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
When you're part of a group that openly cheers for the banning of all Muslims entering the country (including American citizens who are traveling abroad should such a law be implemented against all logic) cheer the ridiculous idea of building a wall, and cheer lastly, for the guy who's getting support from actual KKK groups, it's kind of hard to not get tarnished with the idea that you're part of a racist group. He's tapping into a very reactionary part of the population to start with, a group that's easy to twist into racism if they're not there already.
And they don't much like hearing that no, in fact, quite a lot of what they say comes off as disrespectful. Some people thinks it doesn't count if you're not being rude in a personal interaction.
And recognizing that doesn't feel disrespectful. I just find it sad, really.
Also yeah, this place does just sort of lean left as a result of who likes to hang out there. There's a couple of conservatives around, but at least one got banned from the forum because he couldn't keep polite. He posts around the rest of the place. *shrug* Dunno what to tell you.
edited 3rd Feb '16 12:49:26 PM by AceofSpades
There's definitely some informal institutional bias, if only because dissenting opinion makes work more difficult for the mods. Much easier to preside over a virtual echo chamber where we limit ourselves to chorusing about how awful the news about the latest thing the bad guys did was. Not judging, they are volunteers, but that's the end result of kicking out anyone who causes a steer.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.I was a Republican once, if that counts. Hell, I even voted for Bush. The second time.
edited 3rd Feb '16 12:52:15 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/02/politics/hillary-clinton-coin-flip-iowa-bernie-sanders/index.html
More information on the whole coin toss thing. I'm still not really understanding how this appoints delegates and am pretty grateful for basically being able to just fill out a card rather than go through this rigamarole. Also, turns out Sanders won quite a few coin tosses himself.
The idea that we are all Democrats here is observably untrue. We do like keeping a civil forum, and that means that people who come in with excessively strident or antagonistic points of view get shown the door quickly. Needless to say, this keeps out a lot of right-wingers, but it has also gotten some hardcore leftists banned.
There is a maxim out there: "Reality has a liberal bias." It reflects the fact that, in the current media environment, the Republican Party has adopted a standard for truth that is... loose, to say the least. Stephen Colbert coined the phrase "truthiness" for this phenomenon. It is the belief that one's gut feeling supersedes evidence in terms of judging the truth of an idea.
In GOP-land, Benghazi is a smear on Hillary Clinton's reputation despite no evidence ever having surfaced of wrongdoing on her part. In GOP-land, manmade climate change is a conspiracy of the left to help their pet scientists make bank off of taxpayer funded research grants. In GOP-land, we can invade Muslim countries without consequence because we're America, Fuck Yeah. In GOP-land, supply-side economics creates widespread prosperity. In GOP-land, systemic racism either doesn't exist or is a faded shadow from the past, to be ignored. In GOP-land, bootstraps and gumption are all one needs to rise to the top.
It's all bunk, but there is nobody on that side to call their attention to it. They're lost in a self-reinforcing thought bubble that is encapsulated within the Fox News, Breitbart, Alex Jones media set. Anyone who dares stray is excommunicated.
There is just no comparable bubble on the left. There is plenty of truthiness, to be sure. Our anti-vaxxers, anti-GMO'ers, and some of the more strident Bernie Sanders supporters are proof of that. But there is no media empire enforcing acceptable Democratic opinions. There is no media mogul telling MSNBC reporters what they are allowed to say on air. There are actual scientists informing our politicians' opinions on matters of science.
edited 3rd Feb '16 1:05:44 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Politics seems to be, by definition, polarizing.
The discussion of their character is...sorta relevant but it is easy to remove from the subject at hand. Way easier to mock a toupée than it is a sensible sounding tax plan.
Just wearing a label or accusing others of wearing a label is sorta polarizing anyways though, hence, pretty silly to complain that you can't express your views without being criticized in a public place being deliberately made for just that, and also wondering why people assume traits of a label with you when you wear a label but "not those parts of the label".
I think labels or nations regardlss we can agree he totally wears a toupée though, and it looks ridiculous.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes...wait, this sounds familiar.
<.< Is our foreign policy turning into a rerun of the Crusades?
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.I considered a long-winded rebuttal of each of Fighteer's points, but, nah. No point really.
