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
Has this been touched on yet? Trump tweet on health care spending at odds with White House budget.
The House Republican plan to replace the Affordable Care Act, which narrowly passed this month after strong lobbying by the White House and House Speaker Paul Ryan, would cut future spending on Medicaid, the government health care program for low-income people, by more than $800 billion. The president's budget proposed an additional $600 billion in cuts. It also proposed cuts to a separate health care program for low-income children.
x5
Since you live in Germany you can probably answer this question a lot better then I can.
What do you think the chances of Trump's antics resulting in a lot of European countries bailing on NATO in favor of creating an EU-based military alliance. I know there has been talk of creating a European Union army, but I don't know how serious those discussions are and this scenario wouldn't require things to go quite that far.
The EU army discussions are serious, have been for years, and are viewed as a separate thing to NATO commitments. In other words, the vision is that both would exist, not that one would replace the other. The EU forces would be for EU interests, the NATO commitments would be for NATO interests.
Trump isn't going to make other countries leave NATO. The concerns are whether or not Trump himself would pull back from NATO, and exactly how far he'd go with this 2% budget palaver.
edited 30th May '17 5:33:32 PM 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.This is technically true but disingenuous, because the largest section of both groups is inseparable. Hardcore fundies are usually the most emphatic wavers of the Confederate states' rights flag. For them, "small government," "states' rights" and especially "religious freedom" are dogwhistles for theocratic fascism; "we want to be free to oppress people and make people use the bathroom God intended them to use" and "we want the government to cut welfare so that those dirty ****** welfare queens don't breed more kids to take advantage of it." (1984 was a joke. It doesn't take massive government surveillance to make people believe mutually contradictory things and not have a clue that something's up.)
Social-welfare religious authoritarians exist (Pope Francis and Orson Scott Card, for example), but are uncommon and don't have much of a voice, and you mostly find them on the Democratic side because Republican-style religious totemism is utterly anathema to them. Likewise, actual Objectivistsnote and Silicon Valley libertarians exist, but are nearly invisible and tend to be either reluctant Democrats or back third parties.
edited 30th May '17 5:43:28 PM by Ramidel
![]()
![]()
![]()
They won't outright bail on NATO, after all, there is more to NATO than just the US. There are also states close to Russia which are NATO members but not EU members, and which have to be protected at all cost. The issue here is less if NATO will continue to exist, and more about the power within the NATO states. From day one, this has been an American project and the Americans have used it to their own advantage above everyone else. France was in the beginning very unhappy about this and tried to lessen the power of the Americans, which lead to the infamous quote that if France wants that all American soldiers leave Europe if this also extends to the ones in WWII graves in France. Since the UK didn't provide any backup, France relented.
Germany was originally NOT part of the NATO. It was through the whole cold war an occupied country under the control of the allies. It became a member after reunification partly because the US insisted. The main idea was to keep Germany'S military small (though small is relative it is currently the eight strongest in the world).
This is why the gestures Macron and Merkel made are so important. And consider this: If the US is no longer considered a reliable partner, what would happen if the US does call to the arms? Most likely nothing. At best there would be a token support by countries which are otherwise dragging their feet. Because nobody sends his soldiers to die for a partner who wouldn't do the same for you. Bottom line, France has finally what it always wanted, a diminishing of the influence of the US over the NATO members.
The EU army, well, that is a different project, but it will naturally made the NATO more effective too, since most EU members (but not all of them) are also NATO members. The result is an overlapping alliance. Like, Sweden has no obligation whatsoever to fight with the NATO, but it will act if either one of the Scandinavian countries is under attack by Russia or if an EU country needs help. The concept to join the military of different EU countries is nothing new, btw. There are Franco/German troops since the 1970s (I think) and German/Dutch ones since the 1990s. The main reason why there alliance isn't tighter already is because the UK was blocking every attempt in this direction. But due to Brexit, this is no longer an issue.
edited 30th May '17 5:45:56 PM by Swanpride
Thanks for taking the time to write that up. I suppose it's possible that NATO will become less important if Trump keeps up his antics, but unless there's some major instigating incident it's unlikely anyone would actually leave outright.
Though it does look like Brexit, rather than Trump, might ironically be the thing that leads to a stronger and more united EU. Coupled with the success of pro-EU candidates like Macron in subsequent elections, but there's likely an argument to be made that Macron only did as well as he did because of Brexit becoming a reality.
https://twitter.com/AP/status/869720283674021888
😂😂😂😂😂 Bruh, what?
New Survey coming this weekend!Because it's Trump and are you honestly surprised anymore?
"Cynic, n. — A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be." - The Devil's DictionaryTrump will have a secure phone, but I suspect that for it to remain secure it will have to have all calls run though certain equipment, so he can't just wonder around with it in his pocket. Even if it's a mobile it probably have to be plugged into some kind of encoding devise/scrambler to make it secure.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranSo, the Portland attacker has appeared in court. And he's defending his actions, like a less competent and articulate version of the Norway shooter.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40096993
....Maybe Oregon will just execute this guy.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.You do have the occasional violent left-wing anarchist group, but you mainly hear about those in Europe, and not much any more. I suppose the most common version would be your good old-fashioned street violence fomented by social inequality. Those sorts of protest movements always have provocateurs (despite rumors of plants) with more extreme agendas who try to turn them into riots. Then there are nutballs like Greenpeace who engage in organized campaigns of sabotage. But this sort of thing has a very different feel to it.
I suppose that what's interesting about those movements is that they are rarely composed of lone wolf attackers, but rather that they tend to be tight-knit social groups who egg each other on. The "lone wolf" mentality seems to fester on the right more than the left, possibly due to the paranoia and social isolation that people with extreme right-wing views experience. The main exception there would be militia groups who organize in "defense" of their desired social values, but who almost never engage in organized acts of resistance. The standoff with the idiot Bundy folks last year was a notable exception.
edited 30th May '17 8:54:40 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Squeal little piggy....
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.