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
Hey, so, while asking for sources and evidence with claims is very good practice, immediately dismissing two separate sources provided and calling them, “not sources” and “a conspiracy theory,” is needlessly inflammatory and insulting.
Not to mention it pisses me off considering the current climate of degradation of the truth and anti-intellectualism.
It seemed to me the request was for sources that could be readily checked against the claims being made. Though, for me personally, I noticed they, with the naming of the sources, the nature of the claims was also changed, which suggested they wouldn't necessarily bear our was was bring said to begin with.
That, combined with the outrageous nature of the claims, that soldiers were being deliberately starved old supplies to increase aggressiveness, worked against them credibility wise.
Edited by sgamer82 on Nov 12th 2018 at 12:17:03 PM
x3 I’m inclined to agree. Perhaps it might help if there were sources that one could read online, or if the books were specifically quoted?
Regardless, if Bob Woodward - a well-respected journalist who just wrote a book on Trump that I’m fairly certain that everyone here took at face value - is a source for this, then I feel like it’s at least worth looking into.
Like, the U.S. government had pulled some shit - I could believe that at least a few people involved would do something like this. Like, we’ve just discussed how little Trump actually seems to care about U.S. troops - that others would be much the same is not far-fetched.
Edited by KarkatTheDalek on Nov 12th 2018 at 2:19:18 PM
Oh God! Natural light!I will agree with that - Robrecht, you are kind of asking people to take it on faith that you are citing the source correctly, when for all we know, you could be mistaken. Quoted would be very helpful.
Oh God! Natural light!For the record I'm not calling the authors conspiracy theorists,I said that his statement was a conspiracy,seriously why the hell would they starve their own troops when they could just order them to shoot?It's very likely a supply issue like the poster above me mentioned
Edited by Ultimatum on Nov 12th 2018 at 11:25:18 AM
have a listen and have a link to my discord serverNo, I don’t think you understand the problem I have.
Let me try to explain: We are discussing recent history. History is an academic discipline that is about trying to distill truth from the confusing and often contradictory accounts of people, using what evidence we can rely on to try and form the closest thing we can to an actual objective truth.
This is one of the reasons the current bothers me, in addition to all they’ve done, they show not the apathy for the truth that I expected, but an outright opposition to the very concept of truthseeking and trying to build a consensus about the world.
So, we had in this thread an engagement with seeking the truth- which is good! Asking for evidence, discussing and evaluating it. That’s exactly what I want to see in this time.
However, then someone, after being supplied evidence, rather than trying to engage with it by arguing against it, or saying they needed an additional clarification, or even that they wanted more from that source to evaluate-
They just denounced the person, after that person supplied the requested sources, as a conspiracy theorist. This is the exact sort of thing that the Trump administration would do.
Don’t try to engage or ask questions!
Conspiracy theory! Fake news!
So, don't know how long you've been here, but there's this one commentator in this thread. He provides respectable sources to pretty much everything he says.
Thing is, said sources don't actually support what he says if you actually read them. He just finds a related article and hopes that you assume you don't check his sources.
Which is part of the reason that when a pretty strong claim is made, and initially backed up with just "because it's the truth" and when they're questioned (quite reasonably), going "somewhere in these books is the source, and I'm not even going to summarize the argument and I'm going to move the goalposts too," that really doesn't sit well.
And equating that to Trump's abject denial of reality sits even worse.
The funny thing is I don't actually think Rob's misrepresenting anything, but I have no issue with people absolutely not taking his word.
Edited by Larkmarn on Nov 12th 2018 at 3:14:13 PM
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.Without actually knowing what specific parts Robrecht is claiming, we have no idea if Woodward was actually even claiming that it was a deliberate action rather than just claiming mismanagement on the part of the US military. He just listed books rather without giving a proper citation of the actual passages he's claiming backs up his point. Which is not contributing to truth finding.
Frankly, Matues, you're being alarmist when what most people here want Robrecht to do is give us actual things we can fact check rather than just tell us he read it in a book somewhere. He is not contributing to truth finding when he says "it's in this book, I swear". And, as has been pointed out, changes what his claim is in that same post from his initial assertion. That is pretty much changing the goalposts right there.
And not giving us a quote? Sure, some of us could probably go look this up and read an entire book or two, but not all of us. I don't have ready access to the volumes he suggested. They're probably not even in my library, and the time it would take to go find and buy those books and read them would take long enough that the conversation going on right now is not helped at all.
I don’t find the evidence compelling enough to support the claim either. Expecting people in an informal, nonacademic setting to read multiple books to evaluate your claim is a bit much. I’d enjoy an excerpt or a smaller article available online.
But that’s not what was said.
Not, “This isn’t enough to prove your claim,” or “Give me something more accessible,” or “I’ve read that and you’re misrepresenting it”.
Those are all perfectly acceptable and I strongly encourage them.
It was, “Those aren’t sources,” and “This is a conspiracy theory.”
Those are sources. They aren’t useful for this particular format, and so asking for something else is reasonable, but acting as if a book is not a reasonable source for a claim does not sit well with me.
Neither does accusing the user of being a conspiracy theorist without providing anything to back that up. Not, “Those authors are widely known to be conspiracy theorists and aren’t credible,” or “The sources are being misrepresented here,” or “The thing you’re saying is known to be a common conspiracy theory originating [here].”
Accusations like that without anything else come across as an attempt to dismiss the argument without attempting to address it.
I am pretty sure that Trump's popularity with the military is sinking. Fast. I mean, he disrespects them at every turn.
Which is a good thing, because it would be terrifying if Trump had the military behind him. We are lucky that Trump is too stupid to recognize that this is the one branch every dictator has to secure first.
Alright, thank you, Le Garcon. That’s useful information.
I don’t find the original claim made to be credible because waving in the direction of a bunch of books, while tempting, is not a good form of evidence in an online discussion.
I got needlessly heated and argumentative, and I’m sorry about that.
From my perspective, it looked like someone asking for evidence simply so they could ignore it and accuse the person of being a liar.
Most people in this thread acted in a way that I found to be completely in line with an unsubstantiated claim backed by inaccessible evidence, so that one jarred me.
Calling someone a conspiracy theorist is, to me, just saying they’re a liar and no one should trust them, and everything they say is illegitimate. That strikes me as being against the general spirit of a forum, unless it’s very well established that the person debates in bad faith.
Ultimatum, I apologize for being so harsh and hyperbolic. I should not have posted without taking time to cool down and make sure my words and statements were not hurtful.
"The markets are crashing? Blame the opposition!"
"The borders are porous? Blame the opposition!"
"Your pizza arrived cold? Blame the opposition!"
Stay classy, Don and the GOP.
Anything like a Good MRE?
If you're hungry, bored, and burned out from mindless tedium, sure. Otherwise, it's an elaborate joke.
"They said in the Army, the food is mighty fine. You ask for Stirfry, they give you Intestine."
Edited by TechPriest90 on Nov 12th 2018 at 7:43:58 AM
I hold the secrets of the machine.A second "major" candidate has declared intent to run for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, and he is Richard Ojeda from West Virginia.
Pros: fiercely pro-union, universal healthcare, getting money out of politics and can reach an untapped electorate. Cons: pro-gun rights, Trump voter, thinks the democrats have stopped being about the working class.
Life is unfair...

You know what just dawned one me? By demanding that the recount stop, Donald is effectively saying that the votes of soldiers serving overseas can get stuffed. The same votes which, in fact, lean GOP more than anything.
This on top of the cancelled visit to the WW 1 cemetery...what a piece of shit lol