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
X4 Aren't the primaries publicly funded though? That's far from private.
I just find it anoying that people making legitimate points that actions were wrong are constantly being told to shut up, we can complain about the bigotry of that guy's email while also working hard to fight Trump.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
![]()
![]()
Something from that article that really nails how people treat her:
I especially don't get the second one.
edited 6th Aug '16 11:09:45 AM by LSBK
I just find it anoying that people making legitimate points that actions were wrong are constantly being told to shut up, we can complain about the bigotry of that guy's email while also working hard to fight Trump.
QFT - yes, the DNC and RNC are, officially, private organizations, but the basic fact of the matter is that they're also the only parties that can get a candidate off the ground, and ever since people revolted against the old "kingmaker" setup, the premise has been that the parties would let those running duke it out among themselves before backing up the winner, and do so in an impartial manner (or, at worst, being openly hostile to a candidate they deemed unqualified, e.g. Trump). What the DNC pulled conjures images of the whole "I'll smile to your face before stabbing you in the back" routine that people find loathsome, and for good reason.
And like I said, a reason the issue should be addressed is to help gut any claims by Trump that he was unfairly screwed by the system - if the DNC had taken steps to root out internal corruption, and the RNC was throwing its support behind him, who precisely would be to blame?
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"You know, I just caught up with this thread. Can we not put Snowden in the same metaphorical space as Assange/Wikileaks? Especially after that blog post Ambar linked to basically stated some rather inaccurate things about what Snowden actually did (Russia was not his intended destination, he's literally got nowhere else to go after the US cancelled his passport before he could actually leave Russia for another country that was offering him asylum, and he destroyed the documents he had after handing them over to the journalists he was working with before leaving) and had an overall tone that I really couldn't care for. Sure, how Snowden went about things wasn't perfect (still, not his fault if media outlets fuck up), but he's not a jackass like Assange and Wikileaks, and what he did was the only viable option - the "official channels" for whistleblowers are completely useless.
edited 6th Aug '16 11:24:17 AM by Cronosonic
Sorry. I don't even remember where I had read this "extradition talks already underway" thing. I guess it was a less-than-reliable source (and likely the same as "plaintiff was recently accosted by a person who had contacts with the CIA"), but at the time I was keen to believe it, because the timing was way too convenient. It wasn't just a matter of who, but also one of when.
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."I think the alleged victims in the Assange case also later went back on their claims or something like that, either way there's a lot of weird stuff going on in that case regardless of what one thinks of the guy that doesn't add up if they genuinely just wanted to put him on trial, which honestly makes his paranoia about extradition actually seem kinda reasonable.
This administration, despite it supposed to being "the most transparent administration in US history", really has a hateboner for whistleblowers, which is one of my problems with Obama's run as president (alongside horrendously botched use of military drones, TPP, etc) as much as I like the guy.
edited 6th Aug '16 12:27:43 PM by Cronosonic
And Snowdin actually did measurable good in whistleblowing by revealing just how much the U.S. had been spying on allies and just normal people. Whistleblowing happens when a country is being a supreme dick in secret, and that is what the United States had been doing by the opinion of much of the rest of the world.
However, I will admit that Russia is currently in what is best described as an Information War against the West, though. Russia is very much using the Internet as a platform to undermind Western interest.
edited 6th Aug '16 11:38:47 AM by GameGuruGG
Wizard Needs Food Badly
The BBC has a fairly good write-up of the timeline
- and only one of the charges was dropped.
Yeah, I'll agree that (to say the least) the timing is suspect, especially considering (as I didn't notice until after the first post) all charges were dropped before the rape charge was reinstated. However, he didn't help his case (or maybe helped it immensely, depending on opinion of Assange himself) by posting bail and skipping out later... but only after exhausting all legal options available to him regarding the threat of extradition.
edited 6th Aug '16 12:08:51 PM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"No, I'm not stipulating to that about Snowden. Snowden revealed international surveillance? What gave him the right, exactly, to do this? Was it against US laws or the constitution? And his method to do it is to dump lots of documents, which also reveal things like the US surveillance on China and methods for fighting terrorism and human trafficking? And then he jumps ship to Russia where he becomes, most charitably, Putin's useful idiot?
And pardon me if I find the rest of the world a wee bit hypocritical when you can point out the far-worse surveillance of other countries, foreign and domestic to....the sound of crickets chirping. Snowden didn't do 'good' here in the end and making him into a martyr does nothing good.
They're the only parties who can get stuff off the ground because A)FPTP guarantees a two party system. B)The American people have essentially chosen them as their parties. and C)the Third Parties are straight up garbage and/or batshit insane. Anything "worthwhile" in the third parties is already in the two major parties in some form, for better or worse.
No. This is bullshit. You mean to tell me that the people who've been running an organization for decades don't like a guy who, until a year ago, wasn't a Democrat, used Democratic resources to ensure he didn't have a primary challenge in his own state, took their PAC money, and then when becoming a Democrat because he knew it his was his only path to the Presidency, STILL shitted on them continuously, despite their obvious restraint and bending over backwards to appease him, don't like him? You're seriously surprised by that? There's no smoking gun in those emails. At all. Sanders treated the DNC like shit, not the other way around.
edited 6th Aug '16 12:13:30 PM by TacticalFox88
New Survey coming this weekend!
Again, the public stance of the DNC was "Sure, go for it" with a minimum of animosity. Trump faced outright hostility (and rightly so) for the racist/bigoted comments he made - Sanders, by your reckoning, deserved the same hostility because he had conflicting viewpoints from what the Democrats wanted?
