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
I would also say that Clinton has made wrong decisions or done certain things that are less than ideal. It's the nature of the game.
But she gets a disproportionate amount of hate and gets tarred and feathered as the worst person in politics and the avatar of everything wrong with it. IT' absurd to me.
The fact that the GOP party leaders won't disavow him in-masse shows how completely morally bankrupted they are and it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt something I believed for years.
Democrats are flawed (as are all organizations throughout human history) but they are fundamentally and undeniably better people than the GOP, as a whole. The Republican who's not a piece of shit, is the exception, rather than the rule.
New Survey coming this weekend!I view Clinton as like an A-10 Warthog. She's been strafing along busting tanks and armor with her fellow pilots for decades, and she's lost a wing or two, but still managed to return to base intact, and still ready for another sortie, time after teim. Despite the new Shiny F-35 being all the rage because it's something new, it still can't beat an experienced pilot in a jet that been battle tested, shot at, and occasionally, has had friendly relationships with pilots who fly Mi Gs. And now she's looking for one last sortie or two, before passing the torch to the newer pilots as they gain more experience.
@last page: A real civil war in today's America would require substantial groups of active military to defect to be anything more than a short-lived civil insurgency. The smarter military/intelligence brass are looking at Trump and very publicly going "hell no" right now.
Oh wait, the question was if Trump was elected...at which a mutiny in the military ranks would be a very real possibility.
edited 1st Sep '16 1:40:36 PM by Elle
The only way Trump could make all those people be gone would be developing, months ahead, a Heydrich like SD infrastructure devoted to forceful emigration from critical states and cities, with substantial force applied and oversight put upon local police and sherrifs departments. While that latter piece is starting to coalesce from the so called constitutional sheriffs association, they are not a force widespread enough to ensure rapid and totalitarian enforcement.
With the plans correctly instituted andutilized as I laid out, we could see forceful emigration enacted and fully functional within a week or two instead of the first day, but only if comfortable transfer of target population is minimal, otherwise it would take months / years. This is a worst case scenario, and most likely Trump has no one malignantly competent enough for such planning and execution.
All the more reason to keep him out of office.
Speaking as a Republican who stopped voting R, that's kind of a difficult question. I mean, there are questions to be asked about why people who are not shitty would then vote for a piece of shit.
Like, which is scarier. Donald Trump when he's screaming about how he's gonna get rid of all the Mexicans and you can call it deporting if you want, or the thousands or millions of people grinning and nodding and going, "Yeah! He tells it like it is! I like the cut of his jib! We should "deport" all those [racist term] f*ckers!"
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.I can see how it happens. "I disagree with him strongly but he's not a democrat." is an entirely fair reason to vote for someone in a two party system, especially with the supreme court on the line. If there were multiple parties and a system that supported that I could see trump dragging the republicans from #2 all the way to the bottom.
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?![]()
![]()
![]()
Not to deminish from Trump's badness and the implication of the speech but we still agree Trump is an idiot, right? That level of doomsday scenario would require a: Trump to be much smarter than he's shown himself to be and capable of advanced planing, b: him or his advisors being able to make those plans which would involve coordinating thousands of people and c: getting away with it without someone blowing the whistle and prompting mass outcry from outside the lunatic finge.
All that "day one" stuff? Empty bullshit.
edited 1st Sep '16 2:02:39 PM by Elle
Quite frankly, I am not surprised that young people skew away from Fox News Channel since they skew away from cable & satellite in general in favor of the Internet and broadcast stations, and broadcast television isn't like back in the '90s where I only got ABC, PBS, and UPN. I have a cheapass $10 HD antenna and I get 17 different stations today, including ABC, CBS, PBS, FOX, The CW, and NBC. If I wanted to... I could watch a three-hour stint of news in the early evening and it would give me more varied viewpoints that just keeping Fox News Channel or Conservative Talk Radio on in the background as well as keep me in touch with local news in addition to national news. Supplement that with content available online and young people nowadays have infinite amounts of varied content at their fingertips including news.
Young people generally don't live in the conservative bubble because they have a ton of sources at their fingertips and know it.
edited 1st Sep '16 2:15:43 PM by GameGuruGG
Wizard Needs Food Badly![]()
![]()
![]()
I'd think he'd hand the issue of "how" off to various advisors and promote whoever's plan or plans works best/fastest/cheapest.
