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
No. Sweden can't legally, and wont, extradite people charged with political crimes, which has been explicitly established to include espionage. Not to mention that asking a Swedish prosecutor to behave in that way would lead to you getting arrested on the spot. They've stood their ground on this before.
If you're going to posit a conspiracy, it'd have to be the the two women being a CIA honey pot trap from the start, and.. uhm. Yhea, tad paranoid. Assange is paranoid, because well, people are out to get him, but that doesn't mean this instance of his paranoia is justified.
Near as I can tell, Assange got famous fighting the power, let it go to his head, was a complete douche to a couple of fangirls, and got burned because Sweden is really quite impressively hardcore when it comes to prosecuting people being dicks. The only thing different between this case and the run of the mill sex crime is that normally the perp does not end up in what is effectively house arrest in the Ecuadorian embassy.
I also suspect that Assange has a vendetta on Hillary Clinton because if memory serves, she was Secretary of State during the time all this drama played out. Meaning that he'll blame her for all his problems during that time.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanI don't get why people are pretending Sanders lied about being Jewish, he didn't, he is Jewish and has Jewish heritage, he may also be an atheist but the two aren't mutually exclusive.
No the email isn't bigoted itself, but it's the same kind of thing if there was a candidate rumoured to be bisexual and had never confirmed it due to having a wife. With the suggestion being that someone should strait up ask "have you ever had sex with another man" so as to get a yes and cost that candidate credibility with the evangelical crowd.
It's not bigotry so much as a plan to use the bigotry of voters to cost an opponent votes. Which now I type it out sounds pretty bigoted.
edited 6th Aug '16 2:42:55 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.” ~ Cyran
It doesn't come up in Elections in most developed parts of the world — in some parts, actually even mentioning faith will get the candidate strange looks at best. The US is an outlier in this regard.
edited 6th Aug '16 4:26:36 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling OnSilas summarized it best - the email's intent was clearly trying to get information that, in the eyes of the Baptist voters in Kentucky and West Virginia, would disqualify Sanders from the post... namely, being non-religious. The staffer who wrote it (DNC CFO Brad Marshall) has apologized for it
, though said apology reeks of "I'm sorry I got caught" rather than "I'm sorry I said it at all".
However, the underlying point is that the DNC officials were playing favorites, while the American public (rightly or wrongly - yes, yes, "private organization", but you've only got 2 to choose from for President, realistically speaking) had the expectation that the DNC would remain neutral and let voters decide.
As for the "Hillary may have shipped weapons to ISIS" thing, I should never have cited the Observer, as they were the ones alleging that it involved her former company - my thought is more along the lines of how the US was arming rebels in Libya and Syria prior to ISIS' rise, and I could more than easily see materiel getting into ISIS hands (as evidenced by this story of a plumber's truck winding up in ISIS possession, decals and all
) as a result of that "seemed like a good idea at the time" idea.
edited 6th Aug '16 6:21:51 AM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"Weapons go walkabout, they get captured, stolen or sold on the black market, it's simply a thing that happens, even with the best weapon security in the world.
The US is generally good about who it gives arms to, I don't think there have been any issues out of Libya (also I think that the French did a lot of the arming there) and with Syria it's generally been anti-ISIS/anti-Assad groups having weapons go walkabout between them. Remember in Afghanistan the only group the US gave weapons to that was a mistake was Pakistani intelligence. They're the ones who armed the Taliban (well what would become the Taliban) not the US, once the US learned who was being armed they worked with the British to arm non-Taliban groups and such good routs stayed semi-loyal.
edited 6th Aug '16 6:18:13 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.” ~ Cyran
Fair enough, but we were having the debate over possibly arming Syrian rebels in 2013
and it wouldn't be the first time we've done so covertly
. However, the State department would have jack-all to do with the covert arming, so point proven either way, I suppose.
edited 6th Aug '16 6:23:18 AM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"Sad, but true.
In other words, context matters. If you are bringing up the issue of a person's religious beliefs during an election cycle, you are doing so either to promote them or denigrate them. Given the cultural stigma placed on religious faith (or lack thereof) in this country, all such actions are inherently laced with intent to appeal to religion-based prejudices.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"And to be fair, the category of Unaffiliated, which encompasses atheism, agnosticism, secular humanism, deism, and spiritual but not religious, constitute the largest known group of people in the United States outside of Christians with a percentage of 22.8%. There are less Catholics in the United States than there are people who are Unaffiliated with any known religion.
Wizard Needs Food BadlyWhich is a bit hypocritical of him, really.
Did Snowden ever release credit card details and social security numbers for random people? I seem to recall him working carefully with news organizations to redact the leaks. So it's not hypocritical at all.
As far as the whole "talking about asking someone to ask Sanders about religion" thing, I still don't get why it is such a big deal. And besides, it's not like Republicans wouldn't have done the same thing in the general election anyway. Part of the point of primaries is to vet candidates to make sure they can stand up in the general election.
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's PlayReligious prejudice is a bit different from other prejudices, though, because your religion actually can (and, in fact, is supposed to) affect your behavior.
One of the more infamous examples is Christians who don't want to do anything to stop climate change, because they're convinced the apocalypse prophesied in the Book of Revelation will occur before climate change gets too bad, rendering the whole issue moot.
![]()
The reason it's controversial is that, along with other emails showing an explicit bias towards Clinton by the DNC, the intent wasn't "We need to take that into account" - it was "We can use this to ding Sanders' chances of winning over voters here", which is a world of difference when it's coming from the party network that is (ostensibly) supposed to be supporting the candidates running in their Primary, not seeking to covertly undermine them.
edited 6th Aug '16 8:43:51 AM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"As questionable as it was I think continuing to harp on this issue is a waste of time. If there was any actual wrongdoing by Hillary then it probably would have been released by now. DWS has resigned her position and Sanders doesn't seem to be holding it against Clinton. Frankly I think there are more important things to worry about like debunking these faux scandals and trying to convince people to back Clinton.
Also, it's hard for me to feel mad about people at the DNC supporting Clinton when Sanders wasn't even a Democrat a year ago and spent most of his campaign attacking the DNC. Besides, the RNC was much more aggressively anti-Trump and look where that got them.
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play![]()
![]()
I kind of see it as being hand-in-hand with getting people to vote for Clinton, as rooting out the elements that blatantly played favorites would sap credence from Trump's claims (and you know he'll make them if he loses) of fraud in the general election.
![]()
I think the difference is the overt animosity that the RNC held for Trump while the DNC undermined Sanders in a surreptitious way - basically the political equivalent of At Least I Admit It.
edited 6th Aug '16 9:06:40 AM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"

On Assange's rape charges, didn't Sweden start negotiating extradition to the US within days of the accusation? That just screams "The rape charge is an excuse to get the international arrest warrant the espionage charge couldn't get".
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."