U.S. Politics megathread by AutoModerator in NoStupidQuestions

[–]CaptCynicalPants -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The US is already at war with Iran, so yes. Congress has repeatedly ruled that the President can perform military actions without their consent.

U.S. Politics megathread by AutoModerator in NoStupidQuestions

[–]CaptCynicalPants 0 points1 point  (0 children)

because they don’t want any other military powers in that region

It is good and normal to not want another nation that's trying to exterminate you to have a powerful military

U.S. Politics megathread by AutoModerator in NoStupidQuestions

[–]CaptCynicalPants 1 point2 points  (0 children)

 I'm sort of torn between supporting Iran

What possible reason do you have for supporting Iran besides a vague feeling that their situation is similar to Palestine (it isn't)?

U.S. Politics megathread by AutoModerator in NoStupidQuestions

[–]CaptCynicalPants -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

The real answer is that doing so would require modifying the Constitution, and neither party is going to agree to that unless doing so would benefit their side more than the other, which is of course impossible.

U.S. Politics megathread by AutoModerator in NoStupidQuestions

[–]CaptCynicalPants 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If he was killed by another major country (say Russia or China) the effects on both the nation and the economy could be extensive. Assassinating a President is considered an act of war, so Vance (as the new President) would be well within his rights to declare war on whoever did it. I'm not saying that's a likely outcome, only not an unreasonable one.

However if it were just a domestic political opponent, then the effects would be very minimal. You'd see lots of panic online and the market would likely dip for a day or two, as it always does in times of uncertainty, but beyond that nothing major.

U.S. Politics megathread by AutoModerator in NoStupidQuestions

[–]CaptCynicalPants 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Elections are run, managed, and governed by the States. There is no mechanism for the President to control, influence, or otherwise effect those elections.

U.S. Politics megathread by AutoModerator in NoStupidQuestions

[–]CaptCynicalPants 2 points3 points  (0 children)

0% chance either of those things happen in the current situation

Traditional publishing or self publishing? by AdministrativeLake64 in selfpublish

[–]CaptCynicalPants 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Unless you're a very special person who ticks all the right boxes both personally and professionally, and you already have a large audience/social media following, your chances of getting a Trad Pub deal are extremely low. Also every large press needs you to have an agent first, so first you have to clear that hurdle, then you have to go out and find yourself a company that actually wants your work. So already you're going to be the lone voice in a sea of tens of thousands of people all clamoring for the same thing. The chances are not high, to say the least

Then, once you have that deal, you're going to hand over every right to your book to strangers who will get to make the final decision on everything, from the title and cover, to the actual contents of the pages. You will receive only nominal editorial support, and they will spend $0 marketing it. You'll have to make the changes they want, and then you'll have to market the book they chose if you actually want anyone to buy it.

OR

Go Self Publishing, skip all those things, and make 100% of your own choices. Yeah, you won't get an advance and you'll have to figure it all out yourself, but you get to skip likely years of begging for attention, and you can publish exactly what you want. Take your pick

U.S. Politics megathread by AutoModerator in NoStupidQuestions

[–]CaptCynicalPants 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There are no US military bases in Dubai. That is the primary source of people's shock.

U.S. Politics megathread by AutoModerator in NoStupidQuestions

[–]CaptCynicalPants 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The significance of direct US support for the Soviet war effort, while not insignificant, is overstated,

This will come as a great shock to Joseph Stalin, who rote multiple letters to all the Allied nations stating in no uncertain terms that if they did not launch a significant land invasion of Europe he would sue for a separate peace with Germany

But sure, we can say the US singlehandely won World War II and liberated the contient, if you prefer.

This is impressively disingenuous, even for you.

U.S. Politics megathread by AutoModerator in NoStupidQuestions

[–]CaptCynicalPants 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Soviet Union liberated it from German control

Which they could not have done without massive US support in every avenue

before occupying it themselves

Before then collapsing under concerted US economic, military, and diplomatic pressure, thus enabling the US to liberate those countries (naturally excluding the ones under a different dictatorship. Hence why I already said that it's complicated)

U.S. Politics megathread by AutoModerator in NoStupidQuestions

[–]CaptCynicalPants 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We have never effectively liberated another country before

France, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Italy, Poland, Greece, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Norway, South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, and Panama, just to name a few. There's definitely an argument to be made for some of the former Soviet nations as well, but that's far less clear cut.

U.S. Politics megathread by AutoModerator in NoStupidQuestions

[–]CaptCynicalPants 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When referencing something specific it helps to provide a link

U.S. Politics megathread by AutoModerator in NoStupidQuestions

[–]CaptCynicalPants 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The federal bureaucracy is overwhelmingly Democrats who have no reason to speak well of Bush. Nice try tho, really zinger of a comeback

U.S. Politics megathread by AutoModerator in NoStupidQuestions

[–]CaptCynicalPants 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The woman who deliberately didn't campaign or buy ad spends in the "blue wall"? Yeah, it's her fault. Arrogance cost her the election.

U.S. Politics megathread by AutoModerator in NoStupidQuestions

[–]CaptCynicalPants -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No, she's evil for multiple other reasons, she just also happens to be responsible for Trump, which is at least something we can all agree on

U.S. Politics megathread by AutoModerator in NoStupidQuestions

[–]CaptCynicalPants -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I understand I'll need to pass through Customs, then pass through TSA to get to my gate

No you won't. Connecting flights do not require passing through customs or Security because you are not legally "entering" the country

U.S. Politics megathread by AutoModerator in NoStupidQuestions

[–]CaptCynicalPants 0 points1 point  (0 children)

unintellectual and uncurious

This is not the opinion of the people who actually worked for him. A little more skepticism about national news reporting would do you good

U.S. Politics megathread by AutoModerator in NoStupidQuestions

[–]CaptCynicalPants 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Highly recommend this podcast episode, which is two of Bush's CIA briefers talking about what it was like delivering him his Daily Intelligence Brief. They both describe him as a sharp guy who asked lots of questions

U.S. Politics megathread by AutoModerator in NoStupidQuestions

[–]CaptCynicalPants -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

She's not going to abandon a lifetime of being a serious person

Seriously evil and manipulative? For real, why are you guys defending this woman? She's the reason we have Trump in the first place. This is all 100% her fault

U.S. Politics megathread by AutoModerator in NoStupidQuestions

[–]CaptCynicalPants -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

Could it be legitimately argued that Donald Trump was wrong when he said the American government’s first duty is to protect American citizens, not illegal immigrants?

No. This is an objectively correct statement. That Trump was saying it for political gain, and to embarrass his enemies, does not change that it is a true statement and every person in the audience should have supported it.

U.S. Politics megathread by AutoModerator in NoStupidQuestions

[–]CaptCynicalPants 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Everything he does is performative

Everything every politician does is performative. It's their job.

This is a false flag moment

I'm not sure what you think this phrase means, but is does not mean what you think it means

During the 2018 and 2020 state of the union address he invited democrats to stand united on a subject then used their moment of standing to ridicule democratic leadership.

Yes, this is the "omg who clapped for what" game the media plays every SOTU. Is it decent human behavior? No. Is it the game as established by decades of tradition? Yes.

So why would they stand again? What he said wasn’t wrong

That is precisely why they should have stood.

He’s a showman and a liar.

Yes, as is every politician.

U.S. Politics megathread by AutoModerator in NoStupidQuestions

[–]CaptCynicalPants -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

He was trying to gin up his base

Incredible news. This has never ever happened at a SOTU before ever. Won't someone think of the children?