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
What if said atheist is playing on their supposed affiliation with a particular religion (such as Judaism) in order to win votes, despite the fact that they themselves do not actually believe in God? At that point outlining their hypocrisy is permissible. Sanders frequently allayed fears about his Israel positions by citing his Jewish heritage. If he's actually an atheist, that becomes a meaningless defense.
I'll note here that I myself am an atheist.
@ironballs
The DNC didn't collude with the Clinton campaign. There's nothing in those emails that indicates collusion with the Clinton campaign. You are now making things up to fit an aggrieved Sanders' narrative.
As for the other thing...that's in the same territory as the Vince Foster and Benghazi allegations. Clinton colluding with ISIS. Please. That it's coming from The Observer which is owned by Trump's son-in-law just makes it even stupider.
edited 5th Aug '16 7:43:42 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
![]()
![]()
I'm not sure how that's supposed to be a disagreement with anything I said? Saying "he's an atheist" isn't discrimination. Saying "you can't trust him because he publicly claims to be Jewish but is actually an atheist" isn't discrimination because you're calling him out for lying to people. Saying "he's an atheist, so you can't trust him" would be discrimination, but that's not what they said.
edited 5th Aug '16 7:42:49 PM by NativeJovian
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.I mentioned this above but it got lost in the Sanders' religion debate. The article being cited is from The Observer. The Observer is owned by Trump's son-in-law, who is also one of his top advisors. Over the course of the election it has been the most pro-Trump of all the New York papers. It also unironically features such headlines as "Obama is definitely a Muslim", and tries to debunk any and all claims about Trump and Russia. Not exactly a reliable source.
Then there's the fact that it's getting its information from Assange, himself not a reliable source. We are talking about a man hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy to avoid sexual assault charges and who freely admits he wants to sabotage the Clinton campaign and loathes the USA.
So we have an unreliable, partisan source, filtered through an unreliable partisan source. Sounds legit.
edited 5th Aug '16 7:50:34 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
In either case, the phrasing of the email was definitely angling for something to damage Sanders with - and not for "he's lying about being Jewish when he's really atheist!", as it directly addressed the idea that his being confirmed as atheist would, in and of itself, cost him points among the Baptist groups down south. And in either case, it was the Democratic National Committee that was doing it, when people held the expectation that they would remain impartial.
![]()
I wasn't aware of that - however, Assange has alleged direct ties between the two and has promised further email publications to back the claim up. And like I mentioned before, it certainly wouldn't be the first time in US history that a well-intentioned case of Enemy of My Enemy backfired spectacularly. Edit: I'm reserving overall judgment for after the emails are actually released and people can peruse them (context is key, after all, e.g. Khizr Khan's "endorsement" of Sharia Law), but I just wouldn't be shocked at this point.
edited 5th Aug '16 7:59:15 PM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"So Clinton is somehow connected to a company she worked for in the 90s because said company might have supported ISIS. Which didn't exist, in its earliest form, until the mid 2000s.
This theory isn't even worth discussing.
edited 5th Aug '16 8:22:44 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.It's almost like we're playing 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon here....
edit:
Trump also finally endorses Paul Ryan and Mc Cain in a statement that makes hostage statements sound authentic:
edited 5th Aug '16 8:35:14 PM by nightwyrm_zero
The Observer hyped up the connection between LaFarge and ISIS, but they did pay "taxes" to ISIS in order to keep operating there, which is literally funding terrorism, even via extortion
.
And to reiterate, I'm waiting for that supposed email linking Clinton and ISIS - I doubt it's anywhere near so direct as that, and likely occurred before they actually became ISIS, but it's still not the best reflection on her foreign policy credentials. Enemy Mine has shot us in the foot way too many times this century, especially in regards to the Middle East. Iran with "Operation: Boot", Afghanistan with our support of what later became the Taliban against the USSR, Libya with our support of Gaddafi, Egypt with our grudging support of Mubarek, Iraq with Saddam [prior to 1990]... the list goes on, so there's definitely precedent for decisions that "Seemed like a good idea at the time", and I suspect this is likely one of those cases.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"I'm pretty sure someone in the GOP just typed up those papers he's holding, handed them to him, and went, "Here, just read these and try not to choke on your hypocrisy."
I also think the fact that he's holding the papers and obviously reading from them in the press conference is a subtle protest against the words he's saying. He's making it as obvious to everyone watching as he possibly can that he considers this to be bullshit.
edited 5th Aug '16 9:03:07 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.If pointing out that someone is an atheist to discredit them is "cynical but okay", then pointing out that someone is jewish, gay or of mixed heritage to discredit them would be too. But the latter are rightfully seen as discriminatory.
Praying on prejudices in the voter base like that is validating and reeinforcing these beliefs.
edited 5th Aug '16 9:27:59 PM by Antiteilchen
![]()
And then if he gets elected, (God forbid,) he might just go and denounce everyone he previously endorsed. Nothing they can do to stop him now after all, short of impeachment.
TRUMP: Hey, you know how I said, you know how I said Paul Ryan, John Mc Cain, and everyone else, yeah, all of them really, that they were such great guys? Yeah, well, forget everything I said about them over the last few months because, yeah, because everything I said about them, they forced me to say it, yes they did, they forced me to sing their praises, those fucking assholes. Truth is, those guys are tools, and you can trust me when I say that by the end of my first term in office, all of those guys, you hear me, all of them will have been taken out and shot. Not literally of course, but you know what I mean, right? You know what I mean. And anyone else who's a tool, they'll be taken out and shot too, right in the ass! If you know what I mean. Now, for my first act as President, well, let me tell ya', yeah, let me tell ya' a bit about me and Putin...
edited 5th Aug '16 9:29:16 PM by kkhohoho
Wait a minute...ISIS existed 25 years ago? Did I step into a time machine or something?
Leviticus 19:34Isn't Sanders ethnically Jewish? So he can be both Jewish ethnically, and an atheist religiously.
edited 5th Aug '16 10:33:01 PM by GameGuruGG
Wizard Needs Food Badly![]()
Because the public cares about it. It informs them, generally, of how they will view some things (unless they are shown to passionately take a different tack), so that they can filter out who they know they will disagree with. Only after that filter do people make efforts to know their leaders.
Sad, but true.
Trump announces all-male economic team
. Mostly CEOs too, only one is apparently an actual economist.

Except the email itself explicitly stated "It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.
"
So it was deliberately intended as an attack angle against Sanders, not as just a clarification.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"