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

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#159426: Nov 29th 2016 at 8:12:29 PM
Thumped: This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping. Stay on topic, please.
Disgusted, but not surprised
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#159427: Nov 29th 2016 at 8:14:22 PM
Thumped: This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping. Stay on topic, please.
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#159428: Nov 29th 2016 at 8:16:50 PM
Thumped: This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping. Stay on topic, please.
Disgusted, but not surprised
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#159429: Nov 29th 2016 at 8:18:22 PM
Thumped: This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping. Stay on topic, please.
JulianLapostat Since: Feb, 2014
#159430: Nov 29th 2016 at 8:19:16 PM
Thumped: This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping. Stay on topic, please.
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#159431: Nov 29th 2016 at 8:21:51 PM
Thumped: for switching the discussion from the topic to a person. Doesn't take many of this kind of thump to bring a suspension. Stay on the topic, not the people in the discussion.
JulianLapostat Since: Feb, 2014
#159432: Nov 29th 2016 at 8:27:02 PM

Carter was overly demonized by the Republicans so some on the left overly sentimentalized him in turn. Objectively he was the weakest of the Democrat Presidents since FDR...and overall I'd rank him as third worst after Reagan and Bush II, just ahead of JFK and Truman. Reagan, Bush II, Carter, Bush I, JFK...would count as the five weakest Presidents in USA since WWII in my view.

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#159433: Nov 29th 2016 at 8:27:46 PM
Thumped: This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping. Stay on topic, please.
Disgusted, but not surprised
ViperMagnum357 Since: Mar, 2012
#159434: Nov 29th 2016 at 8:28:17 PM
Thumped: This post has been thumped with the mod stick. This means knock it off.
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#159435: Nov 29th 2016 at 8:30:43 PM

Funny/sad thing? Even Reagan would probably be horrified at what the GOP has become. "I didn't think things would get this bad!"

edited 29th Nov '16 8:30:56 PM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#159436: Nov 29th 2016 at 8:36:11 PM

@Julian

Way to miss the point on pretty much everything.

Please don't throw Mccarthyist phrases like "hard-left" for no reason.

Then don't make an argument primarily made by the fringe left. The notion that acknowledging someone's victimhood somehow equates to denying them agency is a ludicrous one. It's an argument that is genuinely more concerned with being PC than actually helping anyone, playing to every right-wing stereotype about leftists and academics in the process.

And for the love of God, don't denounce people you disagree with as "McCarthyist". You don't see anyone denouncing you as a Stalinist or anything equally inane.

And by the way, saying the Iraq War is a mistake doesn't mean that Saddam Hussein's reign is vindicated or justified. I thought that went without saying, but the point is if you don't have a proper plan or basis, you should not go toppling other governments and then say "Mission Accomplished".

No one in this thread, least of all me, would disagree with that second part. Problem is, you were trying to use Saddam as part of your effort to defend authoritarian states, which means you are, in point of fact, justifying and vindicating his reign.

The comment that you were responding to when this started was my comment about how modern democracies are superior to modern dictatorships. Saying a stable dictatorship was better than an invasion and civil war in no way addresses that point. Saddam's regime was a nightmare.

The minute you can say that British and American Imperialism was bad but others are worse...you open the doors for people to say that so-and-so dictator was worse than others.

And your point is what? Of course some dictators are worse than others. That in no way invalidates the basic point that all dictatorships are bad. Some are better, some are worse, but all are bad. Really, this is a very simple concept. It's not that you can't argue against it, but thus far you're not.

The fact is you can't have an absolute liberal worldview, because that means that only a small portion of the world's population, mostly people living in the Anglophone and the EU, know true freedom and are truly empowered while the rest of the world can go f—k themselves.

First off, lay off the bold. Nobody wants to deal with a guy who is shouting.

Second, the only person telling people throughout the rest of the world to go fuck themselves, is you—the guy defending dictatorship and claiming that acknowledging the suffering of others is somehow rude.

Third, and I can't believe I have to say this, yeah—vast swathes of the world do live in miserable conditions, under repressive, illiberal regimes. That's a reality. That's a statement of fact. To pretend otherwise is the very sort of intellectual dishonesty you claim to despise. All over the planet, dictatorships are hurting people. It sucks.

PS—Before you claim that this is the kind of thinking that justified the invasion of Iraq, don't even go there. Being aware people are getting hurt does not necessarily mean you invade their country to help them (in fact that's downright counterproductive most of the time).

It's not a foundation that the advanced nations applied to themselves, and it's not one they practise with their relations with Singaporean plutocrats like Lee Kuan-Yew and with Saudi Arabia.

