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
![]()
If you think that Hillary lies are at the same level or equal of Trump's, you're being outright disingenuous.
Oh for the fucks sake. If you're bitching about CNN being biased against Trump, go see Fox News and Breibart to see how bias really looks like.
Tell me how many lies Hillary did say in order to smear people and are outright fabrications for the sake of gathering support from radical elements of the US society?
edited 22nd Sep '16 5:04:37 PM by AngelusNox
Inter arma enim silent leges
Link me to an article and I'll take a look at it.
1) That's the question. How do you measure a lie?
2) For Christs sake. If you were actually reading my posts, you'd know that I've mentioned Fox is biased against Hillary and for Trump several times now. I haven't mentioned breitbart, but it's also biased for Trump.
3) Can I get some specifics? What smears are you talking about?
edited 22nd Sep '16 5:11:22 PM by 940131
![]()
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/?page=1
Knock yourself out.
The Khan family in particular, the the implications that immigrants are criminals, that Mexico is sending their criminals and rapist to the US or how the Police in the US aren't doing their jobs because they fear movements like the BLM.
edited 22nd Sep '16 5:17:26 PM by AngelusNox
Inter arma enim silent leges
Or virtually any episode of Stephen Colbert or The Daily Show from the last year.
No. There's not. If the press was truly covering Trump the way he deserves to be covered it would consist of nothing but fact checking him. There'd be no letting him talk. Every interview would turn into "Trump opens his mouth, Trump is fact checked".
That's arguably the biggest lie ever uttered in this thread. You've been linked to both Snopes and Politifact on the issue. Trump is the greater liar by miles.
Bull. All presidential candidates are expected to release their medical records. Clinton released hers, Trump did not. Trump's refusal to do so is by far a more important story than the fact that Clinton had a case of pneumonia and then got over it.
But hey, the lady candidate must be sick right? They're so frail.
He's a racist, xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic pile of trash. She's not. That's how he's worse.
Not all Nazis were involved with the Holocaust. Try again. If the cop was wearing a swastika would you be eager that we send the message that Nazis can be good people too?
x4 1) You know, there's a whole website about fact checking Politifact, right?
2) Trumps feud with the Khans was disgraceful and incredibly stupid, but I can't remember him lying about them. Maybe I'm forgetting something.
3) Did he say all immigrants are criminals?
4) There's a grain of truth there. The Mexican government doesn't send immigrants to the US, but it's been recordec that they've distributed pamphlets in order to help the undocumented immigrants to the US safely.
5) The other two are either lies or he's just ignorant. It's hard to tell with him.
x3 They're liberal comedians.
x2 1) Yes. She was sick and she tried to cover it up. Meanwhile, CNN questioned Trumps health while downplaying Hillary's. Ultimately she collapsed and they couldn't continue ignoring it.
2) There are a lot of generalizations. If what you're saying is that Hillary is smarter and more competent than Trump over all I'd absolutely agree with you, but just looking at his foreign policy... I'm not sure that it's worse than Hillary's.
3) It's pathetic. The ex-cop isn't a racist as far as we know and even if he was racist, the fact that he did something good should still be acknowledged.
1) They should both be fact checked. Jounrnalists are supposed to hold politicians accountable.
2) Just because you've said it, doesn't make it true. Again, how do you measure a lie? When did they start checking? Do they include all lies? How do you know they're not just wrong?
3) Not liking Hillary isn't the same as being sexist. I didn't like Fiorina either. And I like Jill Stein. Hillary's health was ignored by CNN while they hammered away at Trumps health. I agree that he should release his medicsl records though.
4) Idon't know that he's homophobic, but the rest is fair. Hillary's killed people. He hasn't. That's also fair. I don't think either of them are good people.
5)
edited 22nd Sep '16 5:58:54 PM by 940131
You know that Politifact has won the Pulitzer Prize and the sites that factcheck them haven't? More importantly, pick a fact checking website. Pick a newspaper factchecker. They'll almost all tell you Trump lies more often.
But I suppose that's just evidence of the vast liberal media conspiracy against Trump, right?
Oh, you missed the part where he said that Mr. Khan didn't allow his wife to speak because he's a Muslim and therefore hates women? You missed the part where he and his surrogates accused Mr. Khan of being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood sent to ruin his campaign? You missed the part where another of his surrogates said that Humayan Khan was himself a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and had infiltrated the US Army for nefarious purposes? You missed all that?
