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
X4 I'd rather a martyr, President Pence with full control over the US goverment due to a surge in popularity following a Trump assassination would be terrible, he'd likely turn the US into a neo-fascist state and launch several wars and commit numerous crimes against humanity.
But we as a species could survive that, I'm not convinced that we as a species could survive 4 years of Donald Trump with a the red button in front of him.
X3 Pence would be a threat to several nations and the US, Trump represents a threat to us as a species.
The human race can survive a violent retaliation, we'd likely see a war with Mexico and probably several others, but that beats the alternative of 7 billion people dying in nuclear fire.
edited 22nd Sep '16 7:16:08 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![]()
That's precisely what I just said.
I really don't think Trump is nearly as impulsive or stupid as you think he is. He's devious, power-hungry, greedy, and deeply cynical of the intelligence of his fellow Americans, but not stupid (at least not completely stupid), and not so impulsive that he'd destroy the world on a whim.
As insane as he's often come across, there's a clear method to his madness, and while his campaign strategy makes absolutely no sense from a political perspective, it makes a reasonable amount of sense from a business marketing perspective.
edited 22nd Sep '16 7:20:25 PM by CaptainCapsase
![]()
![]()
![]()
One wishy-washy comment does not a strong point make. In fact, that is the only comment made by him before the war that sounded remotely skeptical. In fact, a year before he was saying the exact opposite thing
.
edited 22nd Sep '16 7:17:46 PM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot
X3 I'm not sure if he has the capability to understand that he'd be destroying the world, the man's been protected and sheltered his entire life, he doesn't understand consequences.
I'd put money on Trump having he same basket of mental disorders that it's theorised plagued Gadaffi, Hitler, Saddam and others.
There's method to his madness but only in the same way that there was method to the madness of Gadaffi, Hitler and Saddam, one can be intelligent in a technical sense and still be totally unable to empathise or sympathise, not to mention an inability to understand consequences.
edited 22nd Sep '16 7:19:46 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@Silasw 1) The fact that I don't think the Western powers should illegally intervene in the affairs of other countries doesn'r mean that I don't care about "brown people". Interventions have made things worse. Who's worse, Saddam or ISIL?
2) Of course Gaddafi was the legitimate leader of Libya. He has been for decades.
edited 22nd Sep '16 7:20:22 PM by 940131
@string-of-numbers
Qaddafi and Assad were killing their own people long, long before the USA stepped in. Both threatened to deploy—and in Assad's case did deploy—weapons of mass destruction against those who opposed them.
You can't claim to support the Libyan or Syrian peoples when you've repeatedly denied their right to rid themselves of totalitarian rulers.
I don't know. Got an accurate bodycount for ISIS? Because Saddam killed at least a quarter million of his own, and that's with the lowest estimates.
Anyway, none of this changes the fact that we haven't been talking about Saddam. We've been talking about Qaddafi and Assad. Both of whom were slaughtering their own civilians long before anyone else stepped in.
Look, we get that you're an anti-democrat, but the rest of the thread disagrees with you on that. Qaddafi was an army captain who launched a coup d'etat then spent the next couple of decades shooting anybody who disagreed with him. There's nothing legitimate about that.
I asked this before and you dodged the question. I'll ask again—was Augusto Pinochet the "legitimate" ruler of Chile? He ruled for over seventeen years after all.
edited 22nd Sep '16 7:23:29 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
No, its the fact that you don't think brown people should get to chose their leaders (presumably because you think they're to stupid for democracy) and the fact that you oppose legal international interventions that shows that you don't care about brown people.
That's not how legitimacy works.
edited 22nd Sep '16 7:23:06 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@Ambar 1) Saddam was gassing Kurds while he was Allied to the US by the way. If the Americans care so much, shouldn't they do something about Israel and Saudi Arabia? They're America's closest allies in the Middle East after all.
2) I never said that the Syrians and Libyans didn't have a right to rebel. I said that the West didn't have a legal right to intervene. There's a difference.
edited 22nd Sep '16 7:23:54 PM by 940131
You assume that Saddam would have remained fit to rule forever. He would have to hand over power to his one of his sons at one point, and they were even worse than he is
. By the way, it's easy to destroy documents on people you've liquidated, they're still looking through mass graves in Iraq from the Saddam era.
Sierra Leone, Kosovo, East Timor, all of these are successful interventions. So, are you going to keep moving the goalposts instead of admitting to isolationist masturbation?
Because the Americans care about keeping alliances over ideals, like any diplomat with an interest in the preservation of your state does. And have you even bothered reading what the US has been saying to Israeli leaders outside of what floats to the top of r/UncensoredNews?
edited 22nd Sep '16 7:27:44 PM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotThat has nothing to do with the question at hand. You asked if Saddam was worse than ISIS. I gave you Saddam's bodycount. Now you give me ISIS'. Who supported who and when is irrelevant to that question.
Oh, and if you want to equate the Israelis with Saddam you've officially lost all touch with reality.
