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
Any argument based on the premise of "you don't seriously think [X], do you?" without being able to present any actual evidence to support the idea that [X] is untrue is basically a conspiracy theory. Rather than having any arguments in its favor, it just casts aspersions on the idea that they could be wrong — usually be insinuating that their conclusion is so obvious that anyone who disagrees must be naive, ignorant, or a shill.
That attitude is, consciously or not, an attempt to shift the burden of proof. Instead of saying "I think [X] and here's why", they're saying "[X] is true, prove me wrong". By doing this, they can reject whatever argument you make, because they've made it your job to convince them that they're wrong, rather than accepting that it's their job to prove their extraordinary claims with extraordinary evidence.
Anyone who has to resort to this usually doesn't have much of an actual argument to back their claims.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.![]()
![]()
That's a big "if", and again is something for which you have offered no proof.
The reason we look askance at faulty argumentation like this is that it's not something that one can have a rational debate about. If one side creates a giant flimsy argument out of nothing and refuses to defend it with facts, there's nothing to discuss other than how stubborn and/or ignorant they're being. That's why we shut down such arguments if they go on long enough.
edited 24th Oct '16 12:06:02 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!""???? Not sure censorship is a good way to go about disputing dissenting opinions.
It's better to overwhelm them with irrefutable logic.
Also. The hell is "The Beltway"?"
The Beltway is conversational shorthand for the D.C. Metro area.
Also, we're not censoring him. He's been trading in conspiracy theories nonstop all year that are impossible to take seriously without accepting the central assumption that America is a neo-colonialist hegemon bent on dominating world politics at every level, and anyone committed to the preservation of American influence under the current paradigm (i.e. reality) is an unrepentant warmonger.
edited 24th Oct '16 12:07:42 PM 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."Capsase, I think you're the only one assuming that. And poorly backing up your logic.
The world is fundamentally different than the world before WWII, for a whole goddamned eight decades and more long list. And you just seem primed to assume the worst outcome for everything, even when logic flies in the face of it.
edited 24th Oct '16 12:11:22 PM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.~Captain Capsase: Please wind back the unsupported fringe theories, thanks. We may not need evidence that Donald Trump is racist, but your claims are non-obvious and very likely wrong to boot.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynmankkho: A multipolar world where great powers have their own respective spheres of influence and ruthlessly compete against each other for power and influence, to render the geopolitics of the long 19th century down to a single sentence.
Let me add that while I suspect the beltway wants a war to assert American hegemony, it's very possible public opinion will render that untenable. Probably even likely. But don't doubt the capacity of a belligerent government to manufacture a Cassus Belli. What Bush did really isn't especially unusual by historical standards.
Edit: I'd argue these aren't fringe theories, just a someone unorthodox school of geopolitical thought. There's no strong scholarly consensus on whether or not the United States's unipolar moment is teneable in the long term, and many scholarly sources on geopolitics view US overseas actions in terms of imperialism. I'm simply putting two defensible stances together.
We can put this to rest though if you insist.
edited 24th Oct '16 12:16:33 PM by CaptainCapsase
And following on from what Mark said, I'll throw //Confessions of an Economic Hitman
'' into the ring. It's mostly about the crap we were up to in the 80s but a sobering read nonetheless. Not all the claims made are substantiated but they're being made by a guy who was in the thick of arranging it.
The entire notion that America has an "empire" is stupid to begin with. A base that only takes up the space of like an airport is not an empire. Any colonies we've had we've given up except for Guam and Puerto Rico and American Samoa, and we give those places voting rights (even if they can't be states). Plus those bases are there by the consent of the governments of the country's they're in, and if they want us gone, we will leave (like the Phillipines, Duterte, you bastard).
Alliances have been the basis of foreign policy for millennia. And besides, who cares about Turkey? Turkey is a backwater, wannabe major power that tramples all over its people's civil rights while criticizing the rest of the world for not being as morally bankrupt as Erdogan.
"We can put this to rest now, as you've insisted, just as soon as I've squeezed my last two cents in."
