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
![]()
That's a pretty deluded (Fox News Kool-Aid) point of view.
edited 16th Dec '15 1:36:35 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"On Sesame Credit: WOW. That is amazingly dystopian. Like, so dystopian that the dystopia I'm writing about already has a similar system that I'm now going to modify to make more like it.
Leviticus 19:34Yes. I honestly do believe even donald Trump believes he is doing the right thing. Why would I not?
he has lived his entire life completly sheltered without any hardship whatsoever, where education and meeting other people were a luxury always to others, never to him. To him, "others" came naturally and they were always there to praise him.
He describes a million dollars as a "small loan". He describes what he does as a monumental task. He is delusional, molded by a sheltered enviroment and spoiled by an infinitude of wealth and expectations crafted by himself and his surroundings of sex, money, power and glory.
The only logical result of such an enviroment, is Donald Trump. A man who has a clear, precise, and wrong view of how to make others happy based on what he knows (which is not much)
But he does not view himself as evil.
edited 16th Dec '15 1:41:13 PM by Aszur
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
While I have a few of my own misgivings about Clinton, nor do I think she's completely altruistic, she's currently the relevant candidate who seems the best fit for the job. Evangelical types like I've heard Cruz is or Carson was make me nervous on principle (I've always felt mixing religion and government too closely is a bad idea) and Trump stopped being a valid choice after the "go after their families" bit, if not before.
The way I look at it, if Hillary gets elected, which I think is now likely than not, then there will be a Republican controlled congress keeping her in check in the immediate future by gainsaying anything and everything she tries to do. If a conservative gets elected, that same Republican congress will do near anything they want in that immediate future.
"Is he? Obama's arguably one of our greatest presidents with mostly fantastic ideas. He's just faced one of the stiffest and most dogmatic oppositions in possibly ever and can't get things done."
Well, we can at least agree that it's arguable.
One might observe that truly great presidents manage to get things done despite opposition. And I really think Lincoln takes the prize for "most dogmatic opposition" ever.
I would argue that most politicians consider themselves something along the lines of "The Extremist Was Right".
Specifically, I think they're opportunists who want to gain the most money and power possible, in order to achieve some ideal they consider to justify lying and cheating.
Also, politicians have a massive incentive to pander to a particular crowd.
Leviticus 19:34Only if you overestimate the human brain's capacity for auto analysis. The human brain is actually wired to make excuses rather than to update itself. Confrontation with contradictions of our own does not tend, outside of certain enviroments, to be welcome, received, or even thought about. The brain was not made to take other points of view, mostly its own experiences and ideas.
Again, they are not the villains of their own stories, they are the unsung heroes that are doing what they know works, because something in the past told them so.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesBense, you've taken your own dogmatic view in assuming the absolute worst about Clinton, and I have no idea where you're getting any of that. She's a hell of a lot less questionable than just about anyone on the Republican side right now. (The open admission that the Benghazi thing was about her has not done them favors.) And I've seen nothing that suggest she thinks she's 'justified in doing anything'.
And quite frankly, I am not looking forward to another four years, potentially eight, of the kind of Congressional gridlock and opposition we've had during Obama's presidency. I don't even know what Republicans are getting out of doing that at this point. Seriously, I don't. Are they going to keep trying to repeal the APA when it's proving to be well liked? Are they going to keep crying about presidential tyranny when they refuse to consider all the bills going to them? We've got a significant chunk of our government refusing to do their jobs and then saying that government doesn't work.
Generally, while assuming altruism of politicians is probably not wise, neither is assuming the absolute worst of them. Unless, you know, they say shit like they want to bomb a place until the sand glows, and few, if any, actually address that. At which point it's not assuming anymore; they've revealed their character.
edited 16th Dec '15 1:58:48 PM by AceofSpades
Oh, that's no where near the absolute worst I could assume of Clinton. However I try to be realistic in my assessment of politicians.
For what it's worth, I think we would probably survive another Clinton presidency, and she might even do a better job than Obama has. Still I would prefer to avoid it.
For what it's worth my feeling about Clinton is that she's somewhat shady, especially in terms of ties to Wall Street and having a sort of "inner circle" (although I guess probably all major politicians do). But she's definitely someone who entered public service for that reason and I think would make an effective President.
I do wish there were more/different Democrats running but I can't see Clinton being a bad President. I was never really a Sanders supporter although he somewhat grew on me after the first debate. But I ultimately think he has too much of a Single-Issue Wonk in how he sees everything through economic determinism. And I'm wary of his presentation of himself as someone who can win (racist) white voters.
Edit- I'd also say that I think Clinton is maybe a bit too hawkish. Like despite what Republicans say, Obama is fairly hawkish and I'm in line with that. I don't think Sanders would be effective in executing a foreign policy.
edited 16th Dec '15 2:23:42 PM by Hodor2

Is he? Obama's arguably one of our greatest presidents with mostly fantastic ideas. He's just faced one of the stiffest and most dogmatic oppositions in possibly ever and can't get things done.
Oh really when?