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
Asgore Adopts Noelle
![]()
Well, if Greg Abbott wants to turn Texas Blue by destroying Jobs like Pat McRory did to North Carolina, I'd say more power to him.
And another one from Texas, State Senator Charles Schwertner (R-5) shattered a glass table with a gavel in order to stop someone from going against a bill which would prevent women from donating fetal tissue to science after an abortion.
edited 16th Feb '17 6:28:36 PM by tclittle
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."Don't expect a lot of things to get done at the White House anytime soon.
@Century: Honestly, Mattis, Tillerson, Pompeo, and Kelly are seemingly playing the Only Sane Man role in the Trump administration, insofar as they're pretty standard Republican fare. I suspect they'd also likely be the nucleus of an attempt by the cabinet to declare Trump unfit for office, though that would depend on Pence being in on it and getting at least some of the more Trumpian nominees on board.
edited 16th Feb '17 6:43:07 PM by CaptainCapsase
"Don't expect a lot of things to get done at the White House anytime soon."
Well, the civil service holding things together until the next president can finish washing orange spray tan out of the big chair is probably the best that can be had in this situation.
Also, Tillerson's been sidelined. His staff have had to ask foreign diplomats what's going on in the WH.
edited 16th Feb '17 6:43:54 PM by CenturyEye
Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our lives
Which is pretty much normal Republican jingoism. Compared to Bannon who wants to start a great power war. Only Sane Man is being used in relative terms; his foreign policy team is still a horrific fusion of the Bush and Nixon administrations, but none of those people are even in the same league as Trump and Bannon.
edited 16th Feb '17 6:46:17 PM by CaptainCapsase
Two things:
1: I woulda thunk processing security clearance would be something that got done before you're hired in the government.
2: Hey, guys, you know this guy, Bannon? This dude working the most closely with Drumpf and got installed on the NSC? Could you hurry up with his background checks because people were saying back in November that there were people saying no way he could get clearance.
edited 16th Feb '17 6:48:12 PM by Elle
Clearly, Comey has somehow slipped out of Trump's back pocket. Not too surprising, considering how weak Trump has appeared to be these last few weeks. Comey is not loyal to Trump in any sense of the term- he will stab his president in the back the instant it appears profitable. Now, the question is, does Trump realize that?
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.I know this has probably been posted here already, but Ashton Kutcher is the fucking best.
The Toronto Metro is calling Sean Spicer "a Melissa McCarthy impersonator"
Here's a piece from the Independent that had the reports that the Yemen raid was a dare.
edited 16th Feb '17 7:24:28 PM by Eschaton
@174530:
Once again, you've confused someone disagreeing with you with trolling. Is it so hard to imagine someone might just have very different opinions from you? I've never assumed anyone else on this forum didn't believe what they were saying, even when I thought they were wrong.
Who I actually didn't defend. I literally asked what she'd done because I didn't know much about her. After getting an answer, I conceded that those criticizing her on this thread were correct. The only time I came close to "defending" her was pointing out one thing she said that appeared to be correct even while acknowledging that all the other things she was criticized for are bad things.
I must confess, I don't remember what you're referring to. I stopped trusting Uyger as a source months ago and was pretty sure that was before I'd ever posted anything here, but perhaps I'm mistaken. In any case, I don't defend him any more and if I did on this thread in prior posts, I apologize and take it back.
If you're talking about Justice Democrats, I don't see the problem with that organization. Most of its platform looks pretty good to me. If Uyger himself or some JD who shares his negative traits runs, I'll vote against them in the primary. If they win the primary, I'll vote against them in the general unless the Republican is worse. As long as Uyger is merely in an administrative or co-ordination role, I don't really see the issue.
Unless you're referring to one of the people earlier on your list, I'm not sure who you're talking about.
I never defended Assad, either. At most I've said that someone just as bad or even worse may replace him if he's removed from power (just like ISIS came into being and took over parts of Iraq after Hussien was deposed) and that it appeared some of the groups fighting him are terrorist groups (which isn't a defense of Assad any more than pointing out that one of the people who fought Hitler was Stalin is a defense of Hitler).
