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
![]()
![]()
As far as I can tell, it's a combination of the osmotic effect of all the Fox News propaganda against her and the sense that anyone who's taken any money from Wall Street or any other part of the "establishment" is inherently corrupt and untrustworthy. Which is ludicrous but it's unmistakably how people feel.
edited 13th Sep '16 7:05:05 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"You can already take the united states to court.
Here
are
some
examples
from our early history.
![]()
There are international courts, including ones that the United States occasionally answers to. When they feel like it. Those international courts have no real teeth, and it's simply a matter of diplomacy and international courtesy to answer to them. Both of which the Saudis don't exactly have a history of caring for.
That bill is a tranparent ploy to discredit Obama one last time.
"HES SO UNAMERICAN HE WONT LET YOU SUE TERRORISTS"
edited 13th Sep '16 7:08:33 AM by blkwhtrbbt
Say to the others who did not follow through You're still our brothers, and we will fight for you@Fighteer: Is it though? We all know these donations are buying access, and with access comes influence. To the point where bills and treaties are frequently written by lobbyists.
Clinton's far from the worst example of this phenomena, but people are really and truly sick of the current political paradigm, and not without reason.
Also, if Stein is taking away votes from Clinton, it is a very small number of them. And I doubt they are concentrated in swing states either. The Greens are polling at ~2%, Jill Stein is no Ralph Nader.
The real issue with Clinton and (particularly puritan/ignorant/selfish/insane) progressives/left-wingers, is that the latter will stay home.
edited 13th Sep '16 7:20:53 AM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.International courts are for disputes between nations, a private individual can't take a case to one.
As for Clinton, I'd argue that she has a perception as being to Sander's right on all issues including social ones, even though that's not the reality of things. As such asserting her position strongly may well win over thosue who are currently buying the lie about her being a secret right-winger.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranBluntly speaking, a number of people buying into Johnson seem to know precious little beyond legal weed and prostitution. He has a terrible record as governor of New Mexico, has flip-flopped on a number of positions (this might be par for the course, but given so many of his supporters from the left are puritopians who give Clinton shit about changes, this seems fair), and was far right as you can get....when you look into the things Johnson wants to do away with, it's genuinely frightening.
Also, as for Clinton attacking a chunk of Trump's supporters...as usual, the media is going all a-flutter about this hemming and hawing about how she sounded saying it, how shocked and taken aback they are by such a statement. Know what we don't see? Them investigating whether the statement is true. And frighteningly enough, evidence suggests that it really is.
Also, Clinton's perception as a liar who'll say anything for votes...excuse me, but I call the bluff there. It would've been very easy to throw planned Parenthood right under the bus, or abortion providers, or battered women, or disabled children. What Clinton brings to the table is a very long record of public service and frankly, while she has changed positions at times, that's the territory of being a politician. It's like people can't decide whether they want a good, competent leader or someone who is the most morally pure and never wrong about anything and never has to change positions. Politicians change to reflect the electorate if they're smart, and do I see, say, Joe Biden get one quarter of the shit Clinton does for literally the same flip flops? Do we see his comments on his father, when he tells a story that is more than likely complete hogwash about him, get rendered as 'phony' from the get go? Or does the media have a completely different standard for Clinton and just maybe that reflects on the electorate sometimes?
edited 13th Sep '16 7:19:05 AM by Lightysnake
![]()
Almost entirely without reason. Clinton's record for truthfulness is among the best of any politician out there. (FYI: Changing one's mind about something is not lying.)
And here we have the problem. We expect the right to engage in truthiness because it's how they're conditioned by their Fox News overlords. When the left does it, it's deeply disheartening.
edited 13th Sep '16 7:19:29 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"People are usually able to sue their own governments. They should always be accountable to their own people.
But suing another country, on the other hand, is problematic because it means you're stepping on another nations authority, their laws, and you're indirectly governing them.
Frankly expecting another country to obey an American judge like any other citizen, without their consent, is an abuse of power.
edited 13th Sep '16 7:21:56 AM by Nightlikeday
I know the truth—darkness beats light. Visit my DA: I'll share my secrets stories with you.What's truly disgusting is how the Bernie Bros and the Steinistas so un-self-consciously ape Trump's own attack lines. "Lyin' Hillary" indeed. Roger Ailes must be so proud.
edited 13th Sep '16 7:28:41 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Catchphrases are always easier to repeat than fact checking.
I know the truth—darkness beats light. Visit my DA: I'll share my secrets stories with you.@Fighteer: Not without reason because she's frequently caught lying in a rather blatant manner.
ie, claiming to have landed under sniper fire in Bosnia, claiming to have left the white house dead broke, claiming all of her grandparents were immigrants (25% true), playing dumb about her private server ("with a cloth?"), and so on
. Now, I'll grant you that your average politician lies about as much, but a key difference is they're actually good at it, and that's what makes the difference in the public eye.
edited 13th Sep '16 7:45:12 AM by CaptainCapsase
Trump has been an awful liar too. His supporter don't seem to care, however.
I know the truth—darkness beats light. Visit my DA: I'll share my secrets stories with you.
Trump is a very special kind of awful wherein he takes the "if you repeat something often enough, it becomes true in people's minds" concept to its logical conclusion. He's also very much running on his personality over his policy, since the latter is a confusing mess where he's taken just about every possible position on every political issue at one time or another.
edited 13th Sep '16 7:44:28 AM by CaptainCapsase
Those "lies" are nothing but the kind of hyperbole one generally expects on the campaign trail, and it's not like anyone else running is/was immune to it, not even Sanders (or goddamn Stein). Anyway, it kind of seems like we're grading on a curve here — Hillary's 95% truthfulness compared to Trump's 5%, yet people still seem to think it's 50/50.
edited 13th Sep '16 7:50:34 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"You do realize you're basically regurgitating Clinton campaign deflections on these topics, yes? I'd say a big part of what colors people's perception of Clinton so much is the fact that she very rarely owns up to having lied to people's faces, nor does she "pull a Trump" and double down until people start believing her. Instead we get whataboutisms and various attempts to change the subject. It's undeniably effective with certain segments of the population, and extremely ineffective among others.
edited 13th Sep '16 7:54:36 AM by CaptainCapsase
![]()
You do realize you're engaging in the same kind of fact-immune "logic" that is employed by the folks on the fringe left, where a half-truth or evasion is as damning as feeding babies to wolves, right?
Aren't we supposed to be talking about policies, not who's kissed the most babies, or who wears imaginary halos?
edited 13th Sep '16 7:57:14 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

It's a stupid idea anyway. Who would preside over the trial?