TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

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

CrimsonZephyr Would that it were so simple. from Massachusetts Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
Would that it were so simple.
#141526: Oct 4th 2016 at 9:16:38 AM

[up][up][up][up]I mean, fine, I'm okay with not touching the subject of variations in American foreign policy across presidential administrations, but when the daft and intellectually dishonest "both parties are the same" thesis is thrown around again, it should be addressed. Otherwise, this thread becomes a microcosm of r/politics.

edited 4th Oct '16 9:16:59 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."
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#141527: Oct 4th 2016 at 9:18:34 AM

[up] Exactly. False equivalences must be addressed if this topic is to remain intellectually honest.

The idea that Democrats and Republicans are substantially equivalent on foreign policy is only sustainable if one takes the view that all use of military power outside one's own borders is inherently wrong. If that's your belief, fine, but say so, and be prepared to justify it.

edited 4th Oct '16 9:20:00 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#141528: Oct 4th 2016 at 9:20:40 AM

And credit where it's due for Obama, if they aren't torn down by his sucessors he'll have left office having pulled off two impressive feats of diplomacy, the Iran deal and the new diplomatic relations with Cuba.

"We are willing to extend you our hand so long as you will unclench your fist."

LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#141529: Oct 4th 2016 at 9:21:14 AM

But something something the Iran deal is the worst deal in the history of deals or whatever.

Oh really when?
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#141530: Oct 4th 2016 at 9:23:25 AM

[up][up] "broadly similar" does not mean identical. There are differences between presidents, and those differences are clustered by party, but I don't see a case for them being all that great between parties. Trump is almost uniquely incompetent.

edited 4th Oct '16 9:24:26 AM by CaptainCapsase

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#141531: Oct 4th 2016 at 9:23:47 AM

Also, the "accelerationist" viewpoint that we need to drive out both parties in order to arrive at some theoretical solution where everyone is magically equal and there is no abuse of political power is just... daft. It's not only daft, but suicidally reckless, because if you tear down Democrats because they don't conduct themselves in accordance with your perfect ideology, then what's left over won't be your magical world, but a world in which Republicans run the show, and do it much, much worse.

[up] "Uniquely incompetent"... are you forgetting George W. Bush? Or his daddy, George H. W. Bush? I mean, sure, there are orders of magnitude of incompetence, and Trump occupies a place all his own at that table, but many of the foreign policy disasters of recent memory are the direct responsibility of Republican administrations.

edited 4th Oct '16 9:25:27 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#141532: Oct 4th 2016 at 9:26:04 AM

Accelerationism is hoping to achieve positive change by deliberately installing leaders who accentuate destabilizing factors in the political system. Believing both parties need to go is therefore not an inherently accelerationist position.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#141533: Oct 4th 2016 at 9:29:18 AM

But you offer nothing with which to replace them. Power vacuums don't magically spawn competent leadership. Ergo, your position is indistinguishable from accelerationism in its outcome.

edited 4th Oct '16 9:29:49 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#141534: Oct 4th 2016 at 9:29:41 AM

I was 4 when H.W. Bush was inaugurated so I don't really know what he's infamous for. All I remember was Desert Storm and I don't believe that was a disaster (and was UN approved to boot, IIRC, or at least NATO approved).

edited 4th Oct '16 9:31:23 AM by Elle

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#141535: Oct 4th 2016 at 9:31:19 AM

H.W. offered astonishing vapidity as his primary attribute, something that was prescient with respect to his son. Desert Storm was a rare moment of international solidarity behind the administration, and you'll note that he was the only single-term President since Carter. Aside from that, he carried on Reagan's programs of deregulation and slash-and-burn tax cutting, which helped set the stage for the economic crisis that Clinton had to fix.

Worth noting is that the operation against Iraq in 1990-1991, while it restored the sovereignty of Kuwait, did nothing to repair the regional stresses, and was essentially a precursor to the Iraq War in 2003 — testing the waters, to so speak.

edited 4th Oct '16 9:34:43 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#141536: Oct 4th 2016 at 9:33:27 AM

Single term, granted, but were there any actual foreign policy disasters? Because supposedly he lost on domestic policy, not foreign ("It's the economy, stupid!").

