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 problem with assenge is that is bias make question the used of leak emails, no only for the timing but is praise to trump and saying Russia is not that bad(they are that bad) come as SERIOUS double standar.
"Have you heard about argentina political history"
Yeah, im wit wandering here, this is everyday to us, hell one part of me just want to said "Damn gringos and your first world problems"
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"Let's not be hostile to Series Of Numbers. I personally like that we have a contrary viewpoint to question us and force us to provide facts and evidence of our viewpoints, it's a pleasant change from the otherwise endless and hyperbolic Democrat circlejerk.
edited 28th Dec '16 10:53:36 AM by PushoverMediaCritic
Futurama references asides, Miklos Haraszti on the rise of Trump, and how it is comparable to Orban
.
Call me a typical Hungarian pessimist, but I think hope can be damaging when dealing with populists. For instance, hoping that unprincipled populism is unable to govern. Hoping that Trumpism is self-deceiving, or self-revealing, or self-defeating. Hoping to find out if the president-elect will have a line or a core, or if he is driven by beliefs or by interests. Or there’s the Kremlinology-type hope that Trump’s party, swept to out-and-out power by his charms, could turn against him. Or hope extracted, oddly, from the very fact that he often disavows his previous commitments.
Populists govern by swapping issues, as opposed to resolving them. Purposeful randomness, constant ambush, relentless slaloming and red herrings dropped all around are the new normal. Their favorite means of communication is provoking conflict. They do not mind being hated. Their two basic postures of “defending” and “triumphing” are impossible to perform without picking enemies.
I presume this is what Tactical Fox tried to post: Obama is currently the most respected man in America, and Hillary Clinton the most respected woman
. But the former is pretty much always the sitting president, so it might not mean all that much.
Wonder if Trump will end up the always or the pretty much.
edited 28th Dec '16 11:07:22 AM by sgamer82
Well, in my opinion, they were given the deserved attention, both the Democratic and Republican parties are supposed to be unbiased and not influence the voting process as Debbie tried to this year.
The American voting population deserves clarity, and whether or not the hacking was performed by russians, the contents of the emails remain true.
Life is unfair...@164,491: Why does everyone keep assuming that Assange's could have gotten access to leaks about Trump as well? You don't think it's possible that maybe the Republicans just had better cyber-security than the Democrats? As for me allegedly not wanting to learn anything about Trump from the leaks, I don't know where you got that impression. As I've said repeatedly now, I already consider Trump even worse than Trump. I think the worst things about him were things he was pretty open about (wanting to torture "even if it doesn't work", arguing that we should kill the families of ISIS members, wanting to ban all Muslims from the country), so I don't think leaks about him were even necessary, but I wouldn't object to leaks revealing other bad things about him. Like the Hillary leaks, I'd be glad corruption in the Trump camp was exposed regardless of the identity or motives of the leakers, just so long as they were true. And I'd think they were probably true if neither the RNC nor Trump denied it.
@164,496: Sorry, but your Grammer is so confusing that I have no idea what you're trying to say.
@164,499: Sorry, but I also side with the Democrats. I even voted for Clinton in the general election. I'm just frustrated when I see my fellow liberals and Democratic voters (which aren't the same thing, but there's plenty of overlap and I'm in both camps) pretending Clinton and the Democrats are good instead of the lesser of two evils. And I'm frustrated to see people on this side being anti-transparency when transparency is thought to have hurt our side and excusing corruption when it helps our side. I'd hoped that more of us were more principled and less tribal then that.
@164,502: Except it wasn't unwarranted, and Clinton's politics were highly problematic as well, albeit not quite as problematic as Trump. I agree that they didn't focus enough on how problematic Trump was, though.
@164,504: I'd rather have one window cleaned than neither.
edited 28th Dec '16 1:42:51 PM by SeriesOfNumbers
IIRC, the CIA said that RNC was also hacked, despite none of their emails getting released and the RNC previously claiming they weren't hacked. Do check that, though, because I'm not certain it was the CIA that said that.
And, well, the consequences of releasing those emails, quite possibly, was getting Trump elected. Certainly that was Assange's motivations for doing so. If the cost of finding about things that look bad but aren't actually illegal is having Trump as a president, that's not a cost worth paying. And don't play the 'partisanship' card; 'Trump is the worst Presidentially candidate in my lifetime, and a serious threat to the American democracy' is, to me, a completely non-partisan opinion. And I'm also not even an American, I'm not part of your tribalist bullshit.
edited 28th Dec '16 1:49:46 PM by Gilphon
~Series Of Numbers: May I point out that even if Clinton's policies have flaws, that does not automatically make them "evil"? Generally "evil" - even "lesser evil" - implies that they are net harmful.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanI think an important question to ask is: at what point does a political organization become "evil"?
Sort of hard to expect any political organization to be perfect. I think most people would admit the Democrats are flawed and that Clinton was a flawed candidate, but that's different from saying "they're the lesser of two evils" given that "evil" is a loaded word.
edited 28th Dec '16 1:44:08 PM by Draghinazzo
@Series Of Numbers Oh, I am too. I just like seeing everything from all angles. Having your values questioned can make you re-evaluate them and fortify your beliefs. Skepticism and criticism is healthy.
@164,513: I think a lot of Clinton's policies would have been harmful. Arming child soldiers as Secretary Of State, risking war with Russia over a no-fly zone in Syria are both dangerous policies and responding to cyber attacks militarily are all harmful and dangerous, with the first and third being quite evil.
@164,514 and 164,516: The Democrats are in favor of invading countries that didn't attack us, continuing the use of drones no matter how many innocent people they kill, and imprisoning heroes who expose government corruption like Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden. Yes, the Democrats have morally superior views on LGBT rights, welfare, religious freedom and police brutality, but that's why they're the lesser of two evils. If we include things that are bad but maybe not evil, they're also both in favor of invading our privacy without warrants and doing favors for people who give them legal bribes "campaign contributions".
edited 28th Dec '16 1:57:43 PM by SeriesOfNumbers
You don't think it's possible that maybe the Republicans just had better cyber-security than the Democrats?
I've a distinct feeling that the Republicans simply weren't targeted due to Russia wanting to try handing the election to someone they feel they can manipulate, as evidenced by his Secretary of State pick, who had a pipeline deal scuttled when the US issued sanctions against Russia for their invasion of Crimea in 2014
.
Considering Trump move with Taiwan and now China did answer, is hard to said Hilary is more pro-war.
Also, is hard to believe the RNC have better security considering Wikileaks sucess before, it look they just didnt bother at all, between them and their softness with Russia it just rise....questions
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"

Didn't Obama himself allegedly say a smooth transition was no longer a priority?
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."