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
Continuing on Rubio, he's been pretty enthusiastic about war crimes as well - like Trump, he's pro-torture, and like Cruz, he's backed indiscriminate carpet-bombing. His more aggressive foreign stance, meanwhile, means that he's the candidate who'll be most actively creating opportunities to commit those war crimes. He's also made the ugly ethnic-cleansing subtext of Republican Middle East politics text, by promising to back 'Sunni tribes' against 'our mortal enemy, the Shia in Iran'.
Praising him for 'standing up to a dictatorship' also seems particularly silly given his enthusiastic support for Saudi Arabia over Iran, apparently due to the same Sunni=good, Shia=bad logic. Backing a nightmarish medieval kleptocracy over a partial democracy that just elected a huge bunch of reformers in a flawed-but-meaningful election does not speak well for your interest in opposing dictatorship.
What's precedent ever done for us?While I agree that Rubio's forign policy is nuts I'd note that he's still behind Trump in my book, Trump specifically called for the targeting of civilians, he's said that he wants to target the families of terrorists, as in wives and children.
Carpet bombing is one (horrible) thing, specifically aiming bombs at civilians is another.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyranedited 2nd Mar '16 6:26:15 AM by tclittle
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love.""https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2016/03/02/chris-christies-wordless-screaming/
![]()
![]()
"
I think we've reached meme status here. I would say "Poor Chris Christie" but he deserved it for backing a sociopath.
edited 2nd Mar '16 6:46:15 AM by speedyboris
It'll be more important as far as him actually getting the nomination and him being able to win. I.e. really not the most important part.
Something else I've been wondering about but wasn't sure how to ask... are you voting in all of this? I thought you were Russian and/or lived in Russia? Why are you speaking as if you can actual vote here if that's the case?
I also doubt Clinton is framing herself as the "lesser evil" even if that's how you see her (just barely, apparently) saying she's deliberately doing that needs some backing up. For one thing it just sounds like a terrible, demoralizing strategy.
edited 2nd Mar '16 9:39:07 AM by LSBK
It is the perennial method by which the left-wing parties of the world have allowed themselves to slip rightwards into meaninglessness. Parti Socialiste. Labour. PSOE. Electability! Lesser evil! Ruin.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Well I can't, but my American friends who have suffered too much under the status quo can. I'm just trying to look out for them, in a way. Then again, even if I could vote, I'd stay home if it was Clinton. The "you have to vote cuz lesser evil" argument ignites my boat so much, I'd refuse to vote out of sheer spite.
I didn't say her. I said her camp. Every time Clinton is questioned, even here, the concerns are being silenced with "But think of the Republicans! Aaaaah!". It's a dishonest(though, rather characteristic) petty distraction, and I'm so utterly and entirely sick of it I'm considering urging my friends to stay home if she wins. "Moderates" vote for her over Sanders and then cry crocodile tears of "She's the lesser evil! You have to vote! Republicans on the horizon!" Fuck that.
Presidential systems rely heavily on charismatic individuals. You should be saying that you are better than the others, not that the others are worse than you. It never ends well. Obama beat two Republicans that would be considered downright amazing by everyone were they running those primaries, not because he dismissed them, but because he was more charismatic than them.
edited 2nd Mar '16 8:01:53 AM by Julep
![]()
If you wouldn't vote out spite of a (legitimate) argument you disagree with, it doesn't really sound like you're really taking your friends into account that much. Not trying to judge but that's the first thought that came into my head.
Question, why do you seem to believe that the media has but a damper on her reputation. I don't particularly see why it has to be one or the other where either she's done questionable things or the media has just been trying to slur her (either currently for constantly)? To my eyes it seems to be a little from column A and a little from column B.
edited 2nd Mar '16 8:06:37 AM by LSBK
I disagree on the "legitimate" part. It's ultimately up to my friends to vote or not, they are my friends, not my property. But from where I'm standing, I wouldn't judge them if they didn't. Clinton would screw them over anyway.
Media? What? I never said that. Are you even reading my posts? Numerous times I've argued the opposite - no media can fabricate her actual consistent political history of wrongdoing and, if anything, the establishment media is on her side. The "Berniebros" narrative of Sanders voters being uniquely bigoted, the "Trump crossover" idiocy, the "Bernie put his freedom on the line to march with MLK, but he totally has a race problem" bullshit, all produced by her media and taken by her voterbase on face value. Clinton camp whines and cries how media hurts Clinton when the situation is actually the opposite.
![]()
![]()
Isn't that basically the definition of "lesser evil"?
That reminds me of last election when one of my older brothers didn't go voting.
"Why should I vote? Nothing changes anyway." "Not with this attitude," I replied.
edited 2nd Mar '16 8:13:55 AM by DrunkenNordmann
We learn from history that we do not learn from history![]()
![]()
I didn't say your friends, I said you. I'm not really sure where the disconnect came from. Going by what you've said it seems pretty "throw the baby out with the bath water out" over principle. Not a smart move, I think.
Yeah, you've argued those things, but no one here, ate least has been arguing them, and if they have elsewhere it doesn't seem to be taking flight. You seem to be ascribing unfair attacks on him to her for...reasons?
The race thing had nothing to do with her as far as I remember. It got brought to light when some Black Lives Matters protesters asked him so questions that had been concerning people, and now he's apparently trying to address them. Where does that become an evil Hilary Clinton conspiracy?
edited 2nd Mar '16 8:28:38 AM by LSBK
And that's not even getting into the problems with the attitude that Clinton is the devil and only barely better than any of the potential Republican nominees, but from the attitude you're displaying, I doubt you'd be receptive to those arguments anyway.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Considering I can't vote to begin with, you care too much about what I think here. I'm not a factor.
I kinda get that point. My left-wing could easily disprove all the far-right bullshit if it really tried to, but they prefer to point at it and say "FRONT NATIONAL IS BAD BAAAAH!" which tends to become a less and less efficient way to have people react - because (like Drumpf) the FN just says "hey, the situation is shitty and they are in charge, why should you believe them?".
In short: build a program to explain why people should vote for you. And consider the voters smart enough to understand why it is important to vote against the babbling moron with a toupee.
edited 2nd Mar '16 8:19:34 AM by Julep

only vote Clinton if she beats Sanders, and if the recent results are anything to go by, she very well may be it...
advancing the front into TV Tropes