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
Because there was nothing they could charge her for.
edited 8th Apr '17 10:17:36 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.But Her Emails: Charging Hillary would have required retroactively charging literally every senior State Department official since the turn of the millennium due to antiquated infrastructure requiring that communications rules be broken in order for the State Department to even function.
![]()
![]()
*sigh* This is why I don't like responding to this kind of stuff. It's like reading the same book again and again, and the book isn't even a good one.
edited 8th Apr '17 10:23:03 AM by Advarielle
Only an experienced editor who has a name possesses the ability to truly understand my work - What 90% of writers I'm in charge of said.![]()
The kicker is, if Gabbard hadn't endorsed Sanders, "progressives" would be baying for her blood (figuratively) and decrying the EVIL establishment for supporting her. But hey, she got on the Sanders train early so all is forgiven.
Fixed it. Thanks.
edited 8th Apr '17 10:28:50 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised
"Progressives" not progressives. Let's not let them steal that term for themselves. Anyone with genuinely progressive views would not embrace an unreformed homophobe and Islamaphobe who supports Bashar al-Assad and Donald Trump both.
Of course as I've said before, this is the problem with messianic politics. Anything that gets the Messiah's blessing is assumed by default to be good. Anything the Messiah disagrees with is caricatured as evil. Gabbard endorsed Sanders and he in turn assured his followers that she was good people, which for the true diehards among them was enough reason to never question her again. Not because of anything she'd actually done to advance a progressive agenda but because the Messiah said she was the genuine article so she must be.
EDIT: Article on Gabbard's Islamaphobia and connections to radical Hindu politics
.
edited 8th Apr '17 10:35:19 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar
How does that look like the FBI was pulling for Hillary? What are you taking? Or for something based off your signature, what are you feeling exactly?
edited 8th Apr '17 10:42:14 AM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotAnd the claim the FBI 'preferred her' goes against the FBI's visible public actions, as well as polling conducted within the FBI which outed the organization as filled with radical Trump fanboys who think "Clinton Cash" is a documentary.
You are crafting a conspiracy theory to defend your belief that Clinton is corrupt and in the process are wittingly or unwittingly defending Trump.
@vast-ocean: I'm going to ask you the question that comes to my mind every single time Clinton scandals get brought up now: Why does it matter?
At this point, Hillary Clinton and the skeletons in her closet, real or imagined, are irrelevant. They became irrelevant the moment she became the Democratic candidate for President of the United States. They became irrelevant because Trump was so blatantly unfit for the office of President that nothing could justify putting him in the office over her. They remain irrelevant because she lost, lost "bigly" and not even the Republicans consider her a threat anymore (nobody cares about "Locking her Up" anymore, for instance). On top of that, she just announced she's basically retiring from politics for good. So she's out. Nothing she's done matters anymore.
Finally, to shoehorn my preferred expression, complaining about Hillary Clinton's corruption just rings hollow after watching Donald Trump spend the last six months since the election treating each and every accusation against her like a job description.
edited 8th Apr '17 10:49:52 AM by sgamer82
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
There is no point or merit in supporting Gabbard. She isn't a good democrat, and she is in Hawaii. In fact, supporting her is harmful to the "progressives". At least the democrat can learn a thing or two from the "progressives" about the dangers of the horseshoe theory.
![]()
![]()
![]()
You really should be more clear about this kind of stuff.
You don't need to use an analogy on a fact. You use it on a hypothetical scenario.
I guess we just have to be an adult and agree to disagree on this one.
It's still better than all innocent people. The saying "perfect is the enemy of good" exists for a reason, you know.
I'm going to give you an advice here. Don't say, write, or type things unless you really mean it. The justification I'm just kidding or speculating don't always work.
