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
She's still got basically zero chance in Texas.
you made me look
![]()
Clinton's Texas polls have her in a deadheat with Trump to the point Greg Abbott warned the rest of the Texas GOP she may win here.
She is definitely going to win the Rio Grande Valley and most of the largest cities just like every Democrat presidential candidate has before her.
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."Fighteer, that's an Appeal to Worse Problems. One person held in unlawful imprisonment, in GB or a CIA black prison, is unacceptable, and political force (voting) should be leveraged toward that end, including electing officials who are willing to fix such things or fire officials who perpetrate them.
Going back a few pages (the thread advanced quite a bit while I was at work), there are four definitions of Libertarianism: What "you" think it is, what "I" think it is, what everybody else thinks it is, and what it actually is.
The same might be said of any political stance or viewpoint. So good luck with that.
So funny we were talking about Anthony Weiner yesterday. Apparently he's been accused of sexting with a 15 year old.
(Grain of salt: the story is mostly still circulating in the more tabloid-y sections of the news.)
In other news: Gary Johnson's Aleppo gaffe may have actually been a publicity boost for him
(Also, he's got a significant upswing in Arizona, though it's likely one of the places he'd be taking more votes from Trump than Hillary, though that's also debatable.)
edited 21st Sep '16 2:54:23 PM by Elle
![]()
![]()
Appeal to Worse Problems is not a fallacy when the insistence on action in a particular area actively or passively hinders action in an area that carries greater immediate consequence. The insistence that, for example, the Obama administration is bad because it has failed to close Guantanamo, or because NSA surveillance continued on its watch, blatantly misses the larger picture, and these issues are trivial in the grand scheme of things.
Anyway, by your logic, one person dying of hunger = one prisoner tortured extrajudicially, so we should be devoting tens of thousands of times more resources to fighting poverty than fighting torture.
edited 21st Sep '16 3:08:23 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Yes, but saying that the Obama administration could have closed Guantanamo Bay without endangering his other priorities, failed to do so, and should be ashamed of that failure, is a valid criticism.
Obama's got authority over Guantanamo and ICE - he could have, seeing the legal limbo that the Guantanamo prisoners were in (illegally imprisoned and not allowed to return to their own countries or enter the US) simply ordered the agency to issue green cards with extra "fuck you" to Congress (what's Congress going to do, cooperate with him less for it?). He didn't, and I'd argue that it's a symptom of Obama having generally been overcautious, when often a more assertive approach (or in this case, an Alexander) was needed.
And I never made that equation, you did. Hunger and torture are both flatly unacceptable - we, as a society, should not allow any person to die of hunger or be tortured in prison, and I think we have the resources to stop both within the US.
edited 21st Sep '16 3:15:51 PM by Ramidel
edited 21st Sep '16 3:40:08 PM by nervmeister
You didn't address any issue I raised, but simply stated that people who are opposed to the superdelegate system - which include me, I suppose - are just brainwashed by propaganda, and have a kindergarten mentality. That's not the kind of debate I wish to engage in. I've said why I think the superdelegates have given Clinton an unfair advantage during this year's primary race as well - feel free to provide counterarguments, but please don't insult me in the process.
Then let me just rephrase what I think is your opinion, so that you can address it if I understood you incorrectly. You say that the choice that the majority of people make is not always necessary the best one, which I agree with. You mention that superdelegates can be used for good and bad reasons, so clearly, they can only prevent a popular madman who is disliked by the party's establishment from getting the nomination - and additionally, can prevent a popular sane candidate who is disliked by the party's establishment as well. So how does this exactly solve the problem, unless you assume that most candidates who are disliked by the party's establishment, are, in fact madmen?
But, you say, the party should also be able to have a say in who they are going to nominate. Is it because of the above-mentioned reason - in which case I'd argue that the superdelegate system simply prevents a candidate who is disliked by them from getting the nomination, whether it's a sane or a mad candidate - or just a practical concern, since the party needs to devote resources to this candidate, they become the 'face' of the party, and the candidate's loss has an effect on the party as a whole? Then I'd say that this would be a valid concern, if the two main parties had not made it next to impossible for anyone outside these parties to compete with them in elections.
![]()
![]()
One's approach to living doesn't necessarily have to harm people in order to existentially shake the established social order. It just needs to be jarring enough in the minds of thousands if not millions of people for them to start losing grip on what they once unquestionably thought made sense
edited 21st Sep '16 3:55:53 PM by nervmeister
Failure to close Guantanimo is one of the things I frown at Obama for but I do understand that part of the problem is what to do with the detainees: proposals to relocate them anywhere on American soil have been met with strong "not on our backyard" opposition.
Amusing anecdote: Saw someone with a Trump bumper sticker (unfortunately not novel by itself in this area)...with the T and the P scribbled out.
edited 21st Sep '16 4:13:46 PM by Elle
OK, so I read a rumor recently that Tom Cotton, that one Republican Senator who was the ""brain"" behind sending a letter to Iran and torpedoing the nuclear deal behind the President's back, has allegedly thrown his support behind Trump.
Anyone knows if that piece of info is legit?
It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane.Part of the Gitmo problem is that while the detainees posed no threat to American when they were out in there and had done nothing wrong, after years of torture and abuse their opinions may have changed on if carrying out terrorist attacks against the US is a good idea.
Now all of that anger and rage is understandable but it also gives the US in a security dilemma, now that's it's made enemies out of innocents can it let them go? Especially as it's not like backlash attacks are going to only target the people responsible for the tourtue, false Imprisonment and abuse.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranA good way to dissolve terrorist cells in the Middle East with the least amount of violent force, civilian casualties, or torture is best. Unfortunately, my idea of how to do it requires tools and knowledge that are still in their infancy. Also, the operation which utilizes them absolutely must be kept secret.
edited 21st Sep '16 4:53:10 PM by nervmeister
David Duke declares his love of Putin's Russia
. Not sure if he's come out and said that before or not, but regardless, I think you guys should give some thought to shipping him there.

Clinton Campaign is apparently opening up an office in El Paso.
Um...
O.O
Bombshell.
New Survey coming this weekend!