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
![]()
Our actions help define who we are. Either Trump actually believes all the awful stuff he says and does, or he's just done all of it for power and publicity, neither of which make him an appealing person to me, to say the least. Furthermore, nothing I've heard about him has made me reconsider that viewpoint - quite the contrary, it's merely reinforced it.
So yes, I do hate Trump as a person, because everything he's done is a critical part of just what kind of man he is. I don't need to know him personally - that wouldn't be enough to change how I feel about someone who does the things he does.
edited 16th Jun '17 8:31:02 AM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!In other news, Michelle Carter, the teen who encouraged her boyfriend to commit suicide
, has been found guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter. From what I've seen of the texts, it seems like the most appropriate outcome, because god damn are those some callous texts - he texts her asking how her day has been, and her first reply is "When are you doing it?
"
This may even set precedent going forward, though this was an exceptionally bad case of pressuring someone into suicide.
And with the main topic of conversation, my preference would be to keep the Electoral College, but have the Votes per state split on a State level - that way gerrymandering doesn't muck things up, and it does away with the "Battleground State" bullshit. The catch, admittedly, would be what to do with States that only have 1 EV to give - do they get a second House member, or do they remain winner-take-all out of necessity?
edited 16th Jun '17 8:33:50 AM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"That could be for the best, in all honesty. Rosenstein, I feel, is the highest ranking Justice Department Exec that actually cares about Justice, and the Russian Investigation specifically, and while him recusing himself might give more power to Trump over the Investigation, it would also give the Counsel more power as well.
@Bense - I've been vocal in the past about leaving the integrity of the vote the befit of the doubt but the leak from last week was new evidence that the Russians got further in hacking the actual voting apparatus than we knew and possibly further than we still know. The very fact this happened after Obama told them "hands off or else" is alarming.
edited 16th Jun '17 8:35:25 AM by Elle
I can live with the bad things he's done so far in exchange for some of the good things, like his choice of supreme court justice.
That doesn't mean he couldn't do something in the future to change my mind.
edited 16th Jun '17 8:34:41 AM by Bense
x8: If we start from the precept that "gun ownership is a right and taken away after the fact," then we're never going to be able to stop gun violence, since not only is gun ownership unimpeded, it's portrayed as an exercise of citizenship, the way political commentary, a protected enterprise, also is. If we start from the precept that "gun ownership is a privilege that may be granted," then you're starting from a philosophical and legal baseline where guns are simply not available to the average person, where they are allowed is strictly regulated, and any deviance from these laws is punished.
If we're concerned about gun violence, we'd stem gun ownership period, rather than other-ing the mentally ill and focusing on extraordinary examples of illegal purchases that don't in any way represent the majority of firearms bought and sold in the country.
edited 16th Jun '17 8:36:23 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."@Bense Even though almost literally every bad thing he accused Hillary of he has either been guilty of or subsequently done himself, or done worse?
The court is so far a net neutral at best; Scalia replaced with someone like him. If other Justices die or retire in the next four years (which is not unlikely) nobody here wants more Scalia-likes to replace them. It should have gone to Obama's nominee though.
@Crimson: The gun is not the cause of violence. It may be an enabler but people will find ways to ve violent and deadly with or without them. Instead of focusing on gun violence wouldn't it make more sense to focus on programs that reduce violence, period?
edited 16th Jun '17 8:42:18 AM by Elle
Obvious follow up question then, what about Clinton makes keeping her out of the Oval Office worth having Trump in it instead, even after all the various acts of incompetence, corruption, and incompetent corruption?
For reasons already brought up en masse, I sincerely cannot conceive of anything Clinton has done or might do that makes Donald Trump seem like the preferable choice. Not when he's been just about everything people have accused Clinton of being. I ask seriously, what's the logic?
edited 16th Jun '17 9:08:07 AM by sgamer82
I mean, I'll be honest, I'd think being a climate change denier ought to trump (hah) everything else. What, incidentally, is your stance on that?
Oh God! Natural light!I myself am of the opinion that hate should always be avoided if possible, even when you're dealing with someone like Pol Pot or the leaders of ISIS. Admittedly, I don't always follow this advice, but I do think one should always try to follow it.
There's really not much good to be said about hate. It leads to closed-mindedness and bitterness, and nothing good ever comes of that. Even if the target of your hate is itself evil, hate is the force of staring into the abyss.
Above all else, one must be sure their actions are defined by what they support, rather than what they oppose.
Leviticus 19:34"The gun is not the cause of violence. It may be an enabler but people will find ways to ve violent and deadly with or without them. Instead of focusing on gun violence wouldn't it make more sense to focus on programs that reduce violence, period?"
Of course, but you're not going to end violence by facilitating murder.
"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."Tread carefully with how you answer those questions, Bense. Easily half of the things or more that Trump has done while in office sent him flying into the Moral Event Horizon for the vast majority of regular posters here.
@M84: That is correct. While hate is always evil, being frustrated or indignant with things going on in the world is reasonable. After all, every living being has a duty to reduce the amount of evil in the world.
Leviticus 19:34In regards to "hate"...how exactly are we defining that, in contrast to "anger"? Because I'll be honest, I think I might have a somewhat less extreme definition of it than others here.
Or at least, my definition of it allows for a hatred that doesn't involve going out and murdering people.
Oh God! Natural light!I find this incredibly unsettling. The article you said was lying made it very clear the information was coming from a draft memo, how serious the powers that be took it is up for debate, which you deliberately chose not to mention when you listed it as "fake news." That's an intentional distortion of the truth and better qualifies as fake news than the article in question.
Generally speaking I would probably agree, idealistically speaking, that hatred is not exactly a positive or constructive emotion.
However, I find it difficult to blame someone for hating (or, I suppose you might say "strongly disliking") Trump because he's displayed, over and over again, that he's an extremely terrible person whose actions might and likely will have disastrous consequences. In this regard I would also agree with Karkat in that resenting someone doesn't necessarily mean you're going to go out and murder someone.
edited 16th Jun '17 9:03:54 AM by Draghinazzo
You can argue for it on the basis of law, but not on the basis of democracy, which is what the US claims to be. In fact, I would argue that people only tolerate these kinds of anti-democratic restrictions on their voting power as long as they only very rarely prove a decisive factor, which has historically been the case. But right now, having won without the popular vote twice in as many decades, the GOP is dangerously close to establishing the pattern that right-wing presidential candidate can only win by exploiting anti-democratic loopholes in the constitution.
One other thing I'd like to note is that the US has never had a successful president who got into power without a popular vote. At best, the Electoral College has brought to power forgettable mediocrities and lame ducks like John Quincy Adams and Benjamin Harrison, at worst total disasters like George W. Bush. Historically, there is little to recommend about not having a direct popular vote in the USA or anywhere else.

He's introduced policies that are going to kill people. A lot of people. He can, on no uncertain terms, get fucked. He doesn't get a free pass just because I haven't sat down at a dinner with him.
edited 16th Jun '17 8:29:23 AM by math792d
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.