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
...Did I wake up in Bizzaro world or something?
As has already been pointed out, that's not entirely accurate. He's saying that if he wins the Presidency, then 95% of black voters will vote for him on re-election because African-Americans will be SO IMPRESSED by how much good he does for them in four years.
His actual pitch, however, was hilarious in classic Trump style.
“You're living in poverty, your schools are no good, you have no jobs. Fifty-eight percent of your youth is unemployed. What the hell do you have to lose?”
Trump is running on the platform that there's no reason for black people to not vote for him on account of the fact that their lives are so shitty that it would be impossible for him to make them worse.
edited 21st Aug '16 6:04:04 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.I don't think it's solely the fault of this thread that it's leaning left. The right got Trump. They have so many candidates and they pick Trump. I mean I don't think he is even a conservative. A megalomaniac plutocrat maybe?
I even wonder why the conservatives consider voting for him. The only thing he seems to care is himself and his family I hope. The only thing that I can think of is that they want him to change the name of USA to United States of Trumpica or something like that.
Only an experienced editor who has a name possesses the ability to truly understand my work - What 90% of writers I'm in charge of said.If Trump wins, I'm partial to calling the US the Free American Empire.
![]()
Conservatives I've seen support Trump have done so somewhat reluctantly. Their motive is usually along the lines of "you got to vote for the lesser evil, and as bad as Trump is, at least he's not Hillary".
edited 21st Aug '16 7:51:46 PM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34And in unfortunate news, Huma Abedin, wife of Anthony Weiner and one of Clinton's top aides (allegedly on the short-list for Chief of Staff if Clinton wins) worked at the "Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs" as assistant-editor from the mid-'90s to 2008
while interning for First Lady Clinton, and to say it's a conservative paper is a massive understatement... and kind of explains why Abedin has stayed with Weiner in spite of his philandering. Emphasis mine.
“A conjugal family established through a marriage contract between a man and a woman, and extended through procreation is the only definition of family a Muslim can accept,” the author, a Saudi official with the Muslim World League, asserted, while warning of “the dangers of alternative lifestyles.” (Abedin’s journal was founded and funded by the former head of the Muslim World League.)
“Pushing [mothers] out into the open labor market is a clear demonstration of a lack of respect of womanhood and motherhood,” it added.
In a separate January 1996 article, Abedin’s mother — who was the Muslim World League’s delegate to the UN conference — wrote that Clinton and other speakers were advancing a “very aggressive and radically feminist” agenda that was un-Islamic and wrong because it focused on empowering women.
“‘Empowerment’ of women does more harm than benefit the cause of women or their relations with men,” Saleha Mahmood Abedin maintained, while forcefully arguing in favor of Islamic laws that have been roundly criticized for oppressing women.
“By placing women in the ‘care and protection’ of men and by making women responsible for those under her charge,” she argued, “Islamic values generate a sense of compassion in human and family relations.”
“Among all systems of belief, Islam goes the farthest in restoring equality across gender,” she claimed. “Acknowledging the very central role women play in procreation, child-raising and homemaking, Islam places the economic responsibility of supporting the family primarily on the male members.”
She seemed to rationalize domestic abuse as a result of “the stress and frustrations that men encounter in their daily lives.” While denouncing such violence, she didn’t think it did much good to punish men for it.
She added in her 31-page treatise: “More men are victims of domestic violence than women . . . If we see the world through ‘men’s eyes’ we will find them suffering from many hardships and injustices.”
She opposed the UN conference widening the scope of the definition of the family to include “gay and lesbian ‘families.’ ”
Huma Abedin does not apologize for her mother’s views. “My mother was traveling around the world to these international women’s conferences talking about women’s empowerment, and it was normal,” she said in a recent profile in Vogue.
And let's face it - if it came out that Trump was employing someone high-up that firmly (and publicly) believed in Stay in the Kitchen, he'd be getting it from both barrels here.
edited 21st Aug '16 9:14:19 PM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"Well, as the article points out this isn't very well known. Can't criticize what you don't know about. This is personally the first time I've even heard of this woman, or who Weiner was married to. (Mostly because I tend not to care about who politicians are married to. It's not that interesting, usually.)
Me, I'm personally meh on it. I don't think this changes anything about Clinton's policies or my opinions on them. And I don't think politicians are required to only have those who agree with them on every issue as advisers.
edited 21st Aug '16 9:20:36 PM by AceofSpades
![]()
It might not even be a matter of "if," since you can just swap out Islam for Christianity and find that such viewpoints are unfortunately not unknown to Republicans.
But of course, if any attention is given to this (which it might not be, depending on how quickly any hypocrisy comes to light), it will be made a uniquely Muslim problem, and not an issue present in many forms of religious conservatism.
Goddammit Trump
New Survey coming this weekend!@This Thread Being a "Circlejerk": It absolutely is. Not as bad as certain subreddits, and certainly more intellectual than most online political discussions, but it's more or less impossible to avoid if you don't deliberately bring in opposed perspectives.
Otherwise, it self selects against such perspectives, except for those who deliberately seek out debate.
edited 22nd Aug '16 3:03:17 AM by CaptainCapsase
Then, for the sake of discussion, is there any good reason to vote for Trump or stand up for him? Because I got nothing. Well, you really hate Hillary or you really admire Trump's business practices do come to my mind , but I don't think those two are a good reason.
Only an experienced editor who has a name possesses the ability to truly understand my work - What 90% of writers I'm in charge of said.Hmm.
So the whole, "Fuck the Republcians" thing goes like this from where I'm sitting as a gay guy with other LGBT friends:
The Republican Party is outright attempting to abolish my civil rights and legalize discrimination based on sexuality, in addition to banning same sex marriage and tactly supporting conversion therapy.
So forgive me if I take that a bit personally.
![]()
I could see that, but if that's the truth, the right aren't voting for Trump, but the man behind him, right?
On a more serious note, easy to control and and not understanding the intricacies of governance aren't synonymous. I don't think that it'll be easy to control him.
Another idea come to my mind, the right vote for him because Trump will change America and America needs change. I've no doubt that he'll change America and America do need to change. Of course, Trump isn't exactly the ideal harbinger of change.
I think Hillary's greatest weakness is that her platform doesn't offer change. Sure, she offers stability, but she doesn't satisfy the people's desire for change. Who would have thought a nation that is so vibrant and diverse like America can become somewhat stagnant.
edited 22nd Aug '16 3:54:06 AM by Advarielle
Only an experienced editor who has a name possesses the ability to truly understand my work - What 90% of writers I'm in charge of said.

It's pretty much just human nature to gravitate towards people who agree with you. I don't think I'd have much fun posting about issues dear to my heart in r/thedonald.
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?