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
So has it been discussed yet that Wiki Leaks released an email about Clinton supposedly keeping someone from a Clinton Foundation associate from being arrested on charges of child trafficking?
edited 5th Nov '16 10:00:22 PM by theLibrarian
Cuckoldry as origin: Yes, with emphasis on cuckold porn featuring a black man satisfying a white woman in ways her white husband cannot.
Wikileaks: Link to the entire transcript or it's a non-starter.
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot![]()
Keep in mind Wikileaks is far from reliable. They are nothing but an arm of the Russian Propaganda Outreach, and Assange himself has been featured on some very conspiratorial shows. They cannot be trusted with any of this, as has been demonstrated by the multiple times they released stuff the Russians made up on the fly.
Would you consider Goebbels' newspaper Der Sturmer releasing a headline about FDR enabling sex trafficking to be reputable?
I'm now slightly terrified about the prospect of faithless electors not voting for Hillary if she wins the state, which causes her to lose. I mean, in WA it's a shoo-in that she wins and there are at least another 10 electors, but it's a prospect that makes me furious.
"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." -Thomas Edison![]()
Not necessarily. If Trump wins by faithless elector, can you imagine him giving a shit about populist outrage?
Remember, the US government and the political process have no actual legitimacy in the eyes of Trump and his supporters - that's why we're seeing all of this break loose.
edited 6th Nov '16 1:06:58 AM by Ramidel
If electors declare their intention to be faithless ahead of time you could see rapid law changes to up the punishment for being faithless (assuming that the faithlessness would matter), then leaving them with a choice of either backing down or following though and maybe going to jail.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThey also do not exist in the GOP so that argument doesn't work. And the unpledged delegates which do ended up merely validating Trump's claims of the primary being rigged against him.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanIf Trump loses, I think that the GOP is going to install super delegates (or some other elitist safeguard) to prevent insurgent candidates from becoming a chronic problem.
And more power to them if they do that, these mavericks only do a ton of damage. If the far-right and the far-left want power then they should get their own parties, letting them take over established parties gives them a louder voice than they would normally have.
P.S.: I'm not lumping Sanders himself in with this crowd.
edited 6th Nov '16 7:27:57 AM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Sanders lost on more than super delegates, but it is blatantly obvious that the DNC wanted Hilary to win from the start. Can they do that? Sure. But because the way our system works (allowing for two parties and basically shit else), it's really an abuse of the democratic procees.
Not that the RNC don't have their own issues in that, or that there shouldn't be safeguards like that, but understand that the DNC/RNC don't just run the game, they are the game, and if they have a disproportionate influence on their own prinaries then thy have a disproportionate influence on the presidential race and by proxy the American democratic system.

Check out this footage
right before the kerfuffle of Trump calling the protester out. The crowd quickly turned violent on him
.
edited 5th Nov '16 8:44:17 PM by XanderCrews