Not to mention that this is top-class conspiracy nutjob's nonsense. You aren't talking in a debate, but typing a comment on a forum. You have more than enough time to think before you type.
edited 8th Apr '17 10:53:21 AM by Advarielle
Only an experienced editor who has a name possesses the ability to truly understand my work - What 90% of writers I'm in charge of said.Sorry-not-Sorry, couldn't help myself on this one. This is another one that rings hollow, both because of my "job description" metaphor, and because pretty much everyone here assumed Trump would use military force the first chance he got, while Clinton is not nearly so bloodthirsty.
edited 8th Apr '17 10:59:37 AM by sgamer82
And there it is. You just proved you know absolutely nothing about what you are pontificating on. The coups in Iran and Guatemala were not executed by some shadowy CIA operatives going behind the backs of the current president. They were done on the orders of the executive branch of the government, which agreed with the intelligence agencies that the socialist Iranian and Guatemalan governments were threats to American interests and demanded operations be launched to undermine them. It was in no way a product of the "Deep State" and you're digging yourself further and further into conspiracy theorist territory every time you use that Breitbart pushed phrase.
I was waiting for this. It's such old hat from the alt-right and fringe left by now. No-fly zones are a regular part of US foreign policy. They were regularly declared throughout the Cold War. They are a part of business-as-usual. Get over it.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
As did many people in the post 9/11 climate. So?
And a no fly zone would have required planning, more far more planning than an ineffectual strike on an airbase (you want to render one unusable? You have to break out the cluster munitions or delayed action bombs). Otherwise, see ![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
I'm being too kind before, am I?
Seriously, you're destroying your own credibility better than your opponent. What are you doing?
I don't think anyone is going to answer you on that.
edited 8th Apr '17 11:08:28 AM by Advarielle
Only an experienced editor who has a name possesses the ability to truly understand my work - What 90% of writers I'm in charge of said.![]()
![]()
Just because it's a speculation doesn't mean that you can go nuts and give any kind of answer. Speculation is based on reality and your speculation is just off. It's called speculation, not make our own fact and history.
To be honest, when her opponent is Trump, I don't think there is even a good enough reason to hate her unless, of course, you make stuff up and claim that she is the new, sixth Chosen of Chaos or something like that.
edited 8th Apr '17 11:17:33 AM by Advarielle
Only an experienced editor who has a name possesses the ability to truly understand my work - What 90% of writers I'm in charge of said.

Excuse me while I laugh. Sanders got played like a fiddle by Trump during the actual election, acting like a small child desperate for Trump to debate him and therefore give him legitimacy in the midst of a losing primary campaign. He shot himself in the foot and elevated Trump, all without Trump ever having to do anything beyond a pretty basic trick.
It goes beyond that even. She worked with her father's organization to actively fight against gay rights. It's one thing to be a lawmaker who wasn't in favour of gay rights a few years ago. It's a whole other thing to have actively tried to suppress the gay rights movement, and to continue to employ staff from those organizations. It would be one thing for her to claim to have had an epiphany, but for her to have brought numerous anti-gay figures who worked for her and her father in the past along with her? At that point she breaks my willing suspension of disbelief.
Frankly, I've got to disagree that she's worse than Manchin, and not only in the relative sense. Manchin may not have been a big supporter of gay rights but he's also never opposed them in the same way that she did. Same goes on numerous other issues. He may not push for progressive causes, but Gabbard has actively tried to undermine those same causes. Throw in her Assad fangirling, and her various statements of support for Trump, and you've got pure conartist personified.
You have evidence for nothing. The entire "Clinton Foundation scandal" was debunked, repeatedly, including by numerous other articles in the Post.
...If? So you've somehow missed all the genuine corruption in the Trump admin while you were busy harping on the nonexistent corruption of the Clintons? Why does that not surprise.
So, as was before, blatant both-siderism with a side dose of Unicorn Brigade talking points. I mean seriously, we're doing the drone thing again? We're pretending the Democrats have launched an "unprovoked war in the Middle East" when they've literally done nothing of the sort? That's where this conversation is going? Wish I could say I was surprised.
And here we have it folks. Overt conspiracy theorizing about the "Deep State" plotting against Trump on behalf of the Democrats, complete with the suggestion that Trump is going to rein in the powers of those evil, evil intelligence agencies, whereas Clinton would have given them "free reign". Throw in accusations of Clinton being a warhawk on Russia, with the implied suggestion that the intelligence community wants a war with Russia, and you've got a Breitbart article from a couple of months ago.
Not sure there's any further point in engaging with this garbage.