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
I'm aware of that.
So Glenn Greenwald and The Intercept are still trying to pretend away the Russia story. Rather than giving them links I'll leave these two
opinion pieces
on what they've been up to which themselves contain the links to The Intercept articles if you should care to read that tripe.
Once again, Greenwald demonstrates that he only cares about American spying and American aggression. Russia? Russia can rule the world for all he seemingly cares.
![]()
![]()
He might struggle to get that application accepted. The slogan didn't originate with him, he's not the first to use it in political campaigns, so he cannot even claim originality of usage, and it uses common phrases that have been strung together in exactly that phrasing for a number of well-documented situations.
It'll be interesting to see how the US patent clerks deal with it.
Edited to add: Never mind, he's already been given the service mark for it (a service mark isn't the same thing as a trade mark, it's a trade mark on services rather than on goods). I still can't see how it can pass the distinctiveness test, however, but he's had it since 2012.
edited 15th Apr '17 8:55:59 AM by Wyldchyld
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.So Sanders' Twitter account decided to share
this article
which claims his movement and the alt-right are united on wanting single-payer. The article specifically cites alt-righters like Richard Spencer and Mike Cernovich.
Sanders, what are you doing? I get that you really want to believe that Americans want your pet project to happen. But sharing an article that puts you on the same side as Spencer and Cernovich? Why?
Words and phrases really shouldn't be copyrighted or trademarked.
It is the biggest bullshit of the US patent system.
edited 15th Apr '17 8:59:50 AM by AngelusNox
Inter arma enim silent legesI just had a long Twitter chat with a friend. The talk went over multiple topics, but it got me thinking of something. What do we value?
By that, what trait or quality do we view as most important in our prospective leaders above all others?
Is it policy? If so, on what regard? There were people who would've voted for Clinton without hesitation if not for fear of how she'd handle TPP. On the flip side, there are people who wanted Sanders for a perceived lack of corruption despite near identical platforms.
There are people who voted for Trump because they thought, be it despite or because of his blatant racism, he better represented their interests.
What is it for us here? What one thing is most likely to be a make or break?
For me, it's competence. Rightly or wrongly, I will willingly accept someone who takes the job seriously and shows they can do it even if I might otherwise disagree with them. It's the primary reason I supported Clinton throughout the election. Especially if Sanders' proposals were as pie in the sky as this thread made them seem (I'm utterly ignorant of economics so I'm not able to judge myself). If impeachment or worse were to happen, I'd willingly accept Pence. Despite the conversion therapy and religious fervor, at least he could do the job. Plus, it's not far removed from what we'd have expected from any Republican president we got.
But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
edited 15th Apr '17 9:00:12 AM by sgamer82
I'm hesitant to put pure technocratic competency on a pedestal, at the expense of all else. I can't in good conscience say that I want a Chinese politburo grandee as a leader simply because they're good at, hypothetically, managing money on a macro scale. I would vote a genuinely well-intentioned politician who might not be the cream of the crop if they made a moral stand, disavowing racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc, was for the expansion of healthcare and economic safeguards, and the promotion of America as a good neighbor in the international community, if it meant forgoing a genius, hypercompetent bureaucrat to outdo all other bureaucrats who was also a horrible person with a fuck the poor, fuck minorities kind of mindset.
Horrible, competent people are the most dangerous, and can do the most damage because they con voters into thinking that their effectiveness as an administrator is worth the havoc they wreak with minorities, women, and the poor.
edited 15th Apr '17 9:07:52 AM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."You pretty much answered your own question. Not to mention that the uptick in support for single-payer across the board has been a pretty big news topic for the past few weeks.
Either way, probably not the smartest move from Sanders (to say the least), but not something I think that's worth burying him over.
![]()
![]()
![]()
I can see that, and because I can I can also appreciate that there are people who would see Mike Pence as potentially worse than Trump for the very things I cited (Conversion Therapy, religious right). Given a choice, I'd aim for a candidate that follows my morals, too. In fact, I did do that in voting for Clinton. If it's a choice between idiot and competent-but-iffy, I feel compelled towards the competent. The advantage of the idiot is, of course, that he's much more blatantly corrupt/evil than the competent one might be without being watched. But, for that very reason, I feel he has a lot more potential to do a lot of damage.
edited 15th Apr '17 9:19:18 AM by sgamer82
Either way, probably not the smartest move from Sanders (to say the least), but not something I think that's worth burying him over.
It might not be worth burying him over in and of itself, but it's another in long line of racially tonedeaf actions from him and the people around him. General rule—we don't make common ground with Neo-Nazis.
Actually, I heard spencer's call for Single Payer. He did say that the time for single-payer is now, even with minorities on the system, because single payer will make people more racially concious or something, I've yet to understand the reasoning here. "Single-Payer Healthcare"->"???"->"Race War Now".
This kid is awesome. Asking her senator to attend her science class to learn about climate change.
