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
![]()
So you're claiming that Clinton could have started a nuclear war, and Trump won't?
I do not believe you can substantiate that claim.
Regardless, what of the long term effects of climate change? What good is having a country in 4 years if the world's getting flooded in 50?
Oh God! Natural light!Alas just like everything else all we have is the internet and media to put claims to. Factcheck shows that Trump says the US needs to rethink its position in NATO, not pull out. Hillary saying it needs to be modernized means the same thing, so this is a neutral position. Equal on both sides.
Climate Change, yea the problem with that is even if we commit ourselves to green energy, China isn't going to. So the effect would not be substantial. It really needs to be a global decision and that isn't going to happen so the planet will flood in 50 years anyway.
edited 20th Nov '16 5:06:36 AM by StephanReiken
Last I heard it not only was not that simple as 'not support Japan' but that from Japanese news they kinda like the idea of being allowed to have a real military again. Instead of what we allow them to have now while covering their defense for them.
You know that we don't allow them that right since we defeated them? Allowing Japan to build up its military again so that we don't have to cover them seems like a good idea if we trust Japan.
edited 20th Nov '16 5:12:57 AM by StephanReiken
I never found Clinton to be especially hawkish. Rather I felt that she actually believed in upholding America's commitment to NATO, which Trump is a bit more ambiguous on. And in the Middle-East, Trump is a lot more hawkish then Hillary.
I seriously doubt Hillary would of ever just provoke a nuclear war on a whim. But if Russia does something unbelievably stupid like invade the Baltic States or Poland, she would of done was needed to be done. And I think Russia knew that, so even if they wanted to take over the Baltic States or Poland, they wouldn't while Hillary was President.
In fact I'd argue that some form of nuclear exchange is actually more likely under Trump, just one not (initially at least) involving the US. If Russia pushes into Eastern Europe and the European side of NATO is having trouble even slowing them down, then I think there's a legitimate scenario where one of the nuclear-armed European powers (such as France) panics and deploys nuclear weapons against Russia's conventional forces.
Oh, and on the climate change issue. There's value in leading by example, we are in a much better position to pressure China into making the necessary changes if we've already done it ourselves. And even if we decide to forsake the prevention route entirely to go down a purely "damage mitigation" route, we still need people in charge that understand the damage we are going to have to mitigate.
edited 20th Nov '16 5:18:30 AM by Falrinn
And I'm willing to bet that you don't have any basis for this claim.
Oh God! Natural light!My basis for the claim that 90% of climate change science is 'science' is that politicians say what people want to hear and turn anything they can to their advantage. As climate change is a politically charged subject, I have no way to verify which sources are real science. So yea, I'm betting that 90% of it is paid for or based on faulty, biased premise. Its hard to put faith on one answer or the other.
First I've heard that other countries are trying to go green though.
edited 20th Nov '16 5:27:38 AM by StephanReiken
@Reiken: You have no idea what you're talking about. I have a background in the sciences, and it is abundantly clear that anthropogenic climate change is an extremely serious issue.
There is some wiggle room about the severity, but even the most conservative estimates paint a pretty dire picture, one that keeps getting worse. Objective science is objective science, we are not talking about gender studies, anthropology, or even higlyvrespected fields of social science like economics.
edited 20th Nov '16 5:29:57 AM by CaptainCapsase
Then why don't you do some?
For example, listen to what scientists have to say?
Oh God! Natural light!XKCD did an excellent little graphic on global temperature averages
@The Handler 156895
I didn't say he was a Trump supporter, in fact I noted he said he denied being one—what I said was he was an apologist, meaning he was defending him and his statements and policies. And the article most certainly does that. Nor did I say he was a bigot. All I was noting was that his analysis was not thorough, unbiased, or consistent because a) he dismissed far too easily the various racist comments Trump has made, without properly proving that Trump is not a racist or white supremacist, so I'd hardly call that serious and original research, and more importantly b) he makes no reference whatsoever to appointments Trump has made like Sessions, Flynn, and Bannon. So even if I give him credence for his commentary on not dismissing all of Trump's supporters as racist (and that is in fact one of the "good points" I referred to agreeing with), I see no reason not to dismiss his final conclusion.