It's like arguing with myself. How is it I've found a kindred spirit with someone with opposite viewpoints as myself?
Say to the others who did not follow through You're still our brothers, and we will fight for youLet's put it this way: if we continue to elect Republican governments, sooner or later you'll get your vindication as far as unjust, imperialistic wars. But we are hopefully not headed that way, nor will we be if we can avoid it. And Hillary Clinton is not the warmonger you seem to think she is, without presenting any evidence other than vague fears about how America inevitably does that kind of thing because "history".
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
I was 3/4ths writing it when I was asked to stop.
I think public opinion is very likely to prevent an outright war just as it has under Obama, but that could change if the right set of circumstances allow the government to fan the flames of jingoism, and I don't think the democrats are as innocent as you claim; Iraq had Bipartisan support, it wasn't just a neoconservative cabal behind it.
edited 24th Oct '16 12:23:28 PM by CaptainCapsase
it also happens to be very similar to the Nixon-Kissinger school of realpolitik ironically enough given communism was their Casus Belli, albeit descriptive
rather than prescriptive.
It's also called historical materialism, and it's one of the elements of Marxist thought that saw widespread adoption beyond Marxist spheres in academia, because it's a legitimately brilliant way of looking at history.
edited 24th Oct '16 12:37:45 PM by CaptainCapsase
"I think public opinion is very likely to prevent an outright war just as it has under Obama, but that could change if the right set of circumstances allow the government to fan the flames of jingoism, and I don't think the democrats are as innocent as you claim; Iraq had Bipartisan support, it wasn't just a neoconservative cabal behind it."
I think we should introduce some numbers here, as far as the voting records go. The bill in question was the Iraq Resolution.
Yea: 215 R, 82 D
Nay: 6 R, 126 D
Abst: 2 R, 1 D
There's a kernel of truth in that assertion, but it obfuscates the truth that Democrats formed the vast majority of the bill's opposition. Here's a full breakdown. Here
◊. There definitely were Democrats, including Hillary, who voted yes, but it was still a Republican (read: neoconservative effort).
It was spearheaded by the GOP, but more than half of senate democrats (your figure is just he House) and major center left figures (Tony Blair) abroad also supported it. I'd call that bipartisan, not unanimously so, but enough to prove the point I'm making.
edited 24th Oct '16 12:41:40 PM by CaptainCapsase
That's the democrat's pet piece of historical revisionism at work. There was every reason to suspect those claims could be fabricated, else the UN resolution for regime change in Iraq wouldn't have failed, and the declaration of war aganst
Iraq wouldn't be a war crime.
edited 24th Oct '16 12:46:38 PM by CaptainCapsase
It really doesn't, given that the scenarios you've suggested have none of the same causes that lead to the Iraq war. Unless you expect Iran or North Korea to launch terrorist attacks on US soil again.
It didn't happen just because, it happened there was a very specific attack providing motivation. Your reasoning here is not "we were attacked" or "political groups within the government used the attack as an excuse to wage war and benefit" but rather "the geopolitical reality and alliances are going to change in the future, therefor Clinton wants to and will wage war on someone." The latter is simply not supported by her history in dealing with foreign entities.
I mean, hell, it just seems like you think war is the first response to everything. Or that the desire for bringing troops back home will fade away. Or, again, you forget that war is expensive and there are options that can be reached for first with this scenario.
The argument could be made you're making your own revisions in insisting that they should have known.Or that the UN should have authority over the US.
(I'm sure that many think it should, but current reality is it serves more as a diplomatic platform than anything else.)
edited 24th Oct '16 12:47:27 PM by AceofSpades

Are you sure what the beltway consensus is through? A new war would be very politically unpopular right now at a time when both the far right and far left are preaching isolationism and even the centrists aren't likely to support one without a clear cause. Part of Clinton being part of the political establishment, as much as it's used as a critique, is that she pays a heck of a lot of attention to public opinion, something reinforced by the Podesta emails.
@everyone: "The Beltway" refers to the highways around Washington DC and is basically slang for the DC political machine and the area it operates from.
edited 24th Oct '16 12:06:58 PM by Elle