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 would point out that mathematically speaking, a non-Hillary vote is not a Trump vote, for the same reason that 0 is not equal to -1. Having said that, 0 is not equal to +1 either.
edited 19th Jul '16 7:24:48 PM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34I was just talking to my brother on the phone, and he summed it up rather nicely, I think. The best thing about Hillary is, she's not Trump. And the best thing about Trump is, he's not Hillary. However, since I must choose between the two, I hate Trump a whole lot more.
edited 19th Jul '16 7:28:55 PM by pwiegle
This Space Intentionally Left Blank.A common problem with political discourse-one that led up to our current election-is failure to see nuance in opposing views. This is why Trump can compete with a merely mediocre democrat-many people are convinced that Hillary is intentionally trying to bring down the US. Meanwhile, complaints about Trump are ignored as slander by people who thought Bush was a fascist.
Leviticus 19:34Republican platform is deport more Mexicans and kill more Muslims
. The party of Lincoln, ladies and gentlemen.
Let's face it; when it comes down to it, neither Trump or Hilary are exactly ideal presidential candidates. One might as well just come out and say, 'I am not a crook!', while the other would make Hitler and Mussolini proud. However, in some alternate reality where Richard Nixon was born a couple of decades early and became President during WWII, I would still be able to recognize the lesser of two evils in a heartbeat, and would begrudgingly do Mr.Nixon's bidding and stand with Lady Liberty against the Axis Hordes, because there would simply be no other choice.
It's the same with Hilary and Trump. If the former wins, America would at the very least stay the same way it's been for the last 8 years, though with any luck, we would wind up better than we were rather than remaining stagnant, even with Nixon 2.0 at the helm. Whereas with Trump, by the end of his term as President, there would quite possibly no longer be a country for him to be President of. It's a choice between a somewhat stagant and somewhat progressive America led by a President who might be able to make some decent change despite being far from the best person for the job, and a broken, desolated mass of land formerly called America that used to be led by someone who would have been better off as a Gameshow Host. YOU MAKE THE CALL!
edited 19th Jul '16 7:45:13 PM by kkhohoho
You've made this joke about Clinton several times now. It's a) not funny anymore (if it ever was) and b) nonsensical. Nixon was impeached for using the government to spy on his political opposition. It's a crime that he was found guilty of, and which he himself confessed to, and eventually offered an apology for it
because he had been so thoroughly proven wrong.
None of those things have happened to Clinton. She's been found guilty of nothing—and nothing that she's ever been reasonably accused of comes within a hundred miles of the level of crime that Nixon was found guilty of. So if you're going to keep making that joke I've got to ask you—what in the hell are you basing it on?
So ethno-religious purity must be ensured because the culture is under threat from foreigners?
Take what issue you want with Handle, but let's not pretend that "you must marry within your ethno-religious group so as to ensure our purity of blood, regardless of your personal desires" isn't bloody sketchy. I highly doubt you're be this supportive of an insistence that white people or Christians should intermarry to ensure that their culture isn't wiped out.
It's a joke that's making the rounds, even the Daily Show have called Clinton "Grandma Nixon".
edited 19th Jul '16 7:51:20 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
Making Blatant Lies about the emails. What else?
edited 19th Jul '16 7:56:42 PM by kkhohoho
![]()
None of which is actually illegal. An FBI probe couldn't find evidence of wrong-doing. My issue here is that the comparison doesn't hold water. Nixon deliberately violated other people's right to privacy and used government agents as a proto-secret police force. Clinton failed to be cautious enough with state documents. Not the same thing.
![]()
![]()
Which is an inane comparison. Clinton, at worst, was not careful enough with sensitive information. Nixon, conversely, used the government to spy on his political opponents.
Did white people and Christians suffer one of the biggest and best publicized genocides of the twentieth century? I'm sorry I missed that.
edited 19th Jul '16 8:00:58 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
![]()
She's a government official who lied about sending official documents for only God knows what through her personal email account. It's not the act about sending the documents that's the real problem, but that, as a Goverment official, she tried to cover them up, which was enough of an issue that she was at risk at getting convicted by the FBI. She managed to get off scott-free, but that doesn't change the fact that she was still at risk at being convicted in the first place, and that like Nixon, she still tried to cover something up.
If it's not illegal, than why was the FBI investigating her?
edited 19th Jul '16 8:00:53 PM by kkhohoho
Driving while black isn't illegal last I checked. Why do the police pull over African-Americans for having nice cars?
On a more serious note under this logic everyone who has ever been investigated by the police or otherwise suspected of wrongdoing is guilty.
The FBI checked to see if anything illegal had occurred—mostly, I might note, because the Republicans made a huge deal about it (both Powell and Rice are "guilty" of the same "crimes". For some reason nobody investigated them). They found no evidence that anything indictable had occurred. You continue to say she did something illegal based on what?
edited 19th Jul '16 8:05:02 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
![]()
![]()
...You know, rather than trying to defend myself here, I'm just going to be honest and admit something. I kind of have an issue of occasionally not doing the actual research and instead just going off of what I understand about an issue based off on hearsay, and it seemed to me that Clinton was being a dishonest scumbag who was, according to the Daily Show, 'Grandma Nixon'. In fact, the Daily Show was where I actually heard the most about it, because none of the articles I could find on her actually discussed the whole issue in full; only the fallout rather than how it all really started and the particulars of it, which led me to believe that there was a lot more going on then there actually was.
So, long story short, I didn't fully know what I was talking about, but kept going on about it anyway. Which is something I've been guilty of on more than one occasion, and I always feel really bad about it all when I'm made aware that, yeah, I really should have done the actual bloody research. Which I guess was the case here. So, sorry about that, really.
edited 19th Jul '16 8:11:40 PM by kkhohoho
Saying that the best thing about Hillary is that she's not as bad as Trump might be true depending on what you mean, but I find it a little reductive. She is for raising the minimum wage, supports women's rights (including their right to contraception), has come out in support of the LGBT community, supports taking steps to decriminalizing marijuana and sending people to jail over simple possession, has spoken against racial profiling, etc.
I'll admit i'm not super educated about the email scandal or Clinton's entire political history, but all those things make her a significantly better person to have in power than a buffoon like Trump.
edited 19th Jul '16 8:16:20 PM by wehrmacht
![]()
![]()
If you want to do look into it, Ars Technica
seems to have a relatively even-handed account of it.
edited 19th Jul '16 8:28:10 PM by rfindlay
She's also talked about adding a public option to Obamacare — a government plan that competes with all the private plans. In this, she's been remarkably consistent — the public option was noised about under Bill Clinton's presidency and shot down by the Gingrich-led Republican Congress (aided by the Blue Dog network on the Democrats' side). Expanding access to health care has been one of Hillary's signature initiatives for her entire political career.
In any rational world, she'd be the wet dream of every person who claims to be a liberal in this country, but the right wing disinformation campaign has been so amazingly successful that people ape it without the slightest hint of irony.
Really, the only thing to object to in all this is that she basically mirrors the standard centrist/neoliberal position on foreign military intervention, but (a) you can't have everything you want all the time; (b) there's very strong debate even on the left as to how interventionist we should be; (c) the notion of a United States that leaves its hands completely out of world affairs is a pipe dream.
Oh, and I guess there's TPP, but she's come out against it (after initially being for it), and it's not exactly the coming of the Information Apocalypse no matter how much it makes certain disproportionately loud Internet voices twitch spasmodically and foam at the mouth.
edited 19th Jul '16 8:46:45 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

edited 19th Jul '16 7:21:19 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.