KarkatTheDalek Not as angry as the name would suggest. from Somwhere in Time/Space Since: Mar, 2012 Relationship Status: You're a beautiful woman, probably
Not as angry as the name would suggest.
#141537: Oct 4th 2016 at 9:34:07 AM

[up][up][up][up] Wait, if your argument is that Cap isn't offering anything to replace the system we have, then how does saying that's no different from accelerationism make any sense, if accelerationism is at least in part defined by finding competent leaders to replace the ones we have?

edited 4th Oct '16 9:34:17 AM by KarkatTheDalek

Oh God! Natural light!
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#141538: Oct 4th 2016 at 9:35:26 AM

[up]Accelerationism is running the system to destruction and hoping to slot your preferred leadership into the chaos that results. It's reckless in the extreme, especially as those advocating it have yet to present anyone even remotely competent or viable as their replacement. Both it and the "throw out the bums" ideology have this same basic failing.

[up][up] As I said, the Iraqi operation in 1991 was basically the testing ground for 2003. The administration wanted to pursue the matter all the way to Baghdad, but was dissuaded.

edited 4th Oct '16 9:39:38 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#141539: Oct 4th 2016 at 9:41:26 AM

[up] And I'm not saying both parties need to go.

KarkatTheDalek Not as angry as the name would suggest. from Somwhere in Time/Space Since: Mar, 2012 Relationship Status: You're a beautiful woman, probably
Not as angry as the name would suggest.
#141540: Oct 4th 2016 at 9:42:54 AM

Come to think of it, I think I misunderstood what Cap meant by "accentuate destabilizing factors".

That does sound pretty dangerous, actually. I mean, I do think our government probably needs some changes, but I'd prefer to try to fill the cracks before deciding to knock the whole thing down.

edited 4th Oct '16 9:53:26 AM by KarkatTheDalek

Oh God! Natural light!
Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#141541: Oct 4th 2016 at 9:44:06 AM

I kind of doubt that Bush Sr. foresaw it as an inroad to Iraq for Bush Jr. and my main reason for that doubt is that they couldn't have predicted 9/11 ten years before it happened. No, Iraq had no actual connection to 9/11 but the effect it had on public opinion towards the Middle East played a pretty huge role in Bush Jr. and Rumsfeld being able to sell the war to the public and to Congress.

And honestly, if they had pushed Desert Storm all the way to Bagdhad in 91, I'm not sure that would have been a bad thing as long as we committed to the reconstruction (though it probably would have been overstepping).

edited 4th Oct '16 9:50:10 AM by Elle

TheWanderer Student of Story from Somewhere in New England (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
Student of Story
#141542: Oct 4th 2016 at 9:44:44 AM

I mean, fine, I'm okay with not touching the subject of variations in American foreign policy across presidential administrations, but when the daft and intellectually dishonest "both parties are the same" thesis is thrown around again, it should be addressed. Otherwise, this thread becomes a microcosm of r/politics.

In general I agree wholeheartedly. And have done the same in other places, both real life and forums. But in this case we have a person who has heard it all before, won't change their mind, isn't really interested in even-handed debate, (as this person has in the past demanded peer reviewed studies as the only acceptable evidence for things contrary to their beliefs, while being content to say "I suppose" as the evidence for their pet theories/beliefs) and it's just going to go around in circles and get us all either frustrated or just desperately trying to scroll down until the subject changes to anything else.

And I, for one, could do with less head-desking.

| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#141543: Oct 4th 2016 at 9:50:06 AM

People haven't asked for peer reviewed pieces, they've usually responded with rhetoric. When I do post actual academic links or book titles, they simply aren't read, either because of paywalls, or simple laziness.

Moreover, disagreements usually aren't factual. More often than not I think they are philosophical.

edited 4th Oct '16 9:52:10 AM by CaptainCapsase

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#141544: Oct 4th 2016 at 9:58:00 AM

[up][up][up] It must be remembered that 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq. While the Afghan war could be justified thinly on the basis of preventing another such attack (retributive war and all), the operation against Saddam Hussein was nothing of the sort. There had, for a long time, been a desire in Republican policy circles to tackle Iraq and bring it to heel. One can see this sort of fantasizing in such things as Tom Clancy novels. Saddam, being a dictator of our own making, was something of an embarrassment to the neoconservative, post-Cold War ideological circles and needed to be erased.