A genocidal nutbar doesn't need to be smart enough to plan the ethnic cleansing themself, they just need to have someone who is on the payroll. Or not even that, just ambitious enough to think they can get ahead by best interpreting the leader's will.
Still, it's definitely not a "done day one" kind of thing. He might ask for a "solution to the Hispanic question" on the first day, but it'd definitely take longer than that to actually carry out the plan.
And looking at history, pulling off points B and C might be easier than you'd think. Never underestimate the ability of violent stupid people to get violence done, or of seemingly decent people to rationalize away some horrible thing they've done.
edited 1st Sep '16 3:05:16 PM by Balmung
That or Trump's plan would consist of a national address stating "I have instructed the justice department to no longer investigate or prosecute crimes committed against suspected illegals, regardless of the severity of the crime", if he did that he'd simply have to sit back in the Trump House and let the KKK and similar do the work for him.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran'Radical populism' nothing new to U.S. politics
“Radical populism is not a new phenomenon in the U.S. or elsewhere,” said George Gordon, professor emeritus of politics and government.
Nevertheless, in a talk Wednesday on “Radical Populism in the 2016 Election,” Gordon and Bob Hunt, professor emeritus of politics and government, acknowledged there are several current examples that seem to follow historic patterns.
Gordon referred to a 1965 article that discussed fascism in terms of extreme middle-class reactions against real or perceived threats from “others,” such as immigrants, and government institutions that are seen as unresponsive, giving rise to a leader who can inspire nonvoters to go to the polls and is seen as a knight in shining armor who can solve their problems.
Bob Hunt, professor emeritus of politics and government, noted that radical and fascist political parties and movements have been growing in other countries, particularly Europe, that are “visible and aggressive” and attractive to “those who are marginalized.” Many share an anti-immigrant theme, he said.
Gordon said there was more than one candidate who fit the profile of a “radical populist” outlined in the 1965 article, even though none “had the whole package.”
Both Bernie Sanders, who lost the Democratic presidential nomination to Hillary Clinton, and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump portrayed themselves as outsiders and inspired many nonvoters to get involved and to to the polls.
Sanders is a populist, Gordon said, but whether he is a “radical populist” depends on whether he is believed when calling for a “political revolution.”
But where Sanders spoke more of populism channeled through existing institutions, such as Congress, “Trump doesn't seem to have that next step,” Hunt said.
Trump has “anger without direction,” said Hunt, adding, “that kind of populism is not compatible with democracy.”
Gordon didn't give an opinion on what would happen if Trump were to win but said, “If Trump loses, I don't think the Trump movement is going to vanish into obscurity,” and government and political parties will have to decide how to deal with that.
About 65 people attended the talk, the first in a series on “The U.S. Presidential Election: Global Implications and Comparative Perspectives.” The series is sponsored by the Office of International Studies and Programs and the department of politics and government. The talks are at noon Wednesdays in the Bone Student Center through Nov. 9.
It wouldn't be so bad if the US going bananas wouldn't take down the rest of the Western world and a good chunk of the rest of the world with it. Unfortunately, being they are the only current superpower at the moment, have nukes and hold a huge part of the world's economy, they would.
edited 1st Sep '16 4:44:24 PM by Bat178
Basically what I was getting at with the mention of Heydrich. Adolf Hitler himself had no capacity for planning the Final Solution out - he handed that off to Heinrich Himmler, Adolf Eichmann, and Reinhard Heydrich.
That last one was known at the time as Himmler's Brain and The Hangman, and he viewed human life in terms of industrial ideas. He outlined at Wannsee how to exterminate human life as if it was agricultural waste product. As I saw in Conspiracy, he bragged of his Plan's level of killing potential as if he was reporting the amount of grain harvested by farms he oversaw.
So keep that in mind as a historical context. The Supreme Leader never makes the exact plans himself.

So at work I've been seeing a number of political mailers attacking "Puppet" Pam Helming (NY State Senate race) - but on those, I've only ever seen a return address with no indication of who financed the mailer. I could've sworn that any political ad (whether support or attack) had to cite who put the money in for it in order to comply with finance laws - is that no longer a thing, or is this group breaking the law?
edited 1st Sep '16 12:59:03 PM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"