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
![]()
![]()
![]()
Those are international values, and the only people holding them back are folks like the alt-right, who say shit like #RepealThe19th
Sorry bout that. I just felt like all the questionmarks in the world couldn't express my complete and utter confusion
edited 22nd Oct '16 12:50:32 PM by blkwhtrbbt
Say to the others who did not follow through You're still our brothers, and we will fight for youThe Dem base is far from apathetic towards patriotism, the Democratic conference proved that.
Now the Greens are anti-US, that's actually the only way their foreign policy platform makes sense, it's not pro anything (even the environment), it's just anti the United States current focus.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran@Jackolantern 1337 You seem to be complaining about the anti-imperialist/alt-left. They're a fringe in US politics and hate the Democrats, hence they flock to the Greens. The Democrats and mainstream left want change within the system, not its downfall. By Orwell's standards that's the textbook definition of patriotism.
edited 22nd Oct '16 12:55:05 PM by AlleyOop
@US/Russian conflict: A nuclear engagement is the end result of a US/Russian war and neither side wants to be the one who ends the world so it's in everyone's best interest to never come to actual blows. Now can it happen? That's a more difficult question to answer.
Most of those reading this probably never checked it out but you should give The Day After a shot if your into movies that saved the world. It takes a mostly realistic look at what a post-nuclear america would look like but the more pertinent part is how the world got there and that is through a series of min-escalations until someone finally hits the big button. Sfdebris has a video for those interested in a video essay.
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?War isn't going to happen because of the emails or due to the Putinbots trying to mess the US election system, no one on either side is stupid enough to go to war for such petty reason.
But whenever Hillary says "Russia" Putin's popularity at Russia and abroad rises though and Putin knows it.
Inter arma enim silent legesPutin isn't going to let a nuclear war happen and neither will Clinton. Both of them are probably the most qualified people in the world for their jobs and they both know how the whole international diplomacy and conflict game is played.
Open conflict, even if it's not nuclear, is extreme detrimental to both sides and runs counter to ours and their interests. We're both gonna do everything to avoid it.
Oh really when?And despite Rational Wiki's insistence that Hillary is a warhawk (they're supposed to against the anti-imperialist left, but their articles on her reek of far left propagandizing), she knows as well as anyone else that actually going to war with Russia is a fruitless endeavor.
Eh,she's pretty hawkish, or more specifically, she's not averse to putting down small countries when it benefits the US. I don't see her picking a fight if victory isn't assured though. We might see a Guantanamo type situation in the Philippines if that idiot follows through on his rhetoric but I seriously doubt he's doing more then trying to get the US off his back.
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?Hawkishness is relative, though honestly the only legitimate concern about Clinton starting WW3 would be if she bought Wesley Clark out of retirement and into a position of power, as Clark did once try and start WW3.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThis Vox article
suggests that determining whether HRC is a true hawk or dove is very complicated. The gist of it is that HRC is a believer in America's merits and power and that the country should be engaged in the world. But she believes that power is not limited to military power alone. She's actually more likely to resort to nonviolent and diplomatic solutions. But again, it's complicated.
edited 22nd Oct '16 1:34:20 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised![]()
![]()
What does "likely to put down small countries" mean, exactly?
Oh lord, the war with Russia thing again. I was making fun of this just a few pages back.
To anybody who thinks that no-fly zone will somehow lead to a war with Russia—have you never read a history book? Are you somehow not cognizant of the fact that America repeatedly shot down Soviet planes during the Cold War? Did you miss the Korean War and Vietnam Wars in which Soviet and American pilots fought one another as a part of a proxy war? The USA has killed Russians before. The Russians have, for that matter, killed Americans before. The world is still here.
@Best Of
The only part of your otherwise excellent post that you may be wrong about is the notion that no nation in NATO would ever use nuclear weapons without American permission. That's true of the British, perhaps, but not the French. During the Cold War, French nuclear policy was far more radical than American or British—or Soviet—policy, calling for the use of tactical nuclear warheads to annihilate conventional Warsaw Pact forces in the event they broke through the line in Germany and endangered France. While the French have decommissioned many of their Cold War warheads, including all their land-based IRBMs they still have the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world (in terms of number of warheads, not kilotons), and remain open about their willingness to use them (one French official actually threatened nuclear retaliation against al-Qaeda in 2006 if memory serves, though luckily nothing came of that).
Now, obviously, the Russians aren't going to be threatening Paris anytime soon, but when it comes to nuclear weapons and Europe, France does remain something of a wildcard. There's a reason why I was joking a few pages back about Trump deciding to invade France and causing the USA to get nuked with missiles bearing the legend "Fuck you, monsieur" on the side.
@fighteer: I seriously doubt she'd pick a fight she couldn't win and small countries without big friends are fair play. She's fine with moving on Libya because no one cares but I doubt she'd move on any of russias bigger allies.
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?

Don't get me wrong they believe in things like freedom and democracy, thought they tend to have their own vocabulary for them, but they tend to view them as international left wing values and view the United States as a reactionary racist country holding those things back.
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.