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
The FBI decided not to investigate potential ties between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Another former Reagan official backs Clinton; will vote Democratic for the first time
.
edited 12th Aug '16 9:11:30 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar
And heeeeere's the backpedal
In reversal, Trump says IS claim about Obama was sarcastic: http://bigstory.ap.org/82383cd02a034ac2a2d8a4252b5267e1&utm_source=android_app&utm_medium=copy_to_clipboard&utm_campaign=share
Edit:
edited 12th Aug '16 9:31:04 AM by sgamer82
If that's indeed the case, then he should have clarified that in his earlier interview.
By my reckoning, if your sarcastic remarks are being taken as serious statements, then you should probably clarify them, not give more sarcasm.
edited 12th Aug '16 9:31:02 AM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!Regarding the F Bi thing...I'm seeing it reported on CNN apparently that some people in the FBI wanted to and the DOJ said no?
Judge: Ohio must accept Planned Parenthood grant application: http://bigstory.ap.org/abcd00ace3464bb0809065669afaa923&utm_source=android_app&utm_medium=copy_to_clipboard&utm_campaign=share
The law was set to take effect in May, though a court order has placed it on hold while the judge weighs the challenge. That order is set to expire Friday.
The legislation targets money Planned Parenthood gets through grants administered by the health department. That money is mostly federal and supports initiatives that provide HIV tests, cancer screenings and other prevention services.
The law bars such funds from going to entities that perform or promote abortions.
edited 12th Aug '16 9:58:30 AM by sgamer82
Trump keeps mocking the media
.
edited 12th Aug '16 9:58:11 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Yeah, the "sarcasm" remark is an unholy hybrid of "Just Joking" Justification and You Keep Using That Word - in no way was the comment itself "sarcastic".
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
Ugh, an investigation of the Clinton Foundation is a mixed bag either way. If it was investigated and the investigation concluded with no evidence of wrongdoing by the election, people would feel more confident about voting for her, though obviously be bad if it wasn't concluded by that point. However, by not investigating, the government saves money on what may very well be another false lead... but it also gives the "Clinton is a criminal with politicians in her pocket!" something to cling onto, and raises doubts among those that aren't supporting her outright.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
Is it so wrong to want an election where I feel like there's an actual real choice? Because rather than feeling like I'm choosing between two or more completely valid and legitimate choices, it instead feels like a contest between decency, stupidity, insanity, and a fusion of the latter two. (Figure out which is which.
) Which is no real contest at all.
So long as media networks and the politicians themselves continue dredging up half-baked attempts at discrediting political opponents which are then immediately assumed to be fact by the general audience at large, there will never be a "real choice" candidate. What you are asking for is a candidate who is so holy, so composed of all-consuming grace that none could even dare to speak against him or her.
Which does happen, but you wouldn't like the leaders who rise to power that way. The Kim dynasty, for example.
edited 12th Aug '16 10:45:12 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.That is not a "choice" you are describing, Tobias.
A real choice would be several candidates, several of them to choose from rather than one acceptable, a few chanceless and one Pure Evil.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanI may have misinterpreted "real choice" to mean a candidate who is worth choosing on their own merits instead of as the lesser evil, rather than "A legitimately difficult decision between upstanding individuals of equal merit."
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.

Anyone heard about the Clinton Foundation stuff today? haven't had time to research it today.