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
It's easy to say that when you don't stand to lose anything from a Trump presidency.
Lost in Space
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
And the media establishment who allowed Trump to schmooze the nation with blatant lies while harping on Clinton's emails. And the Supreme Court that forced candidates from both parties to sup at the tables of billionaires to get elected.
One may regard such folks as Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, or Victor Orban as historical inevitabilities in hindsight. That does not absolve the people who voted for them of blame.
edited 27th Sep '16 11:57:15 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
United Earth
Whenever I hear the word "blame" by itself, without the article I think of Blame!.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
"Good" and "evil" are subjective, slippery terms that are mere verbal manifestations of a tribalistic mindset which only grows the more raw emotion gets involved.
edited 27th Sep '16 12:01:35 PM by nervmeister
Lost in Space
They are convenient shorthand for more complex concepts that have already been explored to destruction. I apologize for not having time to write an explanatory essay for each adjective that I use in a post.
Deport 11 million immigrants... build schools and roads. Ignore climate change ... address climate change. Extort nations for protection ... offer the full support of the U.S. in backing our allies. Support white nationalism ... support civil rights.
Yeah, evil vs. good works pretty well there. I dare you to offer me a more clear-cut case. Does Trump need to eat babies on live television? Does Clinton need Jesus, Allah, and Buddha (plus Richard Dawkins, for the hardcore atheist crowd) to manifest behind her?
edited 27th Sep '16 12:05:29 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Now we're starting to get somewhere; actually talking about how Clinton might be able to improve her image, albeit in a farcical and roundabout manner.
Matter of perspective. I prefer to see life more as interest(s) vs. interest(s).
edited 27th Sep '16 12:06:39 PM by nervmeister
Lost in Space
Ignoring that facts actually exist, and can be shown to matter? I think I posted about this a while back. Here, in fact.
edited 27th Sep '16 12:08:47 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
When your interests include ethnic purity I think it's safe to say you're evil.
Oh really when?
Fucking hell, Capsace. I don't understand you in the slightest. You attack Clinton for everything. You tell me not to blame the people who could allow a man into the white house that would see people like me stuck in torture camps.
This is is moral issue. Do you let Trump prepare minorities for death? Or do you help Clinton give us 4 more years of protection.
Facts are fine. It's moral posturing that I'm wary of.
The would-be novelist
I'm sorry, but no. This is not some jungle where dog eat dog.
edited 27th Sep '16 12:09:17 PM by flameboy21th
Non Indicative Username
Lost in Space
@Nervmeister: Then deny any of the facts here. If you don't, then you cannot in good conscience vote Republican (or Libertarian for that matter). If you don't, and vote for them anyway, then you are a hypocrite.
edited 27th Sep '16 12:10:12 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
@smokey: I wasn't being facetious. I was saying that it's much more constructive to discuss how Clinton might either improve her own image in the eyes of relevant sectors of the electorate, or how she might further damage Trump's image in those same eyes. we have long since reached consensus on the relative merits and the consequences of a Clinton presidency versus a Trump presidency, so until someone whose legitimately undecided or voting for Trump comes here, it serves no purpose to continue that line of discussion.
edited 27th Sep '16 12:11:55 PM by CaptainCapsase
Lost in Space
That's only really possible if the media decides to let her, and that would require that they effectively recant a years-long policy of treating everything negative said about her as if it were as serious as the AIDS epidemic.
Like I said, I'm not arguing with facts. I'm just trying to sidestep the whole "good vs evil" (aka. "us vs them") worldview - no matter how comfortable it can be - in order to gain a better overall perspective of the world around me.
edited 27th Sep '16 12:13:00 PM by nervmeister
I think you're being hyperbolic, but I tend to agree that the perceived market for negative coverage of Clinton is a major barrier to doing that.
edited 27th Sep '16 12:12:56 PM by CaptainCapsase
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
Again, when one's primary interests and goals include ethnic purity then they're evil.
There's just no two ways about that.
Oh really when?
use political terms to describe, not insult
Lost in Space
This "I'm so enlightened" schtick is getting a bit tiresome, you know. You can't place yourself above the issues that occupy people's attention and then lecture them smarmily about them. Not when those issues have a tangible impact on people's lives.
Functionally, it doesn't matter what she says if the media is determined to spin it negatively. I'd say she's done a less than adept job at handling the spin machine at times, but to me that's a sign of a person who is fundamentally too honest to lie effectively. It's a mark in her favor.
I threw that one in as a kind of "gotcha" fact that was designed to elicit thought because it's more complex than the other facts presented. That said, if you'd care to discuss it, the General Economics thread in this forum is open.
![[down]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_down.png "[down]"){kind=icon}
They support a man who advocates evil things. Some of them are despicable in their views on race, gender, and so on. Not all are actively evil, but anyone who votes for Trump, even out of pique at "the establishment", is complicit by definition. If he wins, we're in for an apocalyptic four-plus years, and if he loses, he's empowered the alt-right and that's something that won't settle down for years, maybe decades. This whole election cycle is shameful.
edited 27th Sep '16 12:18:47 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
I mean, I can get behind not brandishing millions of people as unilaterally evil for supporting a terrible candidate. But just because I'm not going to say they're all evil (even if a lot of them are definitely terrible people/have terrible motives) that's not the same thing as saying they can't be blamed if he ends up winning and the fallout from it.
edited 27th Sep '16 12:20:01 PM by LSBK
Something else I noticed last night: Trump didn't bring up The Wall (TM). Like, at all. Considering that's one of his biggest selling points with a lot of his supporters, I'm honestly surprised he never brought it up.
Blame them if you must, but I don't really see what that accomplishes beyond giving yourself a sense of moral superiority.
edited 27th Sep '16 12:18:37 PM by CaptainCapsase
Lost in Space
If Trump wins, then moral superiority may be all I'm left with. It certainly won't be safe to express progressive views in America.
edited 27th Sep '16 12:19:34 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
It's fine to say that if Trump wins, the cause will most likely be the sector of the electorate that refused to vote or those who voted third party, but "blame" adds what in my view is a pointless moral dimension to the question which obscures the underlying structural factors at work.
edited 27th Sep '16 11:56:37 AM by CaptainCapsase