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
Wikileaks: The Guardian book I have on Assange suggests that he is very egotistical and has a lack of concern for collateral damage (despite one of Wikileaks' most famous releases being video of that). I reckon the doxing of Democrat donors is a logical consequence of that mindset, in addition to all the informers in Afghanistan they've already outed.
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotAm I the only one who thinks the Wikileaks thing isn't going to have that much of an effect on anything? Because, and I've said it often, it's not making it to the big news channels quite yet, which a lot of people still get their information from. Are there truly significant numbers of people paying attention to Wikileaks still, in numbers that can affect the election? I... don't really think so. I've pointed out before that here we just kind of obsessively go over everything over the internet and have opinions about it. Which is not the same as the general public, many of which don't spend nearly as much time on the internet seeking out political news. I think we kind of blow things out of proportion in regards to their perception in the general public sometimes.
As for "exciting" VP picks, I don't really think that "exciting" is necessary or even desirable. What I want is some fucking substance, someone with a history that proves they know how to actually do their job. And Kaine seems to fit that bill currently. "Exciting" doesn't necessarily mean "qualified", which I think matters far, far more in the case of a VP candidate. And I don't much think that any of her choices would have really changed much about who's going to vote for her. People don't really vote for the VP, after all.
The calculus for picking tim seems to be that the far left has pretty much already decided who they'll be voting for so grabbing warren or another big time progressive wouldn't amount to much while Tim is essentially a blue dog who might swing some moderates and diseffected republicans their way.
edited 23rd Jul '16 6:01:54 AM by thatguythere47
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?Kaine is economically in the right-wing of the Democratic party, supporting further deregulation of the banks and the TPP, so it's understandable that the Bernie crowd don't like him.
Also, the press didn't ask the DNC to give up their impartiality and actively try to sabotage Sanders's campaign, neither did they ask Clinton to lie repeatedly about the e-mails (and for the record, I don't really care about the e-mails myself), to flip-flop on several important issues such as the TPP, campaign financing and public health-care, to court Bush donors, to pick a non-progressive running mate, etc. If Clinton can't win the progressive vote and loses in November because of this (and I still think chances are really low that this will happen), no-one is to blame but Clinton and the DNC themselves.
edited 23rd Jul '16 6:33:42 AM by Perian
![]()
![]()
Which part is incorrect? The number of Sanders voters who won't vote for Hillary? I'm referring to articles like this.
But then again, I suppose there's less reason to believe the greater proportion who voted for Hillary in the primaries won't do so again, along with the larger number of people who only vote in the general.
Sorry, I was just feeling exceptionally bitter yesterday.
edited 23rd Jul '16 6:58:12 AM by BrainSewage
How dare you disrupt the sanctity of my soliloquy?They've got lots of reasons to try and undermine her.
Yeah. It's the treason that keeps on giving.
The cynical part of me wants to say they just wanted to get some new press coverage and return to the social consciousness in order to draw publicity to that Edward Snowden political thriller that's going to come out in September - with the goal of getting people to sympathize with Snowden and take his side against the government.
The even more cynical part of me says that the reason they released it now instead of during the primary is because they don't want Bernie Sanders to win. They want Donald Trump to win.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.It's Wikileaks, the organisation lead by an accused rapist who's convinced that Sweden is part of a secret plot to have him killed by the US.
Logic and reason do not enter into the organisation's thinking.
edited 23rd Jul '16 8:04:30 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI could see a Chaotic Stupid organisation like Wikileaks seriously wanting to get Trump elected. After all, between Hillary, Trump, and Sanders, only Hillary is "part of the establishment".
Leviticus 19:34War on The Rocks' 5 Questions on National Security with Senator Tim Kaine
.
EDIT: Also from War on the Rocks, why the GOP's bloodlust at the RNC should unsettle you
, if you weren't already.
edited 23rd Jul '16 8:40:35 AM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot![]()
![]()
Alternatively, they could feel that the truth should be heard, regardless of consequences.
edited 23rd Jul '16 8:57:03 AM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"Logic and reason do not enter into the organisation's thinking.
I thought the rape accusations had been established as fabricated? As for Sweden, while they talk a good game about neutrality and principled stances, they've covertly been the US's second most reliable and well-coordinated allies in NATO since the fifties, without ever acknowledging that. The USSR knew of Swedish neutrality being a sham, but somehow they were fine with it.
So, no, I don't find it unbelievable at all that the Swedish government would try and serve Assange to the US so long as they stand to gain from it and so long as they can do it without staining their reputation.
As for the second paragraph, it seems impossible for it not to be hyperbole.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Just to clarify, I'm a) not American b) not a Sanders supporter.
Just pretty irritated with the amount of punching left in this thread and the conflation of any criticism of Clinton/Democrats with the looniest portions of the Sanders base/being a crypto-Trump supporter.
edited 23rd Jul '16 9:47:24 AM by majoraoftime
Well at the risk of sounding like a bit of an uncompromising dick, the stakes are as high as they can get and there's only two options. Clinton or Trump. You're with one side or the other.
So unfortunately we all gotta drink the kool aid a little bit to keep him out of office.
edited 23rd Jul '16 9:39:06 AM by LeGarcon
Oh really when?![]()
And most people are prepared to do just that. I suspect however, that the DNC and Clinton herself are going to be blaming Sanders if they lose regardless of whether or not any credible polling around the time of the election suggests that to be the case, much like Trump is going to blame Gary Johnson if he loses in Novemeber regardless of whether or not he actually spoiled any states for him, while the GOP brass claim vindication.
The reality is though, it's on her and the party to win this.
edited 23rd Jul '16 9:54:06 AM by CaptainCapsase

Galveston County, Texas District Judge Kerry Neves is under fire for declaring on Facebook that he would bar anyone from entering a plea agreement if they have been accused of threatening or endangering law enforcement.
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."