So? The fact that the US government doesn't acknowledge that those states are bad is one of the many gripes that I have with them. Seriously, you want to act as though the fact that America regularly allies with states it should not somehow excuses the crimes of the states it does not ally with. That's a crock.

That the United States is friendly with, or worse yet, actively backs states like the Saudi government doesn't suddenly transform Saddam's Iraq or Putin's Russia into bastions of human rights. It just means that American foreign policy is not as rooted in morality as it should be—something I think everybody is aware of.

Because it's not something that is actually practised in reality nor is it reflected in any real archival historical study.

It's totally something that's practised in reality. Dictatorships are bad, and they leave the bodycount behind them to prove it. You somehow keep mixing up "American foreign policy" with "accurate moral judgement" here.

I'll spell it out again—that the USA, or any other democratic power, allies with a dictatorship does not make that dictatorship inherently good, or invalidate my original point, namely that dictatorships are, in general, worse than democracies.

As for historical archival study...keep making those statements. Lots of historians in the world. You don't speak for all of us.

TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor
#159437: Nov 29th 2016 at 8:36:11 PM

Reagan would be terrified that his party has fallen so low and hates Democrats so much on a personal level they're willing to play ball with the Russians

New Survey coming this weekend!
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#159438: Nov 29th 2016 at 8:38:58 PM

[up][up] But that kind of logic is precisely what was used to justify the war in Iraq, and earlier to justify countless interventions, oftentimes toppling democratically elected governments, in the name of fighting some nebulous Soviet threat that had long since been effectively contained in the areas of the world where the United States was operating.

The point Julian is trying to make, I think, is that there's not really a very strong case for "Humanitarian Intervention" being anything more than a modern incarnation of the white man's burden, namely a rationalization for imperialism, presumably believed by just as many of the people in power as its predecessor. For the handful of positive outcomes, you have dozens of democracies toppled, delusional state building projects, and thinly veiled neocolonial wars.

edited 29th Nov '16 8:47:04 PM by CaptainCapsase

JulianLapostat Since: Feb, 2014
#159439: Nov 29th 2016 at 8:44:28 PM

Truman dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I don't think anyone who does that ought to get very far up the ladder. Now I am familiar with the arguments citing the reasons for that, I have read it carefully and I don't accept it...and I don't want to start a debate on that here since that can get ugly. My opinion against that is emotional mostly and born of my convictions and I know that quite a few smart people, like Eric Hobsbawm weirdly enough, have accepted that it was necessary.

Truman domestically let Mccarthyism and HUAC run roughshod at that time, oversaw Taft-Hartley and the Smith Act trials. These were major setbacks and he did not do enough to speak out against it or take a stand especially since I gather he was not 100% on board for but it happened on his watch and as his campaign insisted, "the Buck stops here". Foreign policy wise, he started the Cold War. I gather he also started desegregation in the Army but you know you don't get a prize for doing the right thing after everything else has been tried especially since the Democrat party are the main reason why we had Jim Crow to begin with.

JFK was worse than Truman...Truman's participation in the dropping of the bombs can be excused on inexperience being a VP suddenly put into power on short notice and told about this secret project...JFK on the other hand triggered the Cuban Missile Crisis despite knowing what it meant. He oversaw the disastrous bay of pigs, and the cuban embargo and he got America into Vietnam. I more or less see JFK as the Original Reagan-Trump...incompetent rich-kid playboy who used his TV charm and good looks to sell dangerous voodoo...and who got a permanent halo effect thanks to that assassination, which yes, Oswald did and acted alone.

MonsieurThenardier Searching from Murika Since: Nov, 2016 Relationship Status: Getting away with murder
Searching
#159440: Nov 29th 2016 at 8:47:09 PM

That the United States is friendly with, or worse yet, actively backs states like the Saudi government
This is the best thing they can do. The Saudi government is considerably more liberal than the rest of the population.

Truman dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I don't think anyone who does that ought to get very far up the ladder. Now I am familiar with the arguments citing the reasons for that, I have read it carefully and I don't accept it...and I don't want to start a debate on that here since that can get ugly.
There's no debate to be had. You are objectively incorrect if you think not doing so would have resulted in a net gain of lives on Earth.

edited 29th Nov '16 8:48:06 PM by MonsieurThenardier

"It is very easy to be kind; the difficulty lies in being just."
LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#159441: Nov 29th 2016 at 8:49:05 PM

Lets not hold the bomb dropping against Truman. It was the right thing to do at the time. Our original plan was much worse.