And I ask again—was Pinochet the legal ruler of Chile?
edited 22nd Sep '16 7:26:28 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Sure but you don't want that do you? You've never made mention of Israel or Saudi Arabia independent of saying (not actual quote) "well the US should let Assad kill people because it let's Israel and Saudi Arabia do it", you've not come by either the Middle East or Israel threads and give an opinion there, so don't try and pretend you care about said issues other than as a useful "gotcha!" that doesn't work because none of us support such support.
No, you just called both countries dictators legitimate rulers despite the majority of their people having shown that they don't want them as their rulers.Totally different. I take it you'd consider Obama the legitimate ruler of the US if he stayed on as president illegally after January?
edited 22nd Sep '16 7:28:47 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.” ~ CyranIt's a mistake to say that the outcome of Iraq was across the board worse. Iraq did get democracy and their government is part of the effort to push ISIL back out. The Kurds got autonomy and relative stability. We went in for bad reasons, did not do nearly as well at nation building as we needed to and we are a major reason jihadist Islam spiked in the area, but not everywhere in Iraq is a war zone either.
@Silas: Beyond the ticking timebomb that is climate change (which can't really be tied to any one leader, hence the lack of action on that front), Trump is very unlikely to be apocalyptic. Disastrous, particularly for the US, but not apocalyptic in and of himself. He might not understand why we can't use nukes, but if he tries to give an order to do so outside of the accepted conditions for a nuclear strike, he's very likely to find himself bleeding out on the floor with a bullet in his chest. Quite possibly fired by one of his own bodyguards. There's limits to what orders a leader, even an autocratic leader like Putin, can give and actually have their authority respected.
edited 22nd Sep '16 7:30:29 PM by CaptainCapsase
Trying to equate Israel with Saddam Hussein is special. I hate pretty much everything about Israeli treatment of the Palestinians but does it come within a thousand miles of Saddam's treatment of his minorities? Not even close.
When you find mass graves filled with Palestinians you can make that comparison, and not one second before.
edited 22nd Sep '16 7:31:48 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
I suspect that if Trump is elected and the international community don't do something than it may come to that, which is far to close to extinction or my liking.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
He's not as far as I can tell, beyond stating both the US's major allies in the middle east have major human rights issues. Moreover, like he said, the US was friendly with Iraq when the worst atrocities were happening. That's geopolitics of course, and I'm not sure what exactly his point here is, though I must admit I'm skeptical that the US would actually withdraw its support from Israel even if they were committing genocide against the Palestinians. They have nukes, and are regarded as a critical ally. Ergo, they can do what they want as long as they're still on the "right" side. We'll criticize them, but they'll never face actual consequences beyond finger wagging.
edited 22nd Sep '16 7:36:24 PM by CaptainCapsase
@Krieger 22 What they're saying is irrelevant if they're not doing anything about it. The peace talks are a sham. How many decades is it going to take for people to acknowlege that. America has Allies in the region that are bad actors. Are they worse than Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad? I'm not ecessarily saying tht although I suspect Palestinians and the people of Yemen would disagree.
@Ambar Yes. Pinochet was legitimate. Legitimacy is about recognition. Hitler and Stalin were legitimate. They were still terrible people.
@Captain My point is that Westerners that want to pretend that military intervention is all about human rights are being hypocritical. Few if any world leaders make foreign policy decisions purely based on humanitarian concerns and the fact that the Americans are willing to ignore the worst atrocities of their allies or speechify about freedom and democracy while allied with Saudi Arabia makes that very clear.
edited 22nd Sep '16 7:41:17 PM by 940131
It's a meaningless statement though, so long as those major allies don't have human rights' records that are worse than Saddam's. The Israeli record is not worse than Saddam's.
Well, at least you aren't being hypocritical (on this particular and specific issue, mind). Pro-American dictatorships, anti-American dictatorships, they're all legit to you so long as they successfully repress all local opposition.
edited 22nd Sep '16 7:41:25 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
If he says "the people" he's flat out lying given his opinion of the Libyan and Syrian revolutionaries.
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. Once again, you asked if ISIS is better than Saddam. I gave you Saddam's—conservatively estimated—bodycount. I'm still waiting for you to give me ISIS'.
edited 22nd Sep '16 7:43:42 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
X3 Considering Assad it appears (s)he doesn't even think that one has to successfully repress poison ton, just have done so at one point.
X4 Again I'll ask my question, would Obama be the legitimate ruler of the US if come January he refused to leave office and stayed president?
Also bull on us saying that humanitarian intervention is done for benign reasons, it's by and large done because strategic interests cross with moral interests (which are themselves strategic) and out ballence other factors.
edited 22nd Sep '16 7:49:54 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

@Krieger 22 The best evidence they have of him supporting the war is "Yeah. I guess so." The audio's online. Listen to it and tell me it's a ringing endorsement. After that he talked to Neil Cavuto on Fox and suggested that Bush should wait for the UN and worry about the economy. He was never a strong supporter of that war.