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
Imagine President the Rock and Vice-President Ron Perlman.
The unrivaled might of such a nation
"All you Fascists bound to lose."The Rock has always seemed like a decent guy to me but the last thing I want is for american politics to turn into a celebrity circus.
Given the choice between a decent person who will legitimately try and has competent people assisting them, and Trump, there's no real choice, but governing is a politician's JOB.
Agreed. Once that floodgate opens, it could be perilously difficult to close, in an age as obsessed with celebrities and showmanship as ours. Leaders should be people with policies, principles, and qualifications, not mere star power or social media presence.
Those things aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, it's true - but still, it's not a trend I want to see encouraged.
On the other hand, again - if someone comes along who can dislodge the GOP, then it might be necessary in the long run. We need to retake power at pretty much any cost.
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."On Japan:
Which is why security a political hot potato even for the LDP in Japan. Necessary and even welcomed on the US side, but you'll also notice many problems in how it's done and a general ignorance of anything relating to armed forces or national security in the public at large. The US was a very useful go-between with South Korea as well, who for obvious reasons have reservations about Japan's militarization (publically, if not in practice).
Senkaku is Japanese territory, and the Yasukuni shrine is an unsolvable issue until most of the older conservative wing dies (which is happening already). It's just cheap political points for SK and China at this point.
edited 18th Nov '16 1:13:18 PM by TerminusEst
Si Vis Pacem, Para PerkeleSay, how come people weren't flipping their shit back during GWB's tenure, which IIRC was also marked by a period of Republican dominance in the Congress? Is it because there was no Tea Party hijacking the GOP's agenda and driving it to far-rightism?
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.SHADDAP SESSIONS.
Seriously, quit peddling that lie that marijuana is dangerous.
But, but, EBIL HIWWAWY IS A WARMONGER.
Clinton wouldn't have accelerated this particular trend towards illiberal democracy in the way Trump has, but I doubt she and many other democratic leaders recognized it as a problem, and thus wouldn't have made any attempts to avert it. It's also not entirely impossible we would've gone to war under a Clinton presidency, nothing on the scale of Iran, but the same sort of bipartisan failures that lead to Iraq could potentially have happen again under a Clinton administration.
It wouldn't have been anything compared to the sort of insanity Trump seems poised to bring to the table however.
edited 18th Nov '16 1:35:48 PM by CaptainCapsase
![]()
I'm not sure what you mean by "avert" in this case. Democrats, at least since Clinton, have seemed to go out of their way to ask politely how other nations felt about it before we invaded them or their neighbors. Republican administrations have not had quite the same track record. This meme about how Hillary is a neocon imperialist is frustratingly impervious to facts and reason.
Did she not negotiate a peace treaty with Iran? I mean, come on folks. There is no evidence that she would suddenly go on the damn warpath. None!
edited 18th Nov '16 1:36:30 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
Clinton's no neoconservative, but I still maintain that the democrats to this day seriously undersell their own role in enabling the invasion of Iraq and all the disasters that stemmed from that. While most of the accusations leveled against Hillary Clinton over the course of this election are baseless, Powell's denouncement of her hubris seems very on point given how she lost the election, and hubris is something that was very much part of why Iraq was such a disaster.
As far as "avert", leftist intellectuals have been warning that America is on a path towards illiberal democracy (or managed democracy or inverted totalitarianism depending on which term is being used) for many years now.
edited 18th Nov '16 1:42:36 PM by CaptainCapsase
FWIW, the NATO chief is confident Trump will honor the NATO commitment after their meeting.
Whether Trump actually follows through on it, of course, remains to be seen.
edited 18th Nov '16 1:51:34 PM by speedyboris

It's highly unlikely that they'll be able to pull off another Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere situation anyway.