Oh really when?
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#159442: Nov 29th 2016 at 8:49:55 PM

[up] In hindsight it was wrong because Japan was prepared to capitulate after the Soviet Union entered the war.

MonsieurThenardier Searching from Murika Since: Nov, 2016 Relationship Status: Getting away with murder
Searching
#159443: Nov 29th 2016 at 8:51:03 PM

No they weren't.

[up][up]The original plan was pretty brilliant from a military point of view. Completely bypass fighting their 4-million strong army by destroying their transportation infrastructure. Japan's railways were completely undefended and the only way to deliver food to much of the country.

edited 29th Nov '16 8:54:20 PM by MonsieurThenardier

"It is very easy to be kind; the difficulty lies in being just."
Jasaiga Since: Jan, 2015
#159444: Nov 29th 2016 at 8:51:27 PM

Was the Far-Left always this crazy, or did this election just turn everyone batshit?

The amount of cognitive dissonance and double think on social media is stunning.

We have a legitimate threat to our democracy and these guys want to kick out the moderates?

How is that a remotely good idea?!

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#159445: Nov 29th 2016 at 8:51:32 PM

Weren't there supposedly some particularly stubborn generals in Japan who wanted to keep fighting to the bitter end? To the point of even contempating a coup when the rest of the government was ready to surrender?

[up] The Far-left have always been pretty badshit crazy.

edited 29th Nov '16 8:53:46 PM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
MonsieurThenardier Searching from Murika Since: Nov, 2016 Relationship Status: Getting away with murder
Searching
#159446: Nov 29th 2016 at 8:52:18 PM
Thumped: This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping. Stay on topic, please.
"It is very easy to be kind; the difficulty lies in being just."
ViperMagnum357 Since: Mar, 2012
#159447: Nov 29th 2016 at 8:53:45 PM

Some of the Japanese military actually did attempt a coup after be given explicit orders to stand down by the Emperor. They may not have all fought to the death, but it would have been ugly.

[nja]'d.

edited 29th Nov '16 8:54:00 PM by ViperMagnum357

TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor
#159448: Nov 29th 2016 at 8:53:47 PM
Thumped: This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping. Stay on topic, please.
New Survey coming this weekend!
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#159449: Nov 29th 2016 at 8:54:18 PM

@Monsieur: Yes, because clearly Japan was a ravenous horde of foreign barbarians, and not an approximately rational state actor like pretty much any other global power. The hope for a brokered peace became untenable when the Soviet Union entered the war, and Japan's vision of a glorious last stand was a pipe dream that could have never been realized. Their defense would've swiftly collapsed and they knew it, and if they were really insane enough to try it, I suppose you could argue it was for the best since the alternative was a partition between a Soviet Puppet state and an American puppet state as was the case in Korea.

edited 29th Nov '16 8:56:23 PM by CaptainCapsase

MonsieurThenardier Searching from Murika Since: Nov, 2016 Relationship Status: Getting away with murder
Searching
#159450: Nov 29th 2016 at 8:56:06 PM

Yes, because clearly Japan was a ravenous horde of foreign barbarians, and not an approximately rational state actor like pretty much any other global power.
If they were a rational state actor, they wouldn't have started the war. They were demonstrably not. You show very little knowledge of the Japanese national psychology at the time. The reason the bomb was so big was because it allowed them to save face by surrendering to a superweapon rather than just admitting they lost the war.

The hope for a brokered peace became untenable when the Soviet Union entered the war.
The hope for a brokered peace became untenable the minute the first bomb landed on Pearl Harbor. It didn't stop them.

and Japan's vision of a glorious last stand was a pipe dream that could have never been realized.
Yes, but only because the USAAF and USN had both dismissed any invasion plan. The new plan was just to starve Japan into submission.

Their defense would've swiftly collapsed,
There wouldn't have been a defense. Just famine (well, and more fighting in Manchuria, Southeast Asia, China, etc.). It was very narrowly averted in the OTL by massive American food imports.

and if they were really insane enough to try it, I suppose you could argue it was for the best since the alternative was a partition between a Soviet Puppet state and an American puppet state as was the case in Korea.
No, this is complete bull. The Soviets didn't have the amphibious capabilities to invade Japan (and the only reason they were even able to barely invade a series of tiny islands was because of donation of amphibious craft from the USA- they only get to invade Japan if the USA says they can), and would be plenty busy in Manchuria anyway. This isn't a matter of moralizing, this is just a military reality.

edited 29th Nov '16 8:58:55 PM by MonsieurThenardier

"It is very easy to be kind; the difficulty lies in being just."

Total posts: 417,856
Top