agree with him or her*, but you're putting words in his mouth. His opinion seems to be that the US simply can't force Russia to stop meddling in Ukraine and the Caucuses, and that the United States should back off instead of continuing the current saber rattling on the off chance a show of force starts an actual war, as nearly happened several times during the cold war, and which actually happened numerous times further in the past.
*: In my opinion, a diplomatic resolution for the crisis should be sought, perhaps even one fairly generous to Russia given they have far more to lose than the United States, but an unconditional withdrawal is unacceptable.
edited 22nd Sep '16 6:27:15 PM by CaptainCapsase
@Ambar 1) Well Wa Po and the NYT are left leaning news outlets. Wa Po had 20 reporters digging in to Trumps past. How many did Hillary have?
2) It's important because she was displaying signs of sicknes and collapsed. Trump didn't.
3) I meant that I don't think he's personally homophobic or transphobic.
4) So anyone that disagrees with you is a Putin supporter?
edited 22nd Sep '16 6:38:16 PM by 940131
1) They're not always wrong, but they're not always right.
2) Looking at some of his speeches and more importantly, his advisors... it seems less interventionist. He says he'd work with Russia, stay out of Syria, questions the role of NATO, is critical of nation building and American exeptionalism. I think those are all good things. I don't believe a lot of these wars are in America's interest. Does he know as much about foreign policy as Hillary? Of course not. But his instincts seem to be in the right place. America's agressive policies haven't worked out and it's just making the US and their Allies more vulnerable to terrorism. I think Rand Paul was far better than him. I also think it's very troubling that the neocons have fled the Republican Party and backed Hillary.
edited 22nd Sep '16 6:47:33 PM by 940131
![]()
@940: Trump's foreign policy position is an inconsistent mess when looked at as a whole, and it's blatantly obvious that he changes his position here to pander to whatever audience he happens to be addressing. One day, he's an isolationist content to let the rest of the world implode around the US, another day, he's suggesting we start a war with Iran or invade Iraq (again) and take their oil away so that ISIS can't use it. (lolwut?) Once in a blue moon he actually expresses a reasonable position, but what reason do you have to believe the rare moments where he sounds reasonable represent his genuine opinion on the matter?
edited 22nd Sep '16 6:50:25 PM by CaptainCapsase
No. Just you.
You called Qaddafi the legitimate leader of Libya and mourned his being overthrown. You've said the same of Assad. You've defended Putin's "right" to annex Crimea. You argue in favour of Russian interests. You don't get to claim now that you're against the dictatorships.
Not to give Trump the benefit of the doubt, but the platforms are more like guidelines than anything else. It's not like candidates are actually obliged to try to do all of the things on it.
Still, I doubt he particularly cares, and everything on it is awful, so anything he would be interested in trying would still be horrible for someone.
My own reading of Trump is that he wouldn't bother trying to repeal Roe versus Wade or overturn the gay marriage ruling; he doesn't seem to care about either issue, but he does care about what people think of him (more than anything else), and almost certainly realizes most people support both. Furthermore, the GOP establishment has been using that as a "carrot" for values voters for years, and unless Trump is willing to (at least at first) play the part of a pawn to the party brass, he's in very real danger of being impeached if not assassinated, considering how much American elites dislike him.
The real issue is that I expect he'd be doing everything in his (tremendous) power to enrich himself and his cronies, and would probably follow through on the neo-con project of invading Iran. Four to eight years of kleptocracy and a massive war in the middle east would do immeasurable damage to the United States.
edited 22nd Sep '16 6:58:32 PM by CaptainCapsase
x3 Fair enough.
x2 In most cases his policy proposals are a mess, but not in this case. He's been fairly consistent. For example, he's been critical of America's policing the world as early as 1988 and he criticzed American exceptionalism 4 years ago. He wasn't "loud and clear" about not going into Iraq, but he was always sceptical and early on when it looked like a success he said that they should be spending that money to build up American infrastructure. He questioned American exceptionalism 4 years ago and when he was originally asked about Israel and Palestine in this campaign he originally said that to get peace for both parties you have to be a neutral broker. He also questioned the role of NATO. For the last two he was roundly condemned, but I do like someone going against Republican orthodoxy. He's against the Iran deal like many Republicans and that's very stupid, but he didn't say to obliterate Iran (like Hillary). He said to renegotiate. The best way to judge a policy is to ask yourself, has it made things better or has it made things worse. I think at this point it's safe to say that Bush' foreign policy legacy is disastrous, Obama's is better, but still a failure and Hillary is a more hawkish Obama. Again, I think Rand Paul or Ron Paul were a thousand times better.
