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
![]()
![]()
Yeah, I meant the latter. What I want is at least two different candidates who, while not perfect, would still both do a decent job at being President in their own rights if elected. Whereas this year, of the four different candidates who have anything close to a chance, one is clueless, the other is an idiot, and the third is just insane, which leaves only one choice that you could actually vote for without burning the country down to the ground. So when I say I want a 'real choice', that's what I mean.
![]()
That too.
edited 12th Aug '16 11:06:54 AM by kkhohoho
I kinda felt like there was a decent choice during the Obama vs. Mc Cain election in 2008. I was definitely for Obama, and Mc Cain choosing Palin as his running mate was definitely a super-bad thing, but at the same time, I do remember thinking that if Mc Cain won, he'd probably do an okay job. Better than W did, anyway.
P.S. Does anyone know how to keep the word Mc Cain from turning into a link on this wiki?
edited 12th Aug '16 11:17:15 AM by RavenWilder
Nice try.
![]()
Check out "Show markup help" when you comment.
edited 12th Aug '16 11:20:40 AM by flameboy21th
Non Indicative UsernameI have no idea whether the accusation in the meme is true (I'd be inclined to doubt it given the source/personal biases), but once again, Trump used an anti-semitic meme to attack Clinton
. The only difference between what he used and the original meme is that the Star of David was photoshopped out.
I think the idea is that there is an Evil Jewish Conspiracy (or as left wing anti-semites like to call it, a Zionist conspiracy) wherein Jews (or Israel) are responsible for anything that happens in the Middle East. So naturally, they'd be involved in arms sales to various countries.
And/or I guess more simply Duke hates both Jews and Muslims. Trump hates Muslims and knows his followers hate Muslims and in some cases, Jews and Muslims, and doesn't mind "winking" by appropriating Duke's image.
But yeah, it's a great illustration of both the Horeshoe Effect and how conspiracy theories don't make a lot of sense.
edited 12th Aug '16 2:07:04 PM by Hodor2
Yeah. It's basically, "Hillary "Greedy like a Jew" Clinton took all this money from our Arabic enemies, in exchange for keeping the Jewish NWO's conspiracy ball rolling by helping them get weapons to keep fighting each other and us!"
When you put the words together like that it kinda sounds like gibberish but nobody ever accused anti-Semitism of being founded on sound logical principles.
edited 12th Aug '16 2:06:32 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Do we know where the Trump photo came from? I have concerns that it might be a "Fill in the Whiteboard" photoshop. I wouldn't put it past him, mind you, but a news source would be nice.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.... That is a fair point. It's possible that Duke/the alt-right person who produced that image photoshopped the Star of David into it.
Like the earlier controversy, I have to acknowledge that the image in question would ordinarily be a pretty garden-variety conservative (or just anti-Clinton) attack. What made it bad is that whoever created it or (in this case possibly) played with the image before Trump got to it added an anti-semitic angle.
I still get the impression though that Trump or one or more people working for him trawl alt-right twitter accounts and message boards for ammunition, which is kind of a questionable thing to do.
Re the baby, he didn't literally throw it out of the rally, but I still think his response was oddly hostile. Like it's so bizarre he joked about ejecting the mother and child. Anyone else would have just laughed it off or joked about the baby being from the opposite political party.
I didn't mean it literally, either. It was, however, exaggerated/distorted in media reports going be Politifact. He said to get the baby out while the mother was already on the process of leaving on her own.
edited 12th Aug '16 2:57:40 PM by sgamer82
The thing with the baby was fine up until he said "I think she really believed me!"
Since, you know, isn't that what your supporters are supposed to do? If he hadn't said that one sentence, he wouldn't look like so much of an asshole and there would have been no real controversy. Obviously, he's never cared about that anyways.
edited 12th Aug '16 3:08:04 PM by Eschaton
OMG, claiming a crying baby is from an opposing party would be funny.
The "she really believed me" line really is damning. Saying "I like your baby, it's cute....actually, I just changed my mind" is kind of a dick move, but declaring that you're proud of deceiving her is basically crossing the line thrice and really makes you look like a massive asshole.
Leviticus 19:34Hitler kissed babies!
◊ Obviously it was a move to disavow any association with National Socialist elements!
I remember seeing some links in this thread that more or less showed the population of the US is considerably leftwards of the government on certain issues (gun control, approving of Obamacare when it's not explicitly called that and similar stuff), but I'm bad at googling. Would you mind sharing them, if you have any saved?
Also, a few links, to try and contribute:
- (Washington Post, title is sarcastic, just in case) The highly reliable, definitely-not-crazy places where Donald Trump gets his news
: Link says that Trump gets "news" from places like Breitbart or the National Enquirer.
- (Time) Hillary Clinton Campaign Says She Would Reschedule Marijuana
A couple of the comments following that first article:
“I’m suggesting that our sources take risks.”
edited 12th Aug '16 8:31:15 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.I want to believe they aren't being opportunistic fuckers....but this is Wikileaks we are talking about.
Yeah, those pieces of shit are spreading a conspiracy theory that he was the source of the leak and that the DNC/or someone linked to them had him assassinated for it.
edited 12th Aug '16 8:42:53 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.

I'm seeing on CNN that Clinton has released her tax returns