If he can do all that research and analysis, not even mention the extremely blatant racists and white supremacists Trump is appointing to his administration, and then conclude Trump is not a racist and therefore no minorities need to worry, then it isn't prejudiced or dogmatic to dismiss it at all. It's a very simple case of a false conclusion based on incomplete data. Even if his analysis of Trump's statements and policies were accurate (and I don't think it is, at least not entirely), the simple fact he left out Trump's appointments—which are an extremely valid way of determining his mindset and intentions going forward—makes the article's conclusion intellectually dishonest.
And even if one argues that Trump doesn't believe what he's said and has no intention of carrying those policies out himself, he's appointed people who do and will, so that makes him just as culpable—and provides a pretty good reason for people to be afraid.
![]()
![]()
Well hey, there's now a decent chance that me or my prospective children will die because of climate change, so thanks a whole lot for not bothering to do any research before voting for a guy who's going to destroy any hope we have of salvaging the environment.
I don't even understand how this is a question. Trump is a racist sexual predator completely devoid of human decency. His victory and his subsequent cabinet appointments are being wildly celebrated by white supremacists the world 'round. We have never been in more danger of turning into a fascist kleptocracy - in fact, it looks inevitable at this point.
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."I understand your concerns, I really do, but I disagree with your premise. And I have a difficult time believing Sanders had a shot, given the American kneejerk reaction to the word 'socialist,' and all of the other slander Republicans would have brought up against him. You can twist something into slander for pretty much any person who could run for the presidency.
Additionally, I would much rather someone with actual foreign policy experience work with Russia.
Still, the election is over. Maybe it's better that we didn't have another 4 years of gridlock that would allow the Republicans to win with someone actually competent next time? I don't know.
edited 20th Nov '16 5:42:31 AM by Pseudopartition
Climate change isn't a debate. It's happening, we're responsible, and the only quibbling is "to what degree" and even then it's generally agreed "Almost entirely" with scientists quibbling over significant digits because beancounting is what they do.
edited 20th Nov '16 5:40:40 AM by Lanceleoghauni
"Coffee! Coffeecoffeecoffee! Coffee! Not as strong as Meth-amphetamine, but it lets you keep your teeth!"
x5 I love the alt text on that one.
edited 20th Nov '16 5:41:34 AM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!It's not too difficult, really.
Trump Government denies Climate Change. That's a bad thing. There. What effects it will have on the environment, social structures or humanity as a whole is irrelevant if we know it will be bad world-wide.
To that end, the sole supernation of the world should not under any circumstances deny it. Really, if North Korea can recognize the problem, it makes GOP's stance even worse.
The worst part is we're rapidly approaching the deadline for "Radical steps needed before irrevocable environmental change occurs" and I don't see us doing much about it.
edited 20th Nov '16 5:43:21 AM by Lanceleoghauni
"Coffee! Coffeecoffeecoffee! Coffee! Not as strong as Meth-amphetamine, but it lets you keep your teeth!"@Ing: then say he is misguided. You said what I would liken to the League of Legends community, and the general perception of how SJ Ws behave.
You called it completely Toxic because it didn't agree exactly with your own views.

Donald Trump already endangers millions of lives in Eastern Europe through his irresponsible words regarding NATO. He risks starting WW3 with that alone. Yes, even words of president-elect might trigger a war here if Russians feel like the US won't intervene and do their Article 5 duties.
So far he hasn't been shown to be able to learn and to be able to not behave in a way that is not damaging to the US interests. Dead Harambe would be better president than him. Hell, even Jill Stein would be.
The fact that you consider a person willing to trade security of Eastern European allies of the USA for a couple of million Russian rubbles* an acceptable person to be the president doesn't speak well of your judgement.
No-fly zone in Syria is not such a big deal as NATO being destroyed or the USA being shown to be unwilling to actually defend their allies. NATO being destroyed means that either European countries start arms race against Russia AND the USA or become Russian vassal states.