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
Trump is an irrational actor and if we don't kneecap Putin he'll install more irrational actors. We need to stop him because the more Trump type people we have in power the greater a chance one of them does start WW3.
edited 10th May '17 11:22:56 AM by Kostya
![]()
The notion that not escalating a confrontation means the other party will only grow bolder and more belligerent is not really consistent with history*; such an outcome is far from impossible from conciliatory measures, but far from inevitable, and not escalating doesn't necessarily mean letting down one's guard.
* Nazi Germany is very much the exception in this regard, and they are more or less the single most prominent example of an irrational actor in international relations. Contrast that to the success of British appeasement of the United States earlier in the 20th century, and most other cases where great power confrontations were defused through diplomacy.
edited 10th May '17 11:28:01 AM by CaptainCapsase
Who is this "we" that's going to go after Putin's government? Right now the executive authority in this country is owned by Trump and his allies. It's too late — we've lost that war. Putin has destabilized us and guaranteed that even if we aren't totally destroyed, we are neutralized: unable to effectively oppose Russia's interests due to staggering incompetence.
I mean, sure, maybe Europe's nations could go after Russia to prevent the same thing happening to them. But it's about six months too late for the United States.
We lost, time to pack it in and wait for the redo in 2020. Where, by the way, voting demographics may not be favorable because, guess what, Trump's sabotaging the census
.
edited 10th May '17 11:28:35 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"- Nazi Germany is very much the exception in this regard, and they are more or less the single most prominent example of an irrational actor in international relations. Contrast that to the success of British appeasement of the United States earlier in the 20th century, and most other cases where great power confrontations were defused through diplomacy.
![]()
Appointed by the President, confirmed by the senate.
It's very unlikely we can be friends with Russia in the near future, but we don't necessarily have to be mortal enemies, and in fact for the sake of the world it's very important that this confrontation does not become too heated. While Russia* is unwilling to budge in regards to what it views as its core security interests in eastern Europe, the further away from the Russian border one looks, the more room there is for negotiation, as was the case with the Iran deal.
* And I mean Russia, not just Putin's government, because it's likely even a democratic Russia would be extremely upset about its neighbors aligning with the EU and/or NATO.
edited 10th May '17 11:46:30 AM by CaptainCapsase
![]()
![]()
While I do believe some other tropers may be getting too hawkish here, being from a country where the US interfered with our democracy I believe that messing with another country's elections is a line that shouldn't be crossed and that there should be some big consequences to anyone that tries.
That aside, here's a Quinnipiac poll
where they asked people for the first thing that comes to mind when talking about Trump. Most results are pretty negative on him:
- idiot 39
- incompetent 31
- liar 30
- leader 25
- unqualified 25
- president 22
- strong 21
- businessman 18
- ignorant 16
- egotistical 15
- asshole 13
- stupid 13
- arrogant 12
- trying 12
- bully 11
- business 11
- narcissist 11
- successful 11
- disgusting 10
- great 10
- clown 9
- dishonest 9
- racist 9
- American 8
- bigot 8
- good 8
- money 8
- smart 8
- buffoon 7
- con-man 7
- crazy 7
- different 7
- disaster 7
- rich 7
- despicable 6
- dictator 6
- aggressive 5
- blowhard 5
- decisive 5
- embarrassment 5
- evil 5
- greedy 5
- inexperienced 5
- mental 5
- negotiator 5
- patriotism 5
It's not defeatism to admit you lost a battle. The average person's ability to influence foreign affairs is limited to voting for people they agree with and making a stink when the government does stuff we don't like.
It is pointless to call for US retaliation when the ruling administration opposes it. We're hamstrung until we can deal with our internal shit.
edited 10th May '17 12:07:43 PM by Fourthspartan56
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangIf Russia had sent in a special forces team to sneak around and rifle through filing cabinets, would that constitute an attack in your mind? Because that's essentially what they did. The fact that it happened through a computer instead of in person doesn't change the fact that they broke in, stole information, and then escaped without being caught (until much later, well after the fact, when the damage had already been done).
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.What was the situation again, he hates Trump but hated Hilary more for all the weird reasons that people hated Hilary. Going after people you hate doesn't really imply integrity either way.
Especially when, presumably if Hilary were president he'd still be able to continue the investigation on her, whereas with Trump he probably should have seen this coming.
edited 10th May '17 12:31:28 PM by LSBK
Comey was a toad, but removing him on Trump's terms is disastrous. We're approaching a point where something could be considered malevolent because Trump did it — his intent is pure evil.
"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."![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
I agree, how douchely they fired him just brings me joy. But what doesn't make me happy is that Trump fired him, the President firing the guy in charge of investigating him is awful.
edited 10th May '17 12:31:35 PM by Fourthspartan56
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang@Ambar Son Of Deshar: My main point was that it was stupid to blame Sanders for Mello's defeat: if he didn't get his endorsement, he might have lost even harder. I do agree that the Democrats do not need to follow Bernie's policies in order to create the "Blue Wave". Moving more towards the left, specially in terms of healthcare is something I would personally like to see though.
About Russia's hacking, if there's anything to be done in this situation, it's not to "attack" them or whatever other extreme solutions being proposed here are, but to fight their spread of misinformation, by funding teams for the prevention of hacking and cyber-terrorism for example.
edited 10th May '17 12:35:42 PM by Grafite
Life is unfair...
You may have a point; Thinking about it, Mallo didn't have the best Abortion Policies. Him being Anti-Abortion might've hurt his chances with the Youth Vote. Without Sanders' Endorsement, Mallo could've gotten creamed.
Which makes me think that Sanders has no real power himself, he just represents what the Youth want. They want someone like Sanders, not someone like Mallo.
I agree in principle with the sovereignty argument but It will be hard to get the argument to stick unless we can prove without doubt that Trump and team were in on it (something that might happen if the rumblings from British intelligence examining the Steele dossier are accurate).
Back in October the warning Obama gave Putin was that tampering with the actual voting process was the Line that Must Not Be Crossed. At the time it wasn't known whether Trump was complicit or a dupe. Being complicit changes the game as well as the way it's prosecuted. The legal definition of treason under the Constitution is something I keep harping on and if they're complicit it starts to be a very close call where I can't say whether a court wouldn't rule it to be so.
But as a statement of general principle: messing with other countries elections is the very definition of treading on soverneignty because in a democratic system, elections are the equivalent of royal succession in a monarchy - the process in which the authority of the government rests.

Edit: Mandatory voting doesn't inherently solve the problem of ignorant voters turning out for the guy that offers them the Moon and/or promises to stick it to those evil "others".
Not mention, again, that until we solve voter suppression, mandatory voting just further penalizes the already disenfranchised.