Helpful hint—if you've somehow remained blissfully unaware of all of the above, then you are in no position to be passing any judgement on US politics because you are spectacularly uninformed.
edited 22nd Sep '16 5:27:05 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Honestly, there's at least some merit in the notion that the media is misrepresenting Trump's positions; they act as if he has positions. Name anything Trump has said and you can find him saying something completely different, oftentimes within hours.
That and his complete lack of experience in a high level elected office are what the media should be grilling him on, rather than constantly comparing him to dictators and accusing him of racism or sexism, if only because such accusations have been used as a political bludgeon often enough that it's fallen victim to the "crying wolf" phenomena among a large chunk of the populace.
edited 22nd Sep '16 5:37:09 PM by CaptainCapsase
That mainstream media and politicians are picking up on the fascist criticisms at all is fairly novel, isn't it? Before this election cycle I've only ever seen it employed on the fringes and/or in internet forums.
(In personal news, voter registration finally submitted - I had some outstanding stuff to deal with the DMV which involved tracking down documents that had been mislaid that finally got found/resolved.)
edited 22nd Sep '16 5:45:37 PM by Elle
This reply tells us everything we need to know about this poster. Everything we didn't already know from the Assad, Qaddafi, and Putin apologism anyway.
Anybody who supports the likes of Assad while decrying US foreign policy as warmongering, then accuses those who dislike Trump of "liberal bias" is not someone with whom you can have an intelligent discussion. The positions are incoherent at best, actively pro-dictatorship at worst. Throw in the habit of editing his posts after the fact just to make conversation difficult (look at that steadily growing list of numbers up there instead of just making a new post), and there's no point in having an ongoing discussion.
Translation—Trump will let Assad shoot his civilians in peace and Clinton might intervene. Again, this poster has made their priorities very clear.
edited 22nd Sep '16 5:48:59 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
I feel like mentioning, given that this 'Hillary and Trump are equally bad' nonsense just reared it's ugly head again, that from my perspective as a (left-leaning) Canadian, it's abundantly clear that Trump is the worst American Presidential to be considered in the decade-and-change I've been old enough to hold serious opinions on these things. Like, there's really no contest there.
Hillary, meanwhile, is in the middle of the pack at worst.
![]()
I'd very much like it if he or she continued. The main reason I'm here is to debate with people who I disagree with vigorously but not so completely and utterly that there's simply no possibility of discussion. I've changed some opinions over time, amended others, and had others reaffirmed. That's the purpose of engaging with opposed perspectives.
If you don't want to have an echo chamber, you need a range of opinions.
Speaking of which, as far as Syria goes, do you really think this is about the brutality of the Assad regime? Fuck no. Many of the rebel groups we're supporting are just as bad if not worse. It's geopolitics, nothing more, nothing less, and the same goes for the Russian support of Assad. Honestly the US would probably prefer Assad to a democratic Syria were he aligned with the United States; people in the middle east generally don't think very highly of us, and the US is nothing if not intolerant of democracies (and any other regime) that isn't aligned with us. As is to be expected.
edited 22nd Sep '16 5:56:58 PM by CaptainCapsase
To be fair, Colbert is openly partisan. The guy built a whole show and persona on lampooning the right and while he dropped the persona when he moved to the Late Show politics is still very much part of his bread and butter. The the Left is not off limits for being skewered by him but it's pretty obvious where his opinions lie.
Not that I particularly care to defend the crap steam-of-numbers has been throwing around, but...
edited 22nd Sep '16 5:56:52 PM by Elle
![]()
![]()
![]()
Yeah, I agree. By Canadian standards, Clinton is somewhere in the Conservative/Liberal overlap. Trump is off the political spectrum entirely up here.
Maybe that has something to do with how Rupert Murdoch has basically no meaningful presence in Canada. We have our own right-wing media mogul (who's name escapes me right now), and IIRC, he despises Trump.
edited 22nd Sep '16 5:56:11 PM by Zendervai
When people start complaining about the lack of US support for the "legitimate" regimes of Assad and Qaddafi while whining about how America is threatening precious Russian interests, they cross the line into "no possibility of discussion" for me.
