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
Following the links from the platform article: Conserivitive intellectual "believes the Republican Party has lost its right to govern, because it is driven by white nationalism rather than a true commitment to equality for all Americans."
So they deny the party’s racist history, that its post-1964 success was a direct result of attracting whites disillusioned by the Democrats’ embrace of civil rights. And they deny that to this day, Republican voters are driven more by white resentment than by a principled commitment to the free market and individual liberty.
“It’s the power of wishful thinking. None of us want to accept that opposition to civil rights is the legacy that we’ve inherited,” Roy says.
I think that's actually the best deal we could possibly hope for. From the conversations we've had at the Palestine/Israel thread, this seems like the point of compromise. Palestinians want to be masters of their own fate, and not be humiliated and debased on a daily basis. Israelis want to stop worrying about bombers in the bus and knifers in the synagogue, and enjoy that which they paid the Iron Price for without further interference. How is this particularly strongly pro-Israel?
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.At first glance, it seems to be non-biased. The problem is that 1) it's essentially just reiterating what previous US administrations have stated was their stance on the matter, just with different wording; and 2) the most crucial thing is how Washington will act in the inevitable scenario where it's impossible to get both sides to agree on a suitable compromise regarding a particular point of conflict (e.g. Palestinian right of return). Regarding the second point, part of what sours me in particular and Arabs in general is that Washington usually takes Israel's side whenever such conflicts arise, even if they don't actually say so; it's always "Israel must exercise self-restraint" whenever they violate the terms of treaties with Palestine or launch yet another military invasion of Gaza, while Palestinians (both the nation and the authorities acting as their official political representatives) get a lot of flak and threatened with sanctions or some other kind of punishment for compratively a lot less (especially considering the disparity in actual power between the two sides).
edited 26th Jul '16 9:24:16 PM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.Hasn't Hillary traditionally been very supportive of Israel? Granted, I remember her pushing for the two-state solution during her tenure as Secretary of State, something that the Israeli hardliners probably don't appreciate too much, though it doesn't go as far as Sanders' outright criticism of Netanyahu.
Well we always take Israel's side because there's a strong zionist faction lobbying for Israel here. And I should mention how much I hate using the word zionist but it is the best descriptor for them.
Compound that with the ideal that Israel is this beacon of civilization against the Arab hordes that Republicans and FOX push and we've got a hard time ever coming against them.
Also Israel has nukes and their government right now is probably crazy and hateful enough to use them if we ever put some real pressure on them.
Oh really when?![]()
That's another reason why the switch to Hillary disappoints me.
Still better than Trump. That asshole would let Israel run roughshod over what's left of Palestine. Would probably encourage it.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.I can't really see Israel and the United States continuing to have good relations with the extreme right wing direction Israel is going (and kind of has been going for a while- starting points may vary). I tend to think it will go the way of Turkey and Russia in terms "country we used to like that's now on our shitlist". (Well, arguably we only liked Russia for a brief period but in some respects I think our relationship is worse under Putin than it was with any of his predecessors). With all these countries, I only see things improving if the next leader(s) elected have far different policies than the current ones.
On a different topic, kind of thinking out loud but I was touched by Bill Clinton's speech and learned of so many reforms/advocacy done by Hillary in a wide variety of areas- but especially disability-rights and children's' rights. At the same time, I couldn't quite forget the elephant in the room of his adultery (okay, adulteries). I think that the speech kind of symbolically discusses in that one very strong implication was this idea that she's sacrificed for him for years and he wants to do the same for her. And I think also the sense of effectively (and I think truthfully) presenting them as a couple that care for each other in a way that belies the accusation of their marriage being nothing but politics.
edited 26th Jul '16 9:47:01 PM by Hodor2
At least some of it is likely tied to the ancient boundaries of the Davidian Kingdom of Isreal. That doesn't include the Gaza strip, however, which back then was Philistine country.
Also, an element of religious manifest destiny - Yaweh promised us this land and we're going to hold onto it this time, dangit.
Re Israel: why people want these lands? 1. Religious delusion 2. Seeing the palestinians as not worthy of living due to them being stab happy murderers who see nothing wrong in breaking into houses and killing children 3. Good ol "my country is bigger" 4. The thought that we can somehow fix that place and make it actually livable (but this last one is not as prelavent anymore).
Also Re ERMAGEHRD BERNIEBROS RUIN MUH ELUCTION: I dont see any way in which this helps any discussion except smug self assurence and needing to feel superior in any way over people. Its not cool yo.
It's really not, especially if you compare it to the RNC's stance on Israel.
I think Schultz is overselling it as a way to parlay fears that the Democrats have become anti-Israel.
I can't find anything. Sorry.
And there goes Grayson's dreams of being a Senator.
edited 26th Jul '16 10:39:33 PM by Demonic_Braeburn
Any group who acts like morons ironically will eventually find itself swamped by morons who think themselves to be in good company.So I'm confused about something I heard a while ago:
Whats this with Trump speaking about not possibly helping Nato countries even though whole Nato is USA's own made thing basically? .-. Like, does anyone actually think that is a good idea?
Also, why is it legal in USA to demonize people publicly on tv? Like whats up with politicians calling each other really over the top bad things? Seriously, don't you guys have laws against defamation?
edited 26th Jul '16 11:12:40 PM by SpookyMask
To some extent, yes-however, from what I gather they're pretty lenient especially when it comes to criticizing politicians (in fact, you can basically say whatever you want about politicians and get away with it). Usually, it helps to use subjective statements like "they're an idiot" or "they're a jerk".
![]()
![]()
Because, unlike other broadcast ads that need piles of Read the Fine Print in order to air, attack ads just cite a particular bill while saying "This congressman voted to kill all puppies". This could be Metaphorically True if, say, they voted "No" on a bill that included a provision to grant funding to various animal shelters, but that was attached as a rider when the bill itself was aimed at something completely unrelated.
edited 26th Jul '16 11:20:51 PM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"I'm still pissed off at these morons who think the Democratic Primary was rigged. I spent a week helping around at my own state's State Election Commission and Jesus Christ The amount of redundancies and safeguards in place to prevent fraud and "rigging" would make your goddamn head spin.
edited 26th Jul '16 11:57:22 PM by TacticalFox88
New Survey coming this weekend!

And of course the fact that it isn't a carbon copy of Bernie's plan means some people will be mad at her anyway.