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
![]()
Pretty much. It gets thrown around a lot more in the UK and Australia, which makes listening to people swear in those locations uncomfortable at times.
Edit:
again.
Edited by AzurePaladin on Jan 12th 2019 at 11:48:22 AM
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -FighteerI did stop, I agreed that the other c-word was more appropriate. Really, both are gendered in their own way (though obviously with vastly different connotations if used in that context), and I believe both share a film rating zone with "fuck" in that a PG-13 film is allowed to have exactly one in it before it's bumped up to R. I could be wrong, though.
I have heard it used more often in recent years in non-gendered contexts as just another severe insult, and I've seen people explicitly trying to remove the gendered connotations the word has, so I was under the impression that it was a progressive movement, like when other slurs are reclaimed and/or stripped of their offensive connotations. Maybe to bring it more in line with the UK and Australia, as mentioned above.
Edited by PushoverMediaCritic on Jan 12th 2019 at 9:52:46 AM
Slang varies by country. And the term has very gendered implications by its very nature; it’s basically the ultimate swear word in the US, and it’s generally only used to be nasty and sexist.
HAHAHA oh. Using the female c-word is an immediate R rating.
Correct. I can call myself queer, but if a random straight person calls me queer that might be very offensive depending on context.
Edited by wisewillow on Jan 12th 2019 at 11:53:52 AM
Pushover, do yourself a favor. Please. Drop. It. You're digging yourself deeper now.
Edited by AzurePaladin on Jan 12th 2019 at 11:56:32 AM
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -FighteerEDIT: Removed.
Moving on- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
and others
have been calling out CBS News, who just unveiled their 2020 election coverage team.
Their team doesn’t have a single black journalist. When white supremacy and voter suppression are major 2020 election issues.
Edited by wisewillow on Jan 12th 2019 at 12:06:22 PM
I liked that. It was pretty tactful, yet firm. As a Congresswoman, AOC needs to watch how she acts around the press, because she's in a position where the First Amendment is an actual thing to be cognizant of and not just a set of words that assholes break out whenever nobody wants to listen to their hate speech.
Unlike Trump's "Fake News" shit, this was a very specific criticism leveled at a clearly identified network over a legitimate problem, issued from her personal twitter account and not in any formal capacity as Congresswoman. In one tweet, AOC put every remark Trump's ever made about the press to shame.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.The Washington Post broke this story late yesterday night.
Trump did so after a meeting with Putin in 2017 in Hamburg that was also attended by then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. U.S. officials learned of Trump’s actions when a White House adviser and a senior State Department official sought information from the interpreter beyond a readout shared by Tillerson.
The constraints that Trump imposed are part of a broader pattern by the president of shielding his communications with Putin from public scrutiny and preventing even high-ranking officials in his own administration from fully knowing what he has told one of the United States’ main adversaries.
As a result, U.S. officials said there is no detailed record, even in classified files, of Trump’s face-to-face interactions with the Russian leader at five locations over the past two years. Such a gap would be unusual in any presidency, let alone one that Russia sought to install through what U.S. intelligence agencies have described as an unprecedented campaign of election interference.
The new details about Trump’s continued secrecy underscore the extent to which little is known about his communications with Putin since becoming president.
“It’s been several months since Helsinki and we still don’t know what went on in that meeting,” Engel said. “It’s appalling. It just makes you want to scratch your head.”
The concerns have been compounded by actions and positions Trump has taken as president that are seen as favorable to the Kremlin. He has dismissed Russia’s election interference as a “hoax,” suggested that Russia was entitled to annex Crimea, repeatedly attacked NATO allies, resisted efforts to impose sanctions on Moscow, and begun to pull U.S. forces out of Syria — a move that critics see as effectively ceding ground to Russia.
At the same time, Trump’s decision to fire Comey and other attempts to contain the ongoing Russia investigation led the bureau in May 2017 to launch a counterintelligence investigation into whether he was seeking to help Russia and if so, why, a step first reported by the New York Times
Trump also had other private conversations with Putin at meetings of global leaders outside the presence of aides. He spoke at length with Putin at a banquet at the same 2017 global conference in Hamburg, where only Putin’s interpreter was present. Trump also had a brief conversation with Putin at a Group of 20 summit in Buenos Aires last month.
Trump generally has allowed aides to listen to his phone conversations with Putin, although Russia has often been first to disclose those calls when they occur and release statements characterizing them in broad terms favorable to the Kremlin.
In an email, Tillerson said that he “was present for the entirety of the two presidents’ official bilateral meeting in Hamburg,” but he declined to discuss the meeting and did not respond to questions about whether Trump had instructed the interpreter to remain silent or had taken the interpreter’s notes.
In a news conference afterward, Tillerson said that the Trump-Putin meeting lasted more than two hours, covered the war in Syria and other subjects, and that Trump had “pressed President Putin on more than one occasion regarding Russian involvement” in election interference. “President Putin denied such involvement, as I think he has in the past,” Tillerson said.
Tillerson refused to say during the news conference whether Trump had rejected Putin’s claim or indicated that he believed the conclusion of U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia had interfered.
Tillerson’s account is at odds with the only detail that other administration officials were able to get from the interpreter, officials said. Though the interpreter refused to discuss the meeting, officials said, he conceded that Putin had denied any Russian involvement in the U.S. election and that Trump responded by saying, “I believe you.”
Senior Trump administration officials said that White House officials including then-National Security Adviser H.R. Mc Master were never able to obtain a comprehensive account of the meeting, even from Tillerson.
“We were frustrated because we didn’t get a readout,” a former senior administration official said. “The State Department and [National Security Council] were never comfortable” with Trump’s interactions with Putin, the official said. “God only knows what they were going to talk about or agree to.”
Because of the absence of any reliable record of Trump’s conversations with Putin, officials at times have had to rely on reports by U.S. intelligence agencies tracking the reaction in the Kremlin.
Wouldn’t it be the icing on the cake to have one of the fisa warrants they got be to listen in on trump’s insecure phone line?
Edited by megaeliz on Jan 12th 2019 at 2:34:16 PM
![]()
Not that I'm not interested in reading these things (I am), but this post seems a tad long for this thread. Don't suppose you have a link to that Wa Po, or at least put it in a folder?
Edited by RandomTroper#89235 on Jan 13th 2019 at 3:50:29 AM

Individual opinions on the connotations of the word aside, not using the word when asked really isn't something to particularly difficult or something to really question.
Edited by LSBK on Jan 12th 2019 at 10:44:41 AM