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
![]()
I was in a rather bad mood when I made that comment. Moreover, I wouldn't necessarily say the same things wouldn't happen under Sanders; the military institutions of the US hold a great deal of sway in places of power, and they have in the past outright lied to sitting Presidents in order to get them to sign off on acts of aggression.
You must understand that when I say "the person who is president doesn't matter all that much", that carries an implicit statement of "all other things being equal." Congress collectively holds far more power than the President does, but unfortunately people tend to fixate on the President, if only because most congresspeople aren't well known outside of their states.
If Trump because President, that will be because the underlying conditions that allowed him to get there were not equal. It's a difference of perspective; from what you've said, you seem to view humans as the drivers of collective human action, rather than the underlying environment that decision-making is a reaction to.
@Aces: I used that particular trope because I'm not aware of there being a more appropriate one to describe what was being expressed; what I was referring to was essentially the logical extreme of the rationalization of the trope: the notion that a particular demographic has some inherent insight on their condition that overrides empirical evidence and educated opinions, and that those who are not part of the demographic cannot have opinions about the issues it faces. We should strive for a world where every opinion is educated and rational, but until we achieve such a society, it is impossible to hold a political opinion without being patronizing.
Hence I don't consider smokeycut's assertion that I believed I knew what was best for the African American community better than they did compelling; that is true of any opinio; the assumption that you know better.
edited 2nd Jul '16 11:12:11 PM by CaptainCapsase
@94013
I didn't dodge the question. If you can't read that's your problem. I said, quote: "Sanders and Clinton both backed that bill, and both said some rather offensive things in doing so." I don't like bolding things, but since you missed it last time, I have done it there for your benefit.
You've definitely dodged my question though in your efforts at positing that Sanders is better than she is on the issue. She called them superpredators, he called them sociopaths. Why are you giving him a pass when you won't give her one?
I read it months ago. I find his claims about why he did it to be as believable as you find Clinton's. Amazing isn't it.
You need to stop screaming "dodge" whenever someone points out your double standard. Clinton hasn't released transcripts to speeches. No previous candidate has ever been asked to release transcripts of speeches they made as a private citizen. Sanders has only released a year's worth of tax info, when candidates are usually expected to release several years. She's not violating procedure, he is, yet your focus is on her.
Why does he get a pass from you when she doesn't? If her refusal to release something no one has been asked to release before is proof of corruption than what is his refusal to release something that everyone has been asked to release before not proof of corruption.
No you didn't. Your name wasn't at the top of the post and "you" is a plural noun in English as well as a singular one. And I don't give a good goddamn about the Lewinsky "scandal".
These things aren't hard to find.
Apparently they are hard to analyze though. I've read the site before. And nowhere in there is any proof of his being more progressive than Clinton or any other liberal Democrat. Prove he came around on gay rights before she did. Then, more importantly, prove that when somebody came around mattered.
If you won't vote for either than you are saying they are the same. You are saying, with your vote or lack thereof that there is no difference, or not enough difference for it to be worth casting your vote.
edited 2nd Jul '16 10:49:08 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Capsase; Saying that the president has a huge effect on how things run in this country isn't buying into the Great Man theory of history. It's acknowledging the fact that the system we have set up invests the holder of the office with A LOT OF POWER in this country. And that what they do has long term affects down the line, because the next to hold that office basically inherits what previous presidents do.
Edit: Nevermind, it's late and I missed something. In any case, someone lives an experience... yeah I'm gonna say that maybe, just maybe, they have an insight that I don't have. By virtue of actually being that thing. Research can tell you a lot, but part of that research should be based in the lived experiences of people who are in these groups. And yes, they do have insight that "outsiders" don't. And, quite frankly, objecting to the idea that I can't use a slur (as a matter of common decency as there is literally nothing actually stopping me from saying the N-word) but it's okay for someone else to do as a reappropriation... Well, as a historical and social thing it is actually very different coming from me than from a black person. And I'm not so fussed about a word that is a vile insult being verboten. In any case you did not make it clear what you were talking about earlier, so I suggest that next time you actually talk about the thing you're talking about instead of groping for the next closest analogy. That is at least part of your communication problem here.
Also also, Aces is not plural.
edited 3rd Jul '16 12:01:06 AM by AceofSpades
Details, please.
Just to clarify for others, a new rule came up some days ago for TVT. Don't post a link/video without summarizing it for others. The reason for it is that many cannot directly view that link(due to being on mobile, having a bad computer, etc.) and should be able to quickly gather your point to continue on with the discussion.
Shadow?The American Revolution was a huge victory for equality. Liberals should celebrate it
The whole era does inspire a certain cringe in some circles, in general I find the left prefers to talk about the Civl War.
