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
![]()
![]()
![]()
The nukes were Soviet, not Russian, by breaking away from the USSR they had the chance to keep them and turned it down.
The nukes only weren't theres, because they were no-bodies, they were inherited from a dead country.
And in response they got the eastern half of there country annexed.
This is exactly how other countries like say North Korea
, are going to veiw it. "A stupid mistake" the realities of the situation are often less important then the message sent, and the message sent in 2014 was "give up your nukes, give up your land".
South Africa on the other hand was not surrounded by belligerents, and only had 6 devices.... its a different situation.
edited 12th Jun '18 12:48:57 PM by Imca
Bring It Trump. You've united the Canadian public and political establishment against you. We, along with every other country you are attacking, are not going to become tributaries.
If the Republicans don't suffer in November, I predict the world will go into "Yankee, go home" mode pretty quickly. American soft power is dead for a generation if Trump wins re-election. Like it or not, the President is the face of the United States and the American people; and if they fail to clearly rebuke him....the rest of the world will think they agree with him, popular vote and gerrymandering be damned.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.![]()
![]()
Haha, no. Don't worry about them, just some random-ass kooks.
They're well-known crackpots; they really love chatting about how Obama is a Kenyan.
Anyone they can influence is already completely gone.
edited 12th Jun '18 12:50:13 PM by Larkmarn
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.Trump's been surprisingly chummy with some other Muslim authoritarians like Egypt's Sisi, Saudi Arabia's King Salman and (for a time) Turkey's Erdogan.
![]()
![]()
![]()
Your link says otherwise.
I brought up South Africa because they were the only nation to get rid of their nuclear weapons and thus were relevant to the discussion.
Saudi Arabia is an American client state and thus isn't really comparable to working with Iran. But the other's aren't bad examples.
edited 12th Jun '18 12:54:32 PM by Fourthspartan56
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangAn overview of the Democrats improving prospects in the Senate.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/12/politics/virginia-swing-state-senate-races-analysis/index.html
![]()
Re-Read my post, the realities don't mater as much as the message.... which is what that article covers.
Its like the whole blunder with Gadaldfi, is every dictator going to end up like that? No, but it sure as hell tainted the waters.
And for an entity concerned only with its survivial, that is now a risk it isn't going to take.
edited 12th Jun '18 1:16:42 PM by Imca
IIRC South Africa never planned to have a large nuclear arsenal. The idea was to have them kept secret, until a threat emerged during which a warhead would be detonated as a show of force and deterrence.
South Africa may have not been surrounded by hostile forces, but the entire government during the "total onslaught" period absolutely thought they were.
Si Vis Pacem, Para PerkeleHere’s an article from a year ago. Really deconstructs a lot of the myths about the south
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/529038/
@Ace: When people really like a candidate, they'll see every ambiguous statement from them as a hint they're running and every denial as just typical politician "denial". I do hope Warren runs for the matter, more excited for someone like her than Biden to be honest.
Life is unfair...My family straight up lied about General Lee in its stories about him (my Great Aunt lived on a plantation so I can assume there was reason for that). They said Lee donated the land of Arlington to serve as a memorial for the dead killed in the Civil War as well as all future American Wars.
Which is flat out bullshit. The land was confiscated and made into a graveyard as a Take That! against Lee.
I also remember a great takedown of the man.
"He would not raise arms against Virginia."
"Well, except for the part which refused to side with his traitorous asshole brethren."
edited 12th Jun '18 1:52:16 PM by CharlesPhipps
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.![]()
![]()
Absolutely, there are only so many ways that one can engage in denialism.
Honestly I think he could have major issues in the primary in that he's had a number of creepy photos with women that look rather bad in light of #metoo. I'd much rather someone newer who could excite the base, Biden has had his time and IMO it's passed.
Biden is popular in the Midwest states that Trump took in 2016, and that he needs to take in 2020 to be re-elected. Plus, he's an a solid candidate and definitely has the skills and experience to do the job.
