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
Not really helping your case there. You took a sexist shot at the First Lady for daring to acknowledge that the home she currently lives in was built by slaves—something that would reasonably be on the mind of the first African-American woman to live in that house. Now you're following it up with this. To invoke a cliche, perhaps you should quit while you are ahead.
Cory Booker, Michelle Obama, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders all spoke and performed well. There were also addresses from a disability activist, the daughter of a pair of undocumented workers, and one of the Trump University scam victims. Overall it was a good first night for the DNC.
edited 25th Jul '16 10:51:03 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
I haven't read/heard the full speech but:
It's true that Michelle Obama is in an economically and politically privileged position compared to a lot of african-americans, but I don't necessarily think that detracts from her observation too much. Let's not split hairs about how disadvantaged you have to be within your group to talk about your group's problems.
edited 25th Jul '16 11:00:12 PM by wehrmacht
Considering you didn't even bother to try explaining yourself in that second post, yeah, it seems like you're trying to pick a fight. Also, you're not even actually saying anything at all. You just threw out an insult without addressing anything in the speech or anything that the rest of us were typing about. There's not much to dislike because there's not much substance coming out of you right now.
In any case, acknowledging the ugly history of this country isn't ignoring the privilege she enjoys now. And having said privilege doesn't make acknowledging such history hypocritical, or any less a valid point, as her speech seemed to be at least partly about "we can't go backwards". Your commentary, nervmeister, was just trying to deflect away from her point and declare her point invalid simply because she and her husband are currently successful. That's some sort of logical fallacy, I'm sure, and is not an effective way to address or disprove her point.
It's a pretty common tactic for folks to say "well, you're fine and dandy so you don't actually have any right to talk about/ leg to stand on in this debate." It brings the qualifications of the speaker into the conversation, rather than the content itself. I think it's also the fallacy of relative privation. And it tends to get directed at anyone who tries to speak about oppression and related topics.
edited 25th Jul '16 11:05:38 PM by AceofSpades
The narrative so far makes it really look like it will lead to a Trump victory.
He keeps making insanely stupid declarations, yet seems to be immune to consequences. Meanwhile, while Hillary is doing a very decent campaign, all that comes out of it is that she somehow is rotten and corrupt.
4 months to go, sure, but the Democrats ought to be worried right now. It's like people realized that reality had a liberal bias, and decided to screw the facts - and by doing so, screw reality.
cracked
actually just put up an article that sort of explains how he gets away with it. Ignore the shite title.
So was the political appointments thing all that wikileaks had on the DNC?
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?Honestly it feels more and more like wikileaks is entering a Former Child Star phase after the diplomatic cables leaking 5 years back.
The damned queen and the relentless knight.In an era of significant whistleblowers, their lack of relevancy means that they have to become Attention Whores so people keep talking about them.
Wikileaks is sort of like an autoimmune disorder. Notionally established to protect society from tyranny in the guise of government secrecy, it went crazy and started attacking governments over everything, no matter how trivial. In particular, Assange seems to have a massive hate boner for the U.S., as I suppose he hasn't forgiven us for attempting to prosecute him for raping children. My crocodile tears burst forth in copious quantities.
What I don't quite get is why he's so damn mad at Democrats in particular, but that part of the alt-left has never made sense to me.
edited 26th Jul '16 7:02:52 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
![]()
Wow, that was five years ago? I kept waiting for the important reveals, but all we got in the press was stupid gossip. It's kind of the same deal this time.
Now, the Panama Papers, those were excellent leaks. Who did those? EDIT: A "John Doe" with Southgerman Times
and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. Outstanding work, let's be honest.
edited 26th Jul '16 7:10:52 AM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
An anonymous leaker at Mossack Fonseca handed the Suddesutche Zeitung
2.6 terabytes of data. The journalists there realised they couldn't possibly handle all of that alone, so they roped in the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists
to help them go through it. It still took them a year.
Basically, how it used to be done.
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot

So who has spoken so far at the DNC, and how did they do? Yahoo News mentioned Mrs. Obama making a "soaring, powerful speech" in which she also made "scathing reference to Trump tweets", and now there's an article about Sanders proclaiming that he's "proud to stand with her [Clinton]".
edited 25th Jul '16 10:45:23 PM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.