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
Sorry, but I feel you severely misunderstand the concept of an autocrat. He literally took children hostage as a response to your actions(the Dima Yakovlev List, response to the Magnitsky List).
Ideally I'd want them to help stop Putin, but every time they try - they fail. So realistically I want them to leave us the fuck alone.
edited 16th Mar '16 12:03:49 PM by Luminosity
A military coup resulting in the murders of thousands of innocent people really is the worst possible light, and Secretary of State Clinton should be cast under it. Is it not part of her role as a public servant to accept responsibility for her actions and the consequences thereof?
Is it not my responsibility as a citizen to question her?
edited 16th Mar '16 12:00:25 PM by SolipsistOwl
Soliptist Owl, while you certainly have the right to criticize Clintion, you have to admit that pretty much everything you link about her is negative towards her.
Oh God! Natural light!My understanding is that Putin actually has really high approval ratings within Russia. The guy might be an autocrat, but he's not exactly clinging to power at gunpoint.
All of which is besides the point. At the end of the day, getting angry at American politicians for prioritizing American interests over Russian interests is ridiculous. If you're going to talk about the American presidential election in the US politics thread, then saying "I hate Clinton because her policies have done economic harm to Russian citizens", then you're not going to get much traction on that angle.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.I haven't even mentioned the fact that Lanny Davis—longtime Clinton adviser and lobbyist—was working as a consultant for the Honduran chapter of the Business Council of Latin America. They supported the military coup.
I mean, I could pin the blame for the coup and killings on Clinton, but I try not to make insinuations.
edited 16th Mar '16 12:11:49 PM by SolipsistOwl
I'm amazed by this post. In just so many different ways. It takes a special sort of mindset to say "I try not to make insinuations" while making them.
@Totemic Hero
That the term's been used before doesn't make its use acceptable. The original Young Turk movement could charitably be described as militaristic, genocidal, and proto-fascistic. It doesn't help that Cenk has repeatedly refused to discuss the topic of the genocide, and has repeatedly edged towards outright genocide denial. During an Ask Me Anything session he spent much of it dodging questions about his stance on the genocide, which pretty much defeats the Ask Me Anything nature of it.
Taken altogether, it makes the show bloody uncomfortable to watch.
edited 16th Mar '16 12:09:47 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Luminosity: there's no guarantee that Sanders would "leave you the fuck alone" as president. Or that Putin wouldn't do something that would require a US response. You're basically asking something that literally no one can promise you, because the US president is far from the only factor. You want the impossible.
Solipsist: It seems like you're placing even more responsibility on Clinton for this stuff in Honduras than even the article is. In any case, when you consistently post articles that put Clinton the worst light possible, going "i'm only posting the facts" when it's commented on is in fact disingenuous. For us to believe that you were interested "in just the facts" you'd have had to have made an attempt at neutrality and posted at least some neutral to positive articles about her.
This isn't to say that you shouldn't be criticizing her, that's not a healthy conversation. But you clearly have an ideological ax to grind against Clinton which is causing the rest of us to take what you say with a grain of salt. Going forward, you should be aware of that. And that's all I'm going to post on this because quite frankly it's verging on an argument now and I'd like everyone to just take a step back for a moment.
Ok the problem with Russia is thus.
The West is perfectly within it's rights to push back against Russia and keep our own interests safe.
However, every time we do that we cement Putin's power further and further and he doubles down on military spending at the expense of the common Russian like Luminosity.
Putin is also smart. He doesn't start fights and proxy wars he won't win. So the end result is us pissing our power away in conflicts that won't end in our favor while the Russians get stronger and stronger.
Diplomacy is ultimately going to be the only long term solution that'll work for either of us.
Oh really when?High approval ratings don't make him any less of an autocrat. And don't remove the fact that he created counter-sanctions and other acts that literally hold some of us hostage as a response to your attempts to stop him. Even before Crimea, mind you.
I'm saying how I see it. I'm not a bloody missionary, I'm not converting anyone. Clinton is a continuation of pointless and damaging foreign policy antics that do nothing they actually set out to do, but damage us. I'm pretty sure I'm within my rights to hate the living shit out of that.
Sanders is a dove. He favors diplomacy. He doesn't randomly antagonize nations. His understanding of Putin isn't perfect either and I can't say him leaving us alone is a certainty, but I trust him to do that much more than someone with a long history of warhawkery.
edited 16th Mar '16 12:12:43 PM by Luminosity
I'm making it clear that there is plenty of evidence for shady shit involving the Clintons that I personally believe is true, yet never post or even mention.
I only ever share information that I can source. And yet even that is "hysterical."
Maybe Clinton should work harder on positive news coverage? It's kind of difficult to mention her without also going into that particular day's controversy.
Russian politics for the Russian thread perhaps...
On Clinton and Foreign Policy, speaking as someone who actually studies and focuses on foreign affairs, I can tell you Clinton is probably the only reasonable person on either side in terms of foreign policy. GOP people are fleeing to the extremes, Bernie wants to ignore everything but what helps his protectionism (the one place where he and Trump have very little daylight), the other candidates before they dropped out in the Dem side basically want Dove At All Cost.
Clinton is the only one left (Jeb was the other) who wanted to engage the world on a case by case basis, not just Attack! Attack! Attack! or vice versa. And it should be noted that the US and Russia, while still cold to each other, played a lot nicer with each other when she was Sec State.
@Shinra This might be ad hominem bias, so forgive me, but I do not trust that your definition of reasonable is anywhere near mine, given that you have consistently favored warhawkery. I also assume mine and yours definitions of Attack! Attack! Attack! policy significantly vary in severity.
And this is precisely why I do not trust you. Jeb? The Jeb that said he'd authorize the Iraq invasion even if the knew the consequences? That Jeb?
edited 16th Mar '16 12:22:57 PM by Luminosity

Stop that. You can't just shrug and go "just the facts, ma'am" when every single thing you post goes out of their way to paint the situation in the worst possible light. The articles might be hysterical, but your attitude is.
(And yes, I am being hypocritical, thank you for noticing)