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
Well, I for one have full faith the ability of the likes of the CIA to maintain plausible deniability even upon either of these men's deaths. Of course, they're a bit less competent than they're given credit for: their failed attempts tend to be hilarious. (well, those the public hears about, that is). Fidel Castro and Che Guevara in particular eluded some really Zany Schemes in their day.
And that's without getting into all the psychic and mind-control malarkey "research" on the side.
As for Manning,I honestly just pity the fool. And I think his punishment was disproportionate. He was a dumb-ass on an epic scale, but it's not like he was malicious or really profited from his crime.
edited 25th Aug '16 9:18:12 AM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Back again.
I admit, context was important for those quotes. I actually didn't really have to even dig that much to find them. Just type in "Hillary Clinton quotes" in google, and BOOM! Take a pick.
Still, my uncle, who is conservative, is in support of Clinton being president, so, I guess I should choose the lesser of two evils. Not gonna make me comfortable, but hey, it's for the best.
Please allow me to introduce myself, I am a man of wealth and taste. Nice to meet you, hope you can guess my name.People call Clinton the lesser of two evils (or , more recently, lesser of four) but I don't really see her being a bad choice. Maybe, in the eyes of many, she is not a good choice, but she is hardly a bad choice, especially given the nature of the competition. There's Trump (nuff said), Stein (who seems willing to flip flop as necessary to pander where she can (such as with the anti-vaxxers), and Johnson who, admittedly, I don't know much about but seems to represent a very fringe group going by some description of libertarians.
You know, there's been something I've been meaning to ask: Why the hell is Hilary the 'lesser of two evils'? Because every 'evil' thing I've known about her seems to be more hearsay than anything else. Heck, by all accounts, she appears to be more 'good' than 'evil'. So how come everyone's saying she's the 'lesser of two evils' when she doesn't seem to really be evil at all?
edited 25th Aug '16 1:26:55 PM by kkhohoho
Yeah. I'm a lot less convinced of a lot of stuff against her than I was a year ago. The email server thing has always bugged me, but more because of potential issues of transparency than legality or actual controversy. Still, as I've said to others, none of the skeletons in Clinton's closet can convince me she's a worse choice than Trump.
edited 25th Aug '16 9:40:43 AM by sgamer82
Because we're so used to our politics being drenched in supposedly wise cynicism that they guy you like is always the lesser evil. Also it doesn't help that the Republican propaganda machine has at least partially succeeded in its goal of trashing Clinton's reputation.
Also it's real fucking obnoxious when it's just assumed that the American government is going to, you know, just kill off any one particular person. Because somehow they're important enough for that, or that's just how the American government does things? This assumes everyone in it is not just evil, but stupid. It's Ted Nugent levels of paranoid.
Exactly, when has the US just tried killing off its rivals except all those times it tried killing its rivals?
i'm mostly kidding. "traffic accidenting" those two at this point would accomplish nothing. Especially when Jules is doing a very good job of ruining whatever goodwill he had developed.
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?There is some resentment towards Hillary for being a political opportunist. Not that that's at all uncommon among politicians, by any stretch of the imagination. But she seemed a bit more blatantly obvious about it — like buying a house in New York state, and then immediately running for the NY Senate seat. It could be argued that, not being from New York, she wasn't suitable to represent its people in Congress, and only did so to promote her own agenda.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank.Part of it's cynicism, part of it's misinformation, and part of it is legitimate policy disputes that perhaps get exaggerated. Like, some people here has basically said they expect her to start a war as soon as possible because she's a hawk/that's what presidents do.
edited 25th Aug '16 9:48:39 AM by LSBK
Um, are you talking about Chelsea Manning? Because, well...
Oh God! Natural light!Some people have a hard time understanding that the war against Clinton is a pre-internet endeavor.
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?My primary concern with Clinton is that she's likely to be a one term president. All the experience (and frankly, her policymaking record is decidedly average) in the world doesn't matter if you can't win an election, and unless Clinton presides over a boom economy (unlikely at best), I can't imagine her winning unless the GOP puts up a candidate even more incompetent than Trump.
That's part of why I support Clinton: I'd much rather be voting against her in four years than stuck with Trump again.
Leviticus 19:34
I seriously doubt the GOP is going back to what it was before Trump; the alt-right will be here to stay, much as it is in the rest of the western world, the next candidate will just be better at convincing people they aren't bigoted than Trump, and better at knowing when to shy their mouth.
edited 25th Aug '16 10:21:18 AM by CaptainCapsase
![]()
I imagine our resident Republican would beg to differ quite vigorously on that point.
Either way, the toxic nationalism is what I mean when I say the party won't go back to normal; globalism had broad bipartisan support until this particular cycle.
That's very unlikely to be true. In all likelyhood, the economy will be fairly tepid, as it is now, or in recession during the next election. Either way, that's beyond Clinton's control.
edited 25th Aug '16 10:33:34 AM by CaptainCapsase

@ conspiracy theories:
"Cut! Neil, it's 'One small step for A man'! Whose bright idea was it to use real pilots for this staged moon-landing, anyway? Actors could at least get their lines right..."
This Space Intentionally Left Blank.