Edit: Oh and Happy day before the 4th of July everyone
edited 3rd Jul '16 8:38:53 AM by JackOLantern1337
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
The Brits weren't much better. And the American revolution did, legitimately, lead to a more egalitarian society than what it was before-in a Fair for Its Day sense of the word.
edited 3rd Jul '16 8:57:54 AM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34@Jack: The revolution might not have build a house for everyone to live in but it laid a foundation for it.
However, I find find the very fact, that US Americans venerate a "pantheon" (as the article calls it) of mortals like that, a wierd and rather undemocratic notion. It reeks of "Great Man" history and does a disservice to all the people involved in making the revolution and the following, ongoing evolution of the American society possible.
So I think there' should be a difference between celebrating the Revolution and celebrating the individual Founding Fathers.
The thing with France is that it wasn't "founded" during the French revolution.
Mind you, excessive veneration of the founding fathers can lead to various problems, including:
-Political Nihilism caused by rendering future political minds irrelevant and holding unrealistic standards for politicians.
-Political Nihilism caused by moves away from the Founder to be seen as "betrayal"
-Failure to acknowledge failings in human beings.
-Unpatriotic pro-secessionism and anti-authoritarian sentiment because "the Founding Fathers were revolutionaries!"
As for the "Great Man" thing, yeah, but I've seen many people who venerate the Founders who openly admit to believing in the Great Man view. I'd argue the truth is somewhere in middle, that history is shaped largely by "Great Men" but "Great Men" are shaped by society, which is shaped largely by a lot of different factors.
Leviticus 19:34The US tends to admire many of its military generals and wartime leaders in general. Most WWII generals/admirals have a pretty big cult following and movies after movies with them in it. Hell Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter exists.
But really its not much different than most other countries. Japan flat out loves and loves to hate Oda Nobunaga for example and the most of the famous generals in the Three Kingdoms Era Of China for some reason. And Japan totally eats up Hollywood Pacific War movies assuming that the Japanese are not portrayed as completely evil.
edited 3rd Jul '16 10:20:14 AM by Memers
While I acknowledge the need to look at their flaws and at the wider context, count me in as a venerator. (Though I won't hesitate to point out that like actual religion, they're frequently taken out of context to push misguided views and I suspect that's a lot what people react to when they cry for their rejection.)
The legacy they left behind was the ideas of the Revolution, ideas that while not perfectly put into practice, have over the years found broader and wider application in all the civil rights movements that followed. Many of them signed their names to a piece of paper that remains one of history's most eloquent expressions of those ideas, knowing that if the Revolution failed, they might well be signing their death warrants. And when the Revolution was over, though it took some trial and error, they put together a system that, in spite of a few crises, has lasted over 200 years and counting, something very few revolutions can lay claim to.
Whatever else they were, that's got to be worth some admiration.
I've heard it discussed that, because the United States lacked a united history or culture, the early Americans latched unto familial ideas as a means of bringing the country together. Founding Fathers has been the only enduring aspect of that period. Things like "sister states" or "brother [insert congressmen here]" fell out of use as the nation grew into itself but the F Fs endured both as extra-political regulators and cultural icons.
One thing to keep in mind about the American Revolution is that it wasn't all that standard for a revolution. The ones that tend to fail are the ones where the government is overthrown completely and replaced. The American Revolution instead threw out the British government, which was still operating just fine after the fact, and built their own, intentionally designing the Constitution to be amended and changed when necessary and putting in a ton of checks and balances to prevent (what they saw as) George III overreaching his bounds.
It was a lot more thought out then "Hey, let's get rid of these people we don't like." "What do you mean we need a plan for afterwards, it'll work out just fine."
![]()
Don't forget the Constitution was Take 2 of the American Government though. The Articles of Confederation were a thing for a few years and it was working poorly. There was a lot of pressure to get it right that time.
Heh. For all that Rodenberry was sometimes crazy (and not always a shining personal example of egalitarianism either, by modern standards he could be pretty sexist), sometimesTrek knocks it out of the park.
edited 3rd Jul '16 10:51:30 AM by Elle
I think "heroes" are good for culture and society. People have an innate desire to put a face to to causes and events and to learn about people. They add humanity to history. In addition, people are always quick to find villains-so we need to add heroes to balance things out.
Leviticus 19:34

Seriously, Sir 'Jote? Didn't you say Sanders not getting elected mean no more progressive paradise and Prez Clinton is gonna kill somebody's family with a war on Iran?
edited 2nd Jul '16 10:43:42 PM by flameboy21th
Non Indicative Username