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
![]()
![]()
No they wouldn't.
![]()
![]()
![]()
I don't buy it. Not the way the CIA's been doing this.
edited 5th Oct '16 3:26:49 AM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.![]()
the funny thing is, if the GOP had the presidency, he's be a hero to the democrats and his alleged rapes would be completely glossed over in liberal circles and dismissed as trumped up charges.
The realization that whether something is viewed "good" or "bad" is largely a partisan issue is something that I'd argue is critical to understanding modern American politics. Perhaps even politics in general across all of history.
edited 4th Oct '16 8:24:13 AM by CaptainCapsase
Hey, politics are partisan and often irrational. And today, the sun rose. I predict that it will set, and that the air tomorrow will have a temperature. You don't win any rhetorical points by stating the blindingly obvious as if it were a damning indictment of the system. Nor is this some unique fact of American politics.
edited 4th Oct '16 8:29:23 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
The trappings of power are universal. That said, only someone astonishingly ignorant or operating under an ideological agenda could possibly hold the two U.S. parties as substantially similar.
I keep talking to people like this: "The system is inherently corrupt. Both parties abuse power and do illegal things. It's all a bunch of politicians taking rich people's money to screw over everyone else. We need to tear down the system and put one in place that's fair." This is such a cop-out, such an abrogation of intellectual responsibility, that it'd be shocking if I hadn't heard it so often. Your "3edgy5me" hipster cynicism doesn't impress at all.
edited 4th Oct '16 8:41:57 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
In terms of rhetoric, the difference is substantial yes, and there is some tangible differences in regards to economic policy, and a somewhat larger gap in terms of social policy. But for the rest of the world, that's largely irrelevant; foreign policy is pretty consistent between parties.
edited 4th Oct '16 8:44:28 AM by CaptainCapsase
"Both parties are the same" "What makes you say that?" "Well, for example, if Assange was messing with a Republican president, we'd be cheering him on" "What's your evidence for that?" "Because both parties are the same."
In other news, circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works
◊.
No offense, but as I point out again and again, I don't quite think you're going to face the consequences of the very stark, very real differences between the parties.
One party believes in a strong safety night (and PLEASE don't give me what the Democrats did in the 90s). One party sees them as 'entitlements' that must be annihilated because people work best with the freedom to starve.
One party believes climate change is real and a major threat to human civilization. One party believes it's liberal hogwash.
One party believes in funding the arts and the sciences. One party believes this sort of thing is absurd.
One party believes big banks should face some sort of regulation so they can't destroy the economy. One party believes regulations are a sinister plot to inhibit business.
One party believes in national parks, and environmental protection. One party believes the EPA needs to be dismantled and national parks should be sold to the states to be parsed off to private interests.
One party believes that just maybe, we should adhere to traditional interrogation methods and civil rights. The other party believes quite openly "let's torture them because they deserve it" and due process ceases to matter if we don't like you.
It is a measure of extreme privilege to claim both parties are the same, or even superficially similar when for some people the difference is being able to vote, to eat, breathe clean air and drink clean water and in some cases, the difference between life and death. You think Republican philosophy didn't influence the massive screw ups with FEMA, which contrasts starkly to how Obama has handled the same organization?
And look at states that accepted the Medicaid expansion versus states that didn't. It is not hyperbole to say people have died without life saving care that could have been saved if not for a certain political party.
edited 4th Oct '16 8:49:43 AM by Lightysnake
@Capsace: Again, that is a ridiculously narrow view of the differences between the two parties, that can only be supported by an aggressive indifference to nuance. Anyway, if your sole interest in U.S. politics is foreign policy, then you're missing out on about 90% of the actual debate, so... yeah. Thanks for sharing.
edited 4th Oct '16 8:49:34 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"And WHAT official definition of terrorism? There is no official, internationally agreed upon definition of terrorism. From Wikipedia:
For example, by the United States' definition (U.S. Code Title 22 Chapter 38, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as: "Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."), you could not argue that strategic bombing is terrorism, nor could you easily argue that the USAF's use of drones constitutes terrorism, though you might be able to argue that the CIA, as a clandestine organization, is committing terrorism when it does drone strikes.
Under other definitions, terrorism cannot be committed by state actors, and instead, their transgressions are already adequately described under international law that relies on less contentious and more clearly defined terminology than terrorism, such as war crimes and international human rights law.
The only way Republican and Democratic foreign policies "remain the same" is if you want a dramatic paradigm shift in how the US interacts with the rest of the world, and from that perspective, American foreign policy remains broadly similar because there are only a few politically acceptable ways to maneuver within international institutions as they stand today. You can't reshape reality to fit ideology.
edited 4th Oct '16 8:54:42 AM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."The main differences I see between Bush and Obama is that Obama is more willing to negotiate with state actors, seek multi-lateral solutions and carry a good reputation. He was less forceful on the initial Syria things than I think he should have been but he's continued the War on Terror in a way that a Republican would approve of it the Republicans weren't hellbent on discrediting his every move.
He difference between Obama and Bush in terms of foreign policy is that Bush ended up in a situation where the UN didn't sign off on his wars, Obama didn't. That reflects better on his competence, and he has certainly been above average in regards to non-hawkishness.
edited 4th Oct '16 9:13:23 AM by CaptainCapsase
Regarding the recent topic of disagreement:
Have we been here before? I feel like we've been here before. Maybe we should move on from conversations where, to all appearances, certain people have no intention of even considering changing their mind or addressing their biases.
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |Or the need to sustain the weapon industry.
edited 4th Oct '16 9:16:07 AM by flameboy21th
Non Indicative Username

edited 4th Oct '16 8:13:57 AM by CaptainCapsase