I have serious doubts that a pursuit of Operation Desert Storm into Baghdad in 1991 would have had any better results than Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, if only because the same budget wonks who were only too happy to borrow money recklessly to fund wars would have yanked on the purse strings as soon as the focus turned to nation-building. It's also, sadly, true that the PMCs that bribed Cheney and company for lucrative contracts in Iraq weren't as big a factor back then. There just wasn't enough private corporate profit involved.

Regardless, the religious and factional conflicts in Iraq were not significantly different in 1991, and would have resulted in much the same de facto civil war state that the nation finds itself in now. We could have created ISIS 12 years early, whoopee! /sarcasm

[up] Where paywalls are involved, you can post excerpts. And accusing your opponents of "laziness" is, itself, lazy, and doesn't actually support your arguments.

edited 4th Oct '16 10:01:12 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
TheWanderer Student of Story from Somewhere in New England (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
Student of Story
#141545: Oct 4th 2016 at 10:05:20 AM

[up][up] Some months ago, I posted an internal police review that concluded that racism played a part on their problems, and your response, Cap, was to essentially say that you wanted it to be peer reviewed before really taking it seriously.

By contrast, a few weeks ago in a talk with Fighteer, you were willing to rely on your assumptions without providing any evidence, even when Fighteer called you on the fact that your argument had no bedrock except your own assumptions.

Hence why I don't think you're worth arguing with, or the time the posters on this thread take debating you.

But I guess you're right, it is all about your philosophy and rhetoric. Glad you can see that much.

edited 4th Oct '16 10:06:27 AM by TheWanderer

| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#141546: Oct 4th 2016 at 10:05:40 AM

And honestly, if they had pushed Desert Storm all the way to Bagdhad in 91, I'm not sure that would have been a bad thing as long as we committed to the reconstruction (though it probably would have been overstepping).

It was. The various UN Resolutions only covered Kuwait.

However, there were operations within Iraq right after the Gulf War, mostly up in the Kurdish areas.

Regardless, the religious and factional conflicts in Iraq were not significantly different in 1991, and would have resulted in much the same de facto civil war state that the nation finds itself in now. We could have created ISIS 12 years early, whoopee! /sarcasm

It almost happened. There were several uprisings in 1991, with the populations involved wishing for the Coalition to go all the way to Baghdad.

And by the way, Syria was a member of the Gulf War Coalition.

edited 4th Oct '16 10:08:22 AM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On
Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#141547: Oct 4th 2016 at 10:12:10 AM

Well, to be honest, I basically agree with the neocons that Sadam, as a dictator of our own making, was an embarrassment and indictment of our Cold War policies and needed to be gotten rid of. (Though without the implied tone that would be coming from those who were much more closely connected to putting him there in the first place, even if only by association.)

I don't approve of how it ultimately happened (under false pretenses with a shoddy job at reconstruction after) but I'm not sorry it was done. And as I've mentioned here before, the ultimate outcome of Iraq is a more nuanced mixed bag than current public opinion holds.

edited 4th Oct '16 10:22:01 AM by Elle

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#141548: Oct 4th 2016 at 10:15:27 AM

[up][up][up] Nobody here is particularly good at providing credible sources. I'm no better in that regard, but I'm mainly here to talk to people I disagree with. As vigorously as possible while still having an actual discussion rather than simple name calling.

If I recall that particular discussion about police correctly, that was more a discussion about methodology; a study's results are only as good as the study's methodology.

edited 4th Oct '16 10:21:06 AM by CaptainCapsase

Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#141549: Oct 4th 2016 at 10:21:03 AM

[up]

Nobody here is particularly good at providing credible sources.

One reason is that few have access (or the time/finances) to use academic-level sources — and in addition, most discussion on this section of the Forum is on Current Affairs, which obviously such sources are unavailable.

Keep Rolling On
carbon-mantis Collector Of Fine Oddities from Trumpland Since: Mar, 2010 Relationship Status: Married to my murderer
Collector Of Fine Oddities
#141550: Oct 4th 2016 at 10:24:16 AM

Yahoo revealed to be working directly with the NSA, monitoring all inbound/outbound email traffic in real-time.

Other big names have refused to comment, leading to speculation that Yahoo may be tip of the iceberg.

edited 4th Oct '16 10:25:37 AM by carbon-mantis


Total posts: 417,856
Top