@175531:
But in this case, the "ideological purity wankers" are the ones whose principles help people. America's spectrum is so right-wing now that being a centrist or conservative means allowing big banks to commit fraud and get away with it and having unnecessary wars overseas that frequently kill innocent civilians.
On the contrary, the polls showed the more ideologically pure Democrat beating Trump by a wider margin than Clinton. And Trump himself switched positions so often throughout the campaign that he could hardly be called an ideologically pure anything (unless egomania counts as an ideology, of course).
If you don't think arming child soldiers is all that evil, I don't know what to tell you.
I'm sorry. It just frustrates me when people are in denial about reality. If this were a thread of climate change deniers, I'm sure that get pretty tired of hearing me tell them how wrong they are as well.
I agree that she was the better of the two (arming children who presumably would've been forced into combat anyway with weapons from elsewhere isn't quite as evil as killing civilians on purpose who otherwise might've survived or torturing people needlessly who otherwise wouldn't have been tortured), but I don't think it's by as wide a margin as a lot of my fellow Trump-haters (on an "evilness scale" with 1 being least evil and 10 being most, I'd put Clinton at about an 8 and Trump at a 10).
Given the bad things about Clinton, the number of former Obama voters who voted Trump and the part that economics played in the election, there were reasons some people voted for Trump other than bigotry. A lot of Trump voters are bigots and bad people, but seeing people on this thread lump all Trump voters together as bigots and bad people frustrates me. I see it as Not So Different from lumping all Muslims together as terrorists.
(No doubt someone's now going to claim I did that on the Islamaphobia thread, but I didn't. My only argument was that some people who've been called Islamophobes - Harris, Maher, etc. - may actually not be and they might be right about the larger prominence of extremist ideas among the Muslim population based on polling data, but that's a subject for that thread).
Or by someone they (wrongly) perceive as better for their economic future, or by someone they (mistakenly) think is less corrupt than Hillary Clinton, or by someone who has no known history of arming child soldiers (also, what about the women who've gotten popular doing similar shit like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Ann Coulter?)
It does to people who've seen the corruption of political insiders and think an outsider can fix it. The real problem with Trump in that area is that he's not really a political outsider, having bought plenty of politicians in the past.
@174533:
How does wanting to keep more jobs in America or only use the military in self-defense make someone a crackpot?
@174535:
It becomes relevant when Trump voters are all lumped together as bigots and bad people when Clinton's evil means that in reality there were legitimate, non-bigotry reasons to vote for Trump. I'm not saying Trump wasn't worse, but people who thought Clinton was worse weren't all crazy bigots, so it isn't right to pretend they were.
@174548:
How so? One of the founders contributed to reporting on the NSA spying that won Pulitzer Prizes. Seems like a pretty credible source to me.
@174557
If you don't think arming child soldiers is all that evil, I don't know what to tell you.
Aw, I was sincerely curious what kind of response "Hillary's 'evil' is irrelevant" would get.
Ah, well.
"Trump says he will unveil overhauled immigration order next week" - http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-court-idUSKBN15V2LE
Could moderation please not thump posts for the reason of "preserving dignity"? It is incredibly patronizing.
If the post was civil and written in good faith, there is no reason to thump posts.
edited 16th Feb '17 7:45:59 PM by germi91
"It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few."Clinton's evil is relevant in that it provides a legitimate reason for someone to have voted Trump, meaning it's not right that people on this forum lump all Trump voters together with the bigoted ones.
@174587: If Greenwald's reporting usually reflects that he has a "hard on" for the Clintons, wouldn't that make a story from him about Clinton that paints Hillary negatively more credible, not less? I mean, he'd be going against his natural bias, right? It'd be like a Fox story that made Hillary look good.
EDIT: The post was written in good faith. I apologize if it wasn't civil. I really don't mean to attack people here. I just get frustrated when it feels like (and maybe I'm wrong, but this is what it feels like to me) people are missing the point or ignoring facts that I bring up and it makes me mad when I'm falsely branded a troll.
edited 16th Feb '17 7:48:59 PM by SeriesOfNumbers