As for Lee not willing to raise his hand against his home state.....I seem to remember a substantial minority of Virginian officers staying loyal to the Union. And that Southerners made up about a sixth of the Union forces. And the whole West Virginia incident.... There were plenty of men who became pariahs at home thanks to their loyalty, and they were better than any general of an army of slavers.
Screw that guy.
As long as his health holds up, and he picks a relatively young and competent running mate, that's not an issue.
edited 12th Jun '18 1:58:24 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects."I seem to remember a substantial minority of Virginian officers staying loyal to the Union. And that Southerners made up about a sixth of the Union forces."
I'm reminded of this late Civil War art
, with Lincoln's 'peace commisioners'. Two of the six most prominent officers, Thomas and Farragut, are Southerners.
Warren is popular with the left's sexists (both conscious and unconscious) because, as we were discussing just earlier today, she's their standard dodge when the sexist accusations they've leveled against Clinton, or Harris, or Gillibrand, or pick-your-woman, are thrown in their face. "I'd vote for Warren" becomes the "I have black friends" defense, and talking about how much they'd like her to run acts as a shield when they pivot to parroting the latest made-up story about Harris. This isn't just about protecting their reputations in public, mind you, for many of them it's about avoiding having to acknowledge or confront their own sexism, or question why they judge female candidates so harshly for things they let the likes of Sanders or Biden slide on.
Of course if Warren actually became the nominee, they'd find reasons to turn on her. We saw that last year when Warren endorsed Clinton, and the brocialist left, as a group, swung from "Warren is the greatest thing ever" to "Warren is an evil treacherous vile bitch who has sold us out to $illary the bankster's moll." And no, I'm not exaggerating that criticism, that's one version of a quote I saw several hundred times from various alleged leftists around the Internet. Pro-tip guys: if you're pretending you aren't sexist, call her a mobster, not a moll. For many of them, by the way, this still doesn't reveal their sexism to themselves—they are shocked, I tell you, shocked, at the positions that this woman whose positions were a matter of public record holds and can no longer support her in "good conscience."
Lots of those people who tore into her for endorsing Clinton went right back to holding her up as "the woman they could vote for" after the election was over, of course, because here's the thing: Warren's greatest value to the sexists on the left? Is the very fact that she's not going to run. She's made it very clear that she's not interested in running. And that means she can be used as a shield until she drops dead. They'll turn on her when she does something they dislike, but since she's never going to actually run for President, they can pull her back over them like a blanket whenever someone points out that their attacks on Harris or Gillibrand might be edging out of the rational and into the misogynistic. Because the sexist left's position is, and always has been, "I'd vote for a woman. Just not any of the one's who are actually on the ticket." And Warren does not want to be on the ticket.
There are perfectly good reasons to want Warren to run. But barring a serious shift in her own intentions, she's not going to. And if you find yourself constantly holding her up as "the woman you could vote for" when your positions on other Democratic women are questioned—something we've seen many, many times now, here and offsite—it might be time to ask yourself if you're really into her for the right reasons.
I love Liz Warren. I'd vote for her in a heartbeat. But I'd have voted for Clinton too, and I'd vote for Gillibrand or Harris with enthusiasm. We need women, more than anyone else, to stand up to the misogynist-in-chief. Warren can't do it alone. And tearing down other women while holding her up as a barrier against criticism is something that elements on the left need to stop doing, and stop doing now.
edited 12th Jun '18 2:29:44 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

Wasn't trying to say it shouldn't Just that it WILL be an issue to be faced.
When Sonia Sotamayor was being chosen for the supreme court one of her old cases was dredged up by world net daily. Basically this teenager was wrongfully convicted of murdering a classmate. 12 years later she rejected an appeal based on the AEDPA (an incredibly draconian piece of legislation that basically guts habeus corpus). 6 years after that the kid was exonerated when DNA revealed that the true killer was a convicted felon.
World Net Daily absolutely hijacked the fuck out of this case in order to make Sotamayor into the devil (while I think Sotamayor should have told the AEDPA to take a hike I understand that she was bound by the law, even if it was a deeply stupid one).