![]()
Was it against US laws or the constitution? Well, considering that the wiretapping practices he'd exposed (which was the latest incarnation of a similar controversy uncovered by the press in '07
) was absolutely not in keeping with the standards held for such surveillance, and included domestic surveillance as well as international
... I'd say that it was against US laws and the Constitution regarding that level of invasion of privacy.
edited 6th Aug '16 12:21:48 PM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"~Cronosonic, unless you have conclusive evidence that the accusations were false, please avoid referring to the Swedish women as "victims" in quote marks, thanks.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanNice to see people continuing to insist that Assange's victims must be faking it. If I were to go anywhere else on this site and refer to the victims in an alleged rape case as "victims" or insist that it was all a plot against the perpetrator, I suspect I'd get dogpiled by my fellow leftists and rightfully so. Yet somehow, when the alleged perpetrator is a PUB idol like Assange, it's perfectly acceptable to doubt the victims' stories, and spout off conspiracy theories about how they're trying to frame him.
Assange is wanted for rape in Sweden, a country that has traditionally held itself neutral in European and world affairs—a country that is highly unlikely to be a stooge of the USA. His refusal to stand trial for it does not say good things about him.
edited 6th Aug '16 12:26:28 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
The stuff Snowden revealed certainly was of questionable legality, the exact details are unclear but that's simpl par the course for such things. The level of which what was happening was hidden from both the people and goverment (alongside the abuses of it) was certainly in need of revealing.
Also Snowden didn't dump anything, unlike Wikileaks he actually have documents veted and checked before being released, specifically to avoid stuff like the doxing that Wikileaks just did.
A) Bollocks, it's not FPTP, it's the way the money works in US politics, many countries use FPTP, but I'm not sure if any have the same level of state funded, nominally private parties that dominate everything. B) What choice? The choice between the Republicans and the Libertarians? When did the American people vote for FPTP, when did they vote for the dominance of money in politics (be it big money or small money)? C) The national ones sure, the Green and Libertarians are certainly nuts, however some state level parties are not as insane and can be perfectly reasonable.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
x6 So... Exposing spying on allied countries and US citizens, the latter without a warrant, along with invading the privacy of both US and international citizens all in the name of "thwarting terrorism" in a way that is both ethically questionable and also quite likely unconstitutional, suddenly isn't worth some civil disobedience? If we can't hold the US to a higher standard, how the hell are (or us, for that matter) supposed to take other countries to task for doing worse if they don't actually have the high ground?
And Snowden being stuck in Russia was never his choice. The US cancelled his passport before he could hop on another plane to a different country willing to offer him asylum. Stop peddling bullshit.
![]()
![]()
Apologies, I didn't mean it like that. I edited my post to say 'alleged victims', though I mean it in a technical sense since there's no guilty verdict in that case and multiple charges have already been dropped. Probably a better way to word it, though, bleh. I'm not claiming that their accusations are false, though, or true, for that matter. The case is just messy.
edited 6th Aug '16 12:36:03 PM by Cronosonic
Like hell he did. If he had, why did he release so many stuff completely unrelated to his initial goal? Why did even he admit one was a "fuck up" in an interview with John Oliver of all people?
@ ironballs: Going to need to use a better term for it. Metadata collection is not the same as surveillance. It shows a disturbing capacity for abuse, but know what was missing from Snowden's narrative? Actual lawbreaking.
And Snowden got stuck in Russia not by his choice? Boo. Fucking. Hoo. Who forced him to hop ship to Hong Kong, and then to Russia? Oh, and last I checked, international surveillance on allies is not illegal. If you think our allies don't try spying on us (just ask Johnathan Pollard), that's a level of naivety I don't want anywhere near international affairs.
edited 6th Aug '16 12:31:54 PM by Lightysnake
I'm going to echo Lightysnake here—America's allies spy on you. The French have been caught doing it a couple of times, if memory serves. I pretty much guarantee that as horribly underfunded as they are, that the Canadian intelligence agencies are spying on you as well.
@Silasw
Two party states are hardly uncommon. In fact, some of the world's most stable republics are two party states. The consistent transfer of power back and forth between two large parties that encompass between them a majority of political opinion is extremely helpful when it comes to establishing democratic legitimacy. That's not getting into countries that are nominally multiparty but are two party in practise—in Canada, for instance, nobody other than the Liberals or Conservatives has ever held federal office, despite strong attempts on the part of the NDP (my party) among others.
edited 6th Aug '16 12:36:29 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
He did make questionable choices that ended him up there. No Assange but if nothing else chose he to hide out not in Equador or elswhere in South America for the publication but instead to hide out in Hong Kong, and then try and get to Equador the long way around via Russia.
Because most state level parties don't have the money to compete properly.
Total two party states are. Canada, Australia, the UK, ect are two party in practise but do not have a total lockout of smaller parties at almost every level, the US does. That's what makes it extra weird, they've got no Congressman, no Senators and maybe a half dozen state level reps that are from a party other than the big two. That level of dominance by two parties is very strange, other FPTP countries tend to have a handful of third party M Ps, several dozen third party local reps and a smattering of independents on top of that.
You'd be wrong, the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand all have an agreement to not spy on each other and to share most spy info. It's actually stuck to, but we all happily spice on other allies (like the Germans and French) together.
edited 6th Aug '16 12:41:51 PM 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

*Head desk*
Leviticus 19:34