Qaddafi was a monster. Assad is a monster. If the above troper was arguing US intervention made things worse, that would be one thing, but he's not. He's advocating that they should have been left alone because they were the legal and legitimate heads of state—when both were dictators who took power through illegal means. Worse still, he's positioning those within Libya and Syria who wanted the dictators out as the villains. That's not a difference of opinion, that's morally repugnant.
Whether the US is acting because of Assad's brutality is irrelevant to the poster's defense of Assad. You can critique American intervention in Syria without pretending Assad was "the legitimate ruler of Syria". I know this, because you just did so.
@940131
This has been said to you in other threads, and I'm going to say it to you hear. This thing you do, where you keep editing your posts as the discussion goes along? Annoying. When the discussion has moved on five, ten posts, make a new post. Nobody wants to have to keep going back to read your old posts to see if you said anything new.
edited 22nd Sep '16 6:02:56 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
@Angelus Nox When did I say Trump should be President.
@Captain Capsase The liberal media and Clinton Campaign should grill him on all of his negatives. I don't think a lack of government experience should be what they focus on because a number of past Presidents didn't have experience. They should focus on his ignorance of tthe world. Somehow, I doubt he's been studying.
edited 22nd Sep '16 6:06:39 PM by 940131
![]()
Insofar as they were internationally recognized as the leaders of their respective states, they were "legitimate" regimes, and ideally, none of the great powers should be above international law, and none of them should be unilaterally declaring a previously recognized regime "illegitimate".
Now, that being said, there is unfortunately no semblance of rule of (international) law in our modern world. The UN is largely ignored by all major powers (the United States included) except when its positions are favorable to them. I would argue that the US has to make the first move (given its uniquely privileged status among the great powers) towards making itself accountable to the international community if there is to be any hope of Russia and China following suit, but that's seemingly not your position.
Regarding lack of experience, that's not been the case in hundreds of years. While there is pretty much no correlation between years of experience and effectiveness as a president, that's only historically been the case so long as the person in question had prior experience in high level government positions (Eisenhower, for example), ideally experience as an elected official (senators, even relatively green senators were fine).
edited 22nd Sep '16 6:09:48 PM by CaptainCapsase
@string of numbers: Trump's platform calls for conversion therapy, a ban on gay marriage, the removal of the rights of gay and trans people, and a bunch of other shit. His platform is nothing but removing people's rights.
And as for you liking Jill Stein, what exactly do you like about her? Her anti vaccination views? Her belief that Brexit was a good thing? Her hatred of GM Os?
The UN was created largely to benefit the Great Powers at the end of WW 2. That's why the US, Russia, Britain, France and China have permanent seats on the UN Security Council. The League of Nations did the same thing. After World War 1, Britain, France, Italy and Japan had permanent seats on the Council.
x6 Being anti-war doesn't make me an apologist for Putin. And yes, if Rand Paul, Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein are less inclined to illegally intervene in the affairs of other countries I think it's right. How many people are going to die in these disastrous interventions. They aren't working. All we're getting from them is ISIL, debt, more terrorism and death.
edited 22nd Sep '16 6:18:29 PM by 940131
I love this. He whines about people not fact checking, but then assumes bias when the fact checks give back results he doesn't like. Apparently Politifact, the Washington Post, the NYT, Snopes, etc, are all engaged in a conspiracy against Trump.
The ultimate lie of the sexist. "I like this woman so I can't be sexist." Obsessing over the health of the candidate who had already released her medical records, while trying to brush off the attention payed to the health of the candidate who hasn't released his medical records is pretty questionable. Continuing to repeat that Clinton "looks sick" just falls flat, of course, because Trump looks like an overweight shaved orangutan yet you aren't obsessing over his health. Until you give me a reason to think otherwise, I'm going to assume it's because you're a sexist and are holding the female candidate to a standard you are not holding the male candidate to.
Right. His platform includes gay conversation therapy but he's not homophobic. Just like he accused the Khans of being part of the Muslim Brotherhood but hey, you somehow missed that. I guess it's all a liberal media lie, right?
Is this going to be about Benghazi? Or Vince Foster? Which of the "Clinton murders" are we obsessing about today? Or hey, don't tell me, did she secretly orchestrate the murders of those who know where Obama's "real" birth certificate is?
He likes Stein because she wants to let Russia run the world.
edited 22nd Sep '16 6:11:52 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

@940131: It's easy: visit Snopes
and do your own Hillary vs Trump dive. Enjoy.
edited 22nd Sep '16 5:02:12 PM by Euodiachloris