I could talk about the real causes of the Crusades too (essentially a reaction to Muslim invasions of formally Christian territory, outrage at atrocities against Christian pilgrims, combined with a request for aid from the Byzantine emperor), but that would probably be flame bait as well.
edited 3rd Feb '16 1:31:36 PM by Bense
![]()
Wouldn't ISIS just love that...
Guys, you don't want to do anything like the Crusades ever again. But perhaps you already did.
Any of you guys seen In The Loop?
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.It's important to keep in mind that a lot of tropers here are not necessarily americans. As such, the political spectrum in their countries is probably not going to be the same as the one in America.
I'm not so well-versed in politics so as to risk making an informed overall assessment of the parties, but many europeans i've spoken to over the years have said that the democratic party is not really THAT "liberal" (a bloated and vague word in retrospect) in a worldwide sense; the republican party on the other hand feels really extremist in comparison. If they express support for a democratic candidate, that might be a "democratic bias", but only in the sense that a democractic candidate is more likely to represent their views, which might be more "extreme".
I don't support the Republican party because most of their candidates usually have a lot of regressive views on social issues. Not much else to say there.
edited 3rd Feb '16 1:30:16 PM by wehrmacht
![]()
![]()
Given that you once compared Hillary Clinton unfavourably to Henry Kissinger—the guy who brought us Augusto Pinochet and the National Reorganization Process, and backed a genocidal Pakistani war among other things—likely just as well.
edited 3rd Feb '16 1:35:46 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
![]()
![]()
Oh, definitely. The Democrats would be European Conservatives, and Sanders wouldn't be far-left in European terms. The European Far-Left are out-and-out, red-blooded Communists/Marxists/Troskyites/Anarchists.
edited 3rd Feb '16 1:35:45 PM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling OnThe latest anti-Sanders tactic.
![]()
![]()
![]()
And the opening of China, detente with the Soviets, SALT I, the Paris Peace Accords, the beginning of peaceful Egyptian-Israeli relations, and hastening black-majority rule in Rhodesia (it didn't turn out well, but there were good intentions).
Kissinger often makes lists of top 10 most effective Secretaries of State. Sometimes he's in the top 5.
edited 3rd Feb '16 1:38:16 PM by Bense
I don't think it is flamebait, but I think that a complete rebuttal would be equally as false as a complete approval. The fact that we talk about Crusades, plural, means that each one of those happened for different reasons. One, for example, was a dick-measuring contest between Richard Lionheart, Philip Augustus and Frederick Barbarossa. Two happened because Saint Louis really wanted to free a holy city from the Muslims). One of these had the Crusaders actually pillage Byzantium. There were noble goals and...less noble ones, sometimes within the same Crusade. In the same way, some Muslim leaders were absolute barbarians, and others weren't, it was very much Grey and Grey.
The one thing that remains indisputed is that it was a colossal, pointless waste of life as a whole, on both sides.
I was true ten years ago. Our (French) politics are rapidly shifting to the right, to the point that right now Sanders would actually be too left-wing for our largest left-wing party (Parti Socialiste). While Bill Clinton would have been, back when he was president, too right-wing for the very same party.
edited 3rd Feb '16 1:42:57 PM by Julep
Kissinger's legacy, like Nixon's is definitely a mixed bag. His ideals were absolutely realist, and so led to good things when and where they could, and very bad things in other cases. For instance, he was likely pro-Apartheid, at least at the time. Rhodesia was a different case because anyone could see that wasn't going to work, and if the West didn't get out ahead of supporting one-man-one-vote, then the Soviets would, which would link nastily to the ongoing conflict in Mozambique and threaten South Africa.
Argentina and Chile is more not giving a shit about South America (his line was that the continent was "a dagger pointed at the heart of Antarctica") and preferring rightism to socialism.
Deliberately instigating a coup against a democratically elected government, and then proceeding to support the resultant military dictator as he "disappeared" 3000 people and tortured tens of thousands more, goes beyond "not caring about South America". And that's just in the Chilean example. The Process killed upwards of 30 000 of their own people, and Kissinger was supportive of Operation: Condor wherein the juntas in Chile, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, Bolivia, and Brazil. Collectively this killed 60 000 people across the continent, and saw hundreds of thousands more tortured.
Throw in the genocide in Pakistan, the bombing campaign in Cambodia, and the military aid to Suharto in Indonesia and Kissinger can go to hell.

Do they actually though?
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.