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
Honestly, I am getting really sick of how the Times constantly attempts to romanticize and prop up what it imagines is the "moderate conservatives" of the Republican party. I've seen the archconservatives of yesterday somehow morph into today's supposed "moderates" without changing their positions or beliefs one iota, and while there are certainly those Reps in government with good intentions, I'm sick of pretending that there is widespread support for anything like compromise, good intentions, or basic human decency. An influential and sizable chunk of the conservative voting public votes with the goal of causing misery to everyone that doesn't agree with them, with little to no hesitation to strip rights from fellow citizens and deny basic human right to any groups they don't care for, and they vote for Reps who reflect that.
This is almost certainly not going to change as long as we keep the primary system (which allows extremists and the vocal minority to wield wildly disproportionate power over who appears on the ballot) and certainly not while blatant and hateful propaganda is allowed to pass itself off as news and actual news organizations do nothing to call it out and tiptoe around it the issue, acting like someone whose house is on fire but refuses to acknowledge the smoke or the heat because that would make them have to stop pretending that everything is fine.
The Right declared war on the Left at least since hardcore White Supremacist Evangelical preachers became mainstream in the Republican party, and that goes back to the mid 70s. Turning the other cheek, being a good sport, and trying to pretend there isn't a problem all haven't done a goddamn thing to stop the process, it's about time to stop pretending it's going to have an effect now.
Yeah, we need a centrist party. We also need a leftist party and to not define the "political center" as horribly right wing. And we're going to need to completely change a lot about how we elect people and how we run our politics to make it happen. And it sure as fuck isn't going to happen by signing on with safety net slashers, gold standard pushers, worshippers of the mutual churches of Regan and supply side economics, or fundamentalists who want women to stay in the kitchen, gay and trans people to not exist, etc.
Maybe the Times should spend less time looking for common ground with Nazis and hateful bigots who'd gladly throw them all into real and metaphorical gas chambers and more time finding common ground with reality in 2018.
[/frustrated rant that has probably been bubbling beneath the surface for too long]
edited 14th Apr '18 12:03:52 PM by TheWanderer
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |Why can't it be both?
On one level, a measured and limited airstrike on chemical weapons facilities in response to War Crimes committed by the Syrian Regime, is absolutely appropriate and justified.
On another level, given how trump literally announcing it on twitter beforehand, giving the Syrian Regime time to evacuate the facilities (you fail forever at OPSEC), and the timing, suggests that this is a distraction.
edited 14th Apr '18 12:04:34 PM by megaeliz
It was unlikely he'd win the first time, and I can't imagine his chances have gotten any better, or are likely to.
Note, "unlikely", obviously doesn't mean impossible. A lot of people were blind-sided by his win precisely because they thought it was an impossibility, which probably contributed to it being possible in the first place.
I think the odds are long, even if the Mueller probe doesn't keep escalating (which is unlikely). He barely won the first time, and he's lost substantial support in the states/demographics that pushed him over the top. The Democrats are energized, Republicans are demoralized, and special elections have been going the former's way in places they have no right to do that well in.
Trump's only treading water because the economy is doing alright, focusing on that is his only hope.
Unless the Democrats pick an absolutely terrible and unelectable nominee (I don't see any of the serious contenders as that, so far), Trump's chances are minimal. Too much bad blood, he will always be hated by Democrats and most Democratic leaning Independents, and a Presidential election with an incumbent is almost always a referendum on them.
That said, it is much too early to make a solid call.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.![]()
Ok? No-one said it was impossible, that's obviously not true.
But that doesn't mean that a victory come 2020 is plausible, especially with a Blue wave things could get much worse for him.
edited 14th Apr '18 12:24:03 PM by Fourthspartan56
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangLong story short, Assad used chemical weapons (chlorine and/or sarin, depending on the source) on his own people again last week, this time while he was winning that battle already. In order to degrade his capability to do so again/reinforce that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated; the US, UK and France launched missiles and airstrikes against suspected chemical weapon production/storage sites. The attacks are mostly symbolic, it won't stop Assad from winning this war eventually, and Russia isn't happy about their puppet getting attacked but since no one who matters to them (Russian personnel) got hurt, they'll just make diplomatic noise.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Even shorter, now in haiku:
Assad do bad thing.
Now we hit him with missiles!
edited 14th Apr '18 12:58:41 PM by Eschaton
Listen up: “The fate of the region lies in the hands of its own people,” not in Trump’s hands.
His intent to leave Syria to its own devices was something Trump clearly signaled when he declared on March 29 that American troops would be departing there “very soon.” “Let other people take care of it,” he told a rally of his supporters in Ohio, foreshadowing his more detailed remarks on Friday night.
But he had already made clear his intentions in Syria, or lack of them, over the past year when he repeatedly avoided helping Israel, America’s closest Middle Eastern ally, contain Iran’s encroachments there. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has tried repeatedly to enlist Trump’s aid in establishing red lines in Syria against Iran’s establishment there of an air base, factories for precision-guided rockets for delivery to Hezbollah, and encroachment of the Golan Heights by Iranian-backed militias. Instead, Netanyahu has had to travel seven times to Moscow to beseech Putin for the help he could not secure from Trump. But absent Trump’s engagement, Putin has no interest in challenging his Iranian partner in Assad’s reconquest of rebel-controlled territories. Bibi’s appeals therefore fell on Putin’s deaf ears.
This has left Israel to enforce its own red lines by attacking Iranian facilities and convoys. Now Tehran’s promises of retaliation are ratcheting up tensions and an all-out confrontation is looming, one that could engulf Lebanon too. Should that happen, Trump can be counted on to cheer Israel from the sidelines as the troubled place becomes predictably even more troubled.
Similarly, in Yemen, Trump is happy to help his friend Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman flail around in the quagmire, providing all the weapons and intelligence he can use. But there has been and will be no U.S. diplomatic engagement to promote a political settlement that might help Saudi Arabia forge a much-needed exit strategy and end the humanitarian crisis. And who benefits in the meantime? Iran, of course, which by supplying rockets to Houthi rebels is building its position of influence on Saudi Arabia’s southern border for barely any cost to itself.
edited 14th Apr '18 1:05:34 PM by Eschaton
![]()
I feel like this
puts it pretty well.
This is not the kind of strike Trump would’ve wanted.
edited 14th Apr '18 1:11:43 PM by megaeliz

Hard to make a call when the Pentagon is saying one thing (total success, most/all missiles hit, key installations destroyed) and Moscow and Syria are saying another (majority of missiles intercepted, superficial damage).
Until the fog of war clears, any judgment is premature. Which is why Trump is claiming that it was a Flawless Victory.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.