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
To be honest, I think that is because the concept of war or firefight is starting to get normalized. Just look at the media. So many works are more focused on the glory or the gore of war than the trauma or the tragedy that it brought.
Or it could also be some sort of denial that things can't get any worse than this or if it is, it isn't going to be that bad?
Only an experienced editor who has a name possesses the ability to truly understand my work - What 90% of writers I'm in charge of said.One thing to keep in mind about the China thing as well. Part of the reason (and a rather small part, to be fair) they have basically no force projection is because they have no bases outside of China's immediate vicinity.
Now, what if there's a country right next to the US that has an enormous bone to pick with the US and is cozying up with China? Hell, in a really extreme case, what if there's two?
My thoughts on war with China:
Let's face it: Which country doesn't have nukes and knows that an nuclear war against someone could be suicidal (because of mutual destruction or third-party retaliation)? And there will always be some sort of war going; it's just an matter of when the next big one will happen.
Answer no master, never the slave Carry your dreams down into the grave Every heart, like every soul, equal to breakTrump isn't the only World Leader making an ass out of himself on Twitter
The ACLU is suing the Fuhrer over the Muslim ban.
Godspeed. These battles are expensive, so they're asking for donations from anyone who has a little cash to spare.
One of the people being detained at JKF Airport, Hameed Darweesh, has been released.
He served as a translator for the US, but was detained anyway, and not permitted to see his lawyer.
Protests are forming outside JFK Airport,
with citizens demanding the release of the detainees. A heavy police presence is forming.
edited 28th Jan '17 10:34:05 AM by tclittle
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."Green card holders are being handcuffed
, their social media reviewed, and they are being asked about their views on Trump.
What happens if you answer wrong?
Fascism is officially here.
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."Oh, they'll uphold it. Look at the horrible shit we did to our own citizens even before Trump took office.
And we also need to take what's happening now as a dire warning, even as we fight it. The ban is the first step. Next comes the registry. And after that...well, let's try and make sure it never gets to that point.
Remember that other time a racist authoritarian demagogue forced an entire religious minority to enter a national registry? Remember how that turned out?
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."This is going to get really messy if/when Trump follows up on his campaign promise to deport refugees already (legally) inside the US. I mean, that's against international law, but since when has that mattered to fascists?
I wonder if any countries are considering an "American ban"? Or maybe a "Republican ban"...
edited 28th Jan '17 10:52:25 AM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.And it's going to mean literal jackbooted thugs going door-to-door trying to root out the refugees and immigrants. At that point, no one gets to say that the Godwin's Law comparisons are unwarranted. I've seen a lot of people saying that they're trying to think of where to hide Anne Frank.
It's also the point where I could see actual violent resistance becoming widespread. Which would be...yeah, let's try and stop this thing now. Right now.
Seriously, where are our Congressional leaders? Why are none of the Senate Democrats introducing legislature to fight back against these executive orders? They're pretty much the only ones in any position to directly limit his power right now.
Also, there were certainly plenty of jokes after the election that Mexico would happily pay for the wall...so long as they could make damn sure that it would keep all the Americans out.
edited 28th Jan '17 10:55:53 AM by RBluefish
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."
My guess is they probably are. There have been a lot of parallels between what's happening in the US and UK - in part because of shared media ownership interests and shared campaign teams (Trump's early campaign teams ran the Brexit campaign).
The media in the UK won't report on what opponents of the government are doing, except when it can be used to humiliate opponents. Related media in the US are probably starving GOP opponents of oxygen as well.
You're going to need to do leg-work to find out if the Democrats are working on this. A lot of media won't volunteer the information.
I do remember a couple of days ago something reported by Republicans that the media has barely picked up on — I'll see if I can find it to link to it, but it looks like the Senate is able to block some of these things Congress is trying to get through Trump, at least for the short term; the ACA repeal is one of the big ones, but it's not the only one.
The Senate Republicans (for the moment) seem to be a tiny bit more realistic and less reactionary than the GOP, which is causing the GOP ructions — the Senate Republicans do not behave in the way they want them to behave and it's causing rifts, such as thinking the filibuster is more safe than the GOP wants because they know Republicans may need it in the future.
I'll try and find the link, but it's not getting much coverage because reactionary GOP decisions that threaten democracy is the bigger story than the news that at least some of the Senate Republicans are more opposed to some of this trend than the GOP wants them to be.
That could just mean the Senate Republicans don't fully understand what they're facing (in which case things are very bad) but right now they seem to think the GOP isn't going to get everything it thinks it can get.
edited 28th Jan '17 11:13:56 AM by Wyldchyld
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.![]()
Keep this article in mind: Democrats are putting up a tougher fight than liberals realize
.
Hmm, interesting. Thanks for the insight. Question, though - if some of the Congressional Democrats were trying to actively fight this, wouldn't we hear about it from them? A lot of them have pretty high social media presences, and "I am fighting this" would generate a lot of goodwill from their constituents.
Also, a reporter is covering the JFK protests live here
for those interested.
In lighter news, Wikipedia's page on invertebrates briefly had Paul Ryan added to it.
And yes, this is related to Ryan's craven refusal to condemn the Muslim ban.
edited 28th Jan '17 11:16:09 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedChina is estimated to hold an arsenal of 300 nuclear warheads, most of them stored underground complexes and their launch platforms are in a non ready to fire state. Which makes them a second strike only force.
The US has 750 missile silos on a ready to fire state, that is not counting the SLBM Boomer fleet for first and second strike capability.
A nuclear exchange between the US and China is the last thing China would want to enter because they know it is a war they won't win, not even with a Pyrrhic victory.
Inter arma enim silent leges
The trouble is even if we assume that China is a rational actor, right now I'm not betting on the United States being a rational actor.
As in I could easily envision Trump kick-starting a war with China over an insignificant, or even entirely imagined, slight. Once open hostilities start, it's a very short road from there to nuclear war.
![]()
China is rational enough to know it should avoid a nuclear conflict, hence why they are up for grabs in Africa and using a mix of soft and hard power to get what they want in Asia.
For the US, even if Trumps act all retarded like he is, I'd hardly think anyone would be on board with him trying to start a nuclear war with China.
Not as much, their DF missiles can reach parts of the US mainland.
edited 28th Jan '17 11:42:51 AM by AngelusNox
Inter arma enim silent leges

edited 28th Jan '17 9:49:18 AM by Swanpride