edited 22nd Sep '16 7:00:49 PM by 940131
Earlier this year Trump said more than once that he would seriously consider overturning the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage. The reason he gave was that he thinks it should be up to the states.
That makes him homophobic, yes. In the same way that Confederate wannabes will tell you the Civil War was about states' rights, when specifically it was about states' rights to own people as pets.
That's right, boys. Mondo cool.![]()
Back then he sounded somewhat reasonable, at least as far as most of his stated political positions go. That's not the Trump we're seeing today, and considering he's very clearly aware of the fact that social interaction is more or less a form of acting by a different name, I don't see any reason to believe those beliefs were any more genuine than the dozens of other positions he's expressed during the past year.
edited 22nd Sep '16 7:01:05 PM by CaptainCapsase
![]()
![]()
![]()
Mike Pence is still a thing. Considering the rumors about Trump intending to delegate everything to the Vice President once in power, trying to repeal all of that is more than likely - especially if they get some ultraconservative nutbag on the Supreme Court.
![]()
![]()
"Always skeptical" Really
? Where are you getting your news?
edited 22nd Sep '16 7:01:21 PM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot@Ambar I don't mourn the death of Gaddafi. I mourn the deaths of regular people in that part of the world whose lives are destroyed by aggressive foreign powers and the dictators who rule them. I've called Gaddafi and Assad the legitimate rulers of their respective countries, because they are. I said that Crimeans wanted to be part of Russia, because the majority of Crimeans are Russians and wanted to be part of Russia.
Honestly the rest of the world would breath a sigh of relief if a Trump president-elect was assassinated, his election would be an active threat to all 7 billion people on this planet and we'd probably have pretty good grounds to consider such an election a Crime against Peace and retaliate accordingly, before Trump got his hands on the nuclear codes and possible destroyed the planet in a fit of petty rage because someone insulted him on twitter.
No Trump and Clinton's foreign policy positions are not equivalent, not even Trump and Pence's are, Trump with nuclear weapons would be the equivalent of giving Saddam Hussain, Adolf Hitler, Mussolini or Gadaffi nuclear weapons.
Clinton on her worst day might start an unjustified and illegal war (though I don't believe she would) Trump on a bad day (not even his worst) could easily destroy the planet.
Oh that's a crock of shit. Don't now try and pretend that you give a dam about the lives of brown people halfway around the world, you've made it very clear that you care only for the lives of people in developed countries, hell possibly only the US.
You're showing your total ignorance of foreign policy again. Gaddafi specifically was not even recognised as the leader of Libya before his removal and Assad is likewise not universally recognised.
Oh and hi Aprilla if you're still reeding this thread by now.
edited 22nd Sep '16 7:09:56 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.” ~ Cyran
I'd much rather have a living President Trump than one who dies a martyr. Especially if the democrats and/or the military are implicated in the plot against him, because if that's the case, it gives any would be autocrat all the reason they need to purge the opposition and the military, as is happening right now in Turkey, and they'd have a very easy time getting elected.
edited 22nd Sep '16 7:12:13 PM by CaptainCapsase
![]()
![]()
So I take you're just fine with "legitimate" leaders committing genocide and forcing the rest of the world to just stand and watch?
Excellent. The Khmer Rouge would have loved you (as did ASEAN at the time).
That's why I reckon any plot against a President-elect Trump will need to ensure that Pence dies as well. granted, you'd probably have a major insurgency in the south. The "memers" on the other hand... that's a wildcard assuming they don't blow themselves and only themselves up instead.
edited 22nd Sep '16 7:12:48 PM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot

edited 22nd Sep '16 6:14:48 PM by CaptainCapsase