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
Clinton is an imperfect but competent politician, and I would have her as president in a second even under normal circumstances.
Trump is posed to be an existential threat to the entire world, between climate change denial and his apparent hard-on for nuclear weapons.
edited 18th Dec '16 9:12:50 PM by RBluefish
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."![]()
![]()
His nuclear hard-on doesn't worry me so much considering there's a number of factors preventing him from actually doing anything with it. (Including — but not limited to — his chief goal of making money. Can't make money when you're nuclear crispy-fried, can you?)
Climate change on the other hand, yeah, that's a biggie. The only consolation is that we'd probably still have a good several decades or so before everything went kaput, but I'd like to know that the Earth will actually still be around after I've left it. And with Trump in power, that ain't a guarantee.
edited 18th Dec '16 9:31:08 PM by kkhohoho
Well, insofar as both candidates were viewed as "the worst option possible" and that people voted against them, yes that's actually more applicable to this election than many others.
I mean even with Obama and many people voting AGAINST him rather than FOR Mc Cain, there was still a large movement in the country that was very PRO-Obama. I don't think you can really say that he was an unpopular candidate in the same way Hillary is, where many people voted for her but weren't particularly excited about her as a candidate.
Hilary have the problem of being the "establishment" representing all the bad thing about goverment(real or imaginary) against Trump who cast himself as the regular self made men who is just concern with people, even people who hate trump belive that about her.
Granted, I do think that is going to wear off in is presidency since Trump is...well, Trump
edited 18th Dec '16 9:29:09 PM by unknowing
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"![]()
![]()
None taken, my point was an attempt to address your line about climate change and your belief that Trump is in it for the money. From my experience one of the main points about environmentalism and climate change is adjusting the energy usage to green energy. I was observing that there is more of a profit to be made in fossil fuels than there are in green energy.
edited 18th Dec '16 9:26:56 PM by Tbone511
I sometimes wonder if Trump and his cronies genuinely believe man-made climate change isn't real or if they're just ignoring it for the sake of quick profits.
TBH, I'm not sure it really makes a difference, or which would actually be worse. Would it be easier to convince them in the former case or the latter to actually get on board with combating climate change?
I mean, some of them do have kids and grandkids who would probably live to see climate change's full disastrous impact.
edited 18th Dec '16 9:30:15 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised![]()
![]()
...What? No, that wasn't what I said at all. I said that one of the reasons Trump isn't likely to nuke everything to Kingdom Come is because he wants to make money, and you can't make money when the world is a nuclear wasteland. My line about climate change had nothing to do with Trump making money; that was me saying that while he's not likely to fuck up the world with nuclear armageddon, he can still fuck it up with climate change. Two completely different things.
edited 18th Dec '16 9:32:03 PM by kkhohoho
![]()
![]()
![]()
I will said it feed on each other: many cant believe their business cause any lasting damage so they fight climate change, there is this idea of buissness CEO being great men who build empires, nobody want to admit is made on crapping the enviroment
edited 18th Dec '16 9:32:57 PM by unknowing
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"Ah, there's the distinction: "quick profits." If you're only focusing on the short-term, then I'd agree that there's currently more profit margin in fossil fuels. But that kind of head-in-the-sand short-sightedness is not a road we can afford to keep going down forever.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank.

edited 18th Dec '16 9:11:31 PM by Tbone511