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
I don’t trust an authoritarian regime to understand that the leader of the US can’t just start a war by declaring it so.
From the North Korean perspective a premptive retaliatory strike would be the only way to get the US to back off, by reminding it how much damage they can do if pushed.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI think the characterization of North Koreans as naive and uncomprehending is what allows them to get away with as much crap as they do. They understand the world well enough to play the game, they wouldn't have come this far otherwise. And as we've seen with their pressure on Seoul they understand the concept of military deterrence/mutual destruction quite well.
As I mentioned, they only real goal of the regime is survival. A preemptive strike is a 100% chance of death. Whatever happens, they're not going to shoot first, unless it's in a "race to strike" scenario where US forces are committed and moving in. A strike to get us to back off just isn't going to happen, because we wouldn't back off (or be able to back off if South Korea is fighting) something like that.
The real worry with Trump is the damage he's going to do at the summit. US presidents have been kicking the North Korea issue down the road for ages now, and it seems clear that the only thing Trump is going to be capable of doing is making things worse. He's just going to make it that much harder for whichever president has to clean up this mess.
They should have sent a poet.It's long, but This
is worth a watch, about Shakespearian contrast between Bob Mueller and Donald Trump, and a lot about his life, and his time at the FBI, and the different paths this investigation could take.
It's remarkable how completely their values and world views are the antithesis of each other. Mueller values public service, duty, and institutions. Apparently, after he was the head of the entire criminal division of the FBI, he spent a year in private practice, and by the end of it ended up calling the head of the DOJ at the time, nearly begging to come back.
Compare this to captain bone spurs, who's only dedications are golf and twitter.
Donald Trump, your time is running out...
edited 24th Mar '18 6:17:17 PM by megaeliz
Republican Pa. congressmen not seeking reelection.
Basically, the new map has him not very confident he'll be able to actually win. Plus, his district was one that narrowly went for Hillary in the election.
Well, he did say during the campaign that tax evasion just proves he's smart.
I'd say that in at least some cases, he knows he's lying and simply doesn't care — reality is what he wants it to be, not what it really is.
However, he also comes across as the kind of person who ends up believing his own lies.
I'm dubious about the quality of the hypothetical. Technically, real life has already answered that question given that pregnant women have been killed by guns. We therefore already know how gun supporters react to the subject (guns aren't the problem, individual rogue criminals are and existing laws adequately handle the situations that occur).
Usually, when a Hypocrisy Loop occurs, I've found that it's usually the case that neither side is hypocritical per se; just operating on very different values that are internally logically consistent.
The problem with this equivalence is that abortion law potentially does not have the same degree of impact on children that gun legislation potentially has. That's because, contrary to popular belief, most abortions (by percentage) do not occur to children (which isn't necessarily the same thing as 'teenager' given that 18-19 year olds are legally adults while still being called teenagers).
Going by the CDC's most recent abortion statistics
(year 2014, published in 2017):
For all reporting states, most abortions occur in the following age group order (most to least): 20-24, 25-29, 30-34, 15-19, 35-39, over 40, under 15. (The 15-19 and 35-39 age groups are very similar.)
The vast majority (66.9%) of teenage abortions occur to teenagers who are legally adults (18-19 year olds). (16-17 year olds account for 25.1%.)
Banning or legalising abortion therefore disproportionately impacts adult women — even when talking about teenagers.
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.Well, my point was that there isn't really any hypocrisy going on in the first place since the reality is that they're two separate arguments. People who claim hypocrisy aren't covering the two subjects as deeply as they probably should be.
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.Trump considering expelling 20 Russian diplomats over chemical attacks: report [1]
U.S. and European officials told The Washington Post Saturday that Trump was considering expelling 20 or more Russian diplomats and that aides close to the president are urging him to make the decision in solidarity with the United Kingdom.
CNN first reported Friday that The National Security Council (NSC) was expected to recommend that Trump make the decision to expel the diplomats. According to CNN, such a decision could be made as early as next week.
The president met earlier this week with the NSC to discuss multiple responses to the poisoning of Sergei Skripal, an ex-Russian spy who was poisoned along with his daughter in Britain earlier this month. The recommendation will be the outcome of that meeting, according to CNN's sources.
At least 20 people have been hospitalized as a result of possible exposure to the poison, a deadly Soviet-era nerve agent that U.S. and British authorities say is most likely linked back to Russian intelligence.
If the U.S. does expel diplomats, the move would follow a similar decision by the U.K. last week to expel 23 Russian diplomats from the country.
He's being "urged" to do something to support one of our NATO allies, after an attack by Russian on their own soil. Do I have to tell you what's wrong with this?
Here's a hypothetical for you: Could this incident be possible grounds for involving article 5
?
edited 24th Mar '18 7:41:12 PM by megaeliz
It could but it won’t, from a purely legal perspective it was an act of war using a WMD against a NATO member. Legaly it’s grounds for a retaliatory WMD attack, but that would be insane.
Nobody wants war, so it’s not happening, the current British government in particular wants good relations with Russia’s elites, so no serious punishment will be handed out.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
The thing is, this will keep escalating, whether we decide to act or not.
this is from directly from the DNI Report
that first alleged that Russia interfered in our election:
Russia managed to hack into our power grid for goodness sakes!
They have interfered in the elections and politics of our country and our Nato allies, used a WMD on British soil, and continue their assault to undermine Western Democracy. An attack on one democracy is an attack on then all.
This will happen again, and is happening again, all over Europe, and even in central Asia.
edited 24th Mar '18 8:08:35 PM by megaeliz
Retaliation can be carried out without evoking article 5, the UK could address the flow of Russian blood money into the City of London, it could order its intelgence services to retaliate, it could provide the Ukrainian government support by lunching cruise missiles at the totally-not-Russian troops in eastern Ukraine, it could call for a NATO wide ban on the import of Russian gas.
By the way the electricity grid thing doesn’t scare me, because that would be a very direct act of war, Russia has had the ability to destroy the US via a large scale act of war for a long time now, the fact that it can now do it in a slightly different way doesn’t scare me.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranTheir money laundering is largely done via the City of London and the London property market, so increasing regulation in both areas would be a way to both deprive them of raw assets and make it harder for them to launder money out of Russia.
The problem is that the City doesn’t want to stop the flow of blood money or immoral forgners buying mansions, so neither do the Tories.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
X3 London and the City of London aren’t the same thing, when someone says the City of London (or just The City) they mean our equivalent of Wall Street, not London the actual urban centre.
But as has been pointed out further detailed discussion is best moved to the British politics thread.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranIts possible (and depending on a given shooter's motives and targets, likely) that they are relatives to the victims of the shootings. In which case they would want stricter gun laws in line with their homeland to better defend their US relatives (and themselves should they decide to visit them, or have other plans in the US) from gun violence.
edited 25th Mar '18 12:20:15 AM by MorningStar1337

The North Koreans are many things, but they're certainly not stupid. Their only real goal is the continued survival of their regime, and they've created a situation where it's very hard for anyone to do anything. Even with a loose cannon in the mix like Trump there's a very limited amount that can be done as far as military options, due to the reality of the situation. The real damage he's going to do is set back diplomatic relations by a decade at the upcoming summit, but worrying about war is frankly a waste of energy at this juncture.
edited 24th Mar '18 3:36:36 PM by archonspeaks
They should have sent a poet.