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
This is not a tech support thread.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I read a NY Times article that depicted her as very Claire Underwood-ish on the matter. I tend to trust the NYT, and I think it would be pretty much in character for her - especially 20 or 25 years ago when she was in Bill's shadow. It's not something that would surprise me coming from a professionnal politician, to be honest.
edited 10th Oct '16 2:43:00 PM by Julep
It's understandable that she wouldn't have wanted to believe what was alleged about her husband.
PolitiFact actually did an article about this. Their finding, essentially, was that none of the claims could be substatiated. They're all hearsay, people quoting what others have said they remember Clinton saying.
As stated above, it's not hard to believe that Clinton would have attacked those she would (presumably) have perceived as spreading very offensive lies about her husband; but if she did, it is not on record in reliable sources.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.Could you link this article?
What would be a reliable account here?
edited 10th Oct '16 2:49:54 PM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!So some blogger made a pretty interesting rant on why Trump made the entire national security establishment shit themselves.
To get to the core of it (I cut a lot of stuff before, in the middle, and after):
No.
The people in the national security bureaucracy—hell, even *me*, even though I'm not a national security bureaucrat and have only read a handful of military history books—heard that and thought:
"HOLY SHIT."
Members of the Washington DC establishment who privately laugh about sexual assault and insider trading, heard that and thought: "YOU DON'T DO THAT."
My reading of history books is admittedly biased by having read about historically interesting cases. This does tend to be cases where things went very right, or more usually, very wrong. American revolution, French revolution, World War I, World War II.
Perhaps there are dozens of other cases where a country elected an impulsive, chaotic, populist leader and nothing whatsoever went wrong.
But when I think of Trump, I think of Hitler, and not in the generic sense of “Hitler” meaning “bad”. I think of the British diplomats who sent Hitler a sternly worded note on the eve of Hitler’s invasion of Poland, warning that Britain *would* defend Poland even though they hadn’t defended Czechoslovakia. According to “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich”, Hitler read the note himself instead of having his diplomatic corps explain it to him, and interpreted the standard diplomatic politesse as conciliatory and a go-ahead to invade Poland.
If I were to try summarize very briefly why Trump's remarks on NATO crossed a HOLY SHIT line, it'd be along the lines of: "If you read the history books, you realize that it is REALLY REALLY bad to have any ambiguity about which minor powers the major powers will defend; that is how World War I *and* World War II both started."
And: "In the wake of the second World War that started from that kind of ambiguity, the senior leaders in both the East and the West, enemies though they may have been, decided to learn the lesson and henceforth be more clear about which countries they'd defend. Not only did Trump blow through that, he did so in a way that indicates he has no idea of how World War I started and why this is one of the things you absolutely don't do. He doesn't listen to advisors. He doesn't have advisors! God knows what other guardrails he's going to blow through!"
edited 10th Oct '16 3:01:53 PM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.I'm not sure if that's the one I saw earlier, though - if it is it's been updated/rewritten.
That's a difficult question. If the accusation is that Hillary somehow attacked these people, if it's something she did face to face it's basically impossible to prove it now. If she had her legal team harrass them, that could be more easy to prove. If she attacked them in the media, as the Trump campaign claims, that should be very easy to prove. So far, everything I've seen indicates Clinton quotes being taken out of context to make it look like she's calling the women names when it's either someone else than Hillary Clinton speaking, or Clinton said the thing but about someone else.
edited 10th Oct '16 3:05:42 PM by BestOf
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.I'm not sure if that's the one I saw earlier, though - if it is it's been updated/rewritten.
That's a difficult question. If the accusation is that Hillary somehow attacked these people, if it's something she did face to face it's basically impossible to prove it now. If she had her legal team harrass them, that could be more easy to prove. If she attacked them in the media, as the Trump campaign claims, that should be very easy to prove. So far, everything I've seen indicates Clinton quotes being taken out of context to make it look like she's calling the women names when it's either someone else than Hillary Clinton speaking, or Clinton said the thing but about someone else.
edited 10th Oct '16 3:05:42 PM by BestOf
What the hell? I edited my post, and the one below was edited, as well? I'm sure I didn't have two edit windows open...
(For the record, Mods can edit posts but as you can see I edited mine - and I didn't do it twice, so this must be bug.)
I hope you can restore your post, Clarste. Hopefully you remember what was in it.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.Through, uh, forum wizardry my post seems to have been swallowed by BestOf's edit..
I can't edit it, because it gives me a snide message about me being a miscreant who tries to edit other people's posts.
My post was about how rape/sexual assault almost always comes down to "he said, she said" because the most important element, consent, is something that exists entirely inside people's heads and cannot be proven after the fact. But if we want to respect the victims at all, we can't dismiss their claims just because of that.
edited 10th Oct '16 3:17:08 PM by Clarste
I was responding to it. It was something about all sexual abuse cases being he said, she said and that being part of the whole reason for the push to "believe the victim" to be the first response in these cats.
The reply:
Right, and at the time, frankly, Hillary did not do that. The degree to which she did not do that (claims of private investigators to dig up all the crap on the other women to paint the worst possible picture of them, for example) is part of the debate, however.
edited 10th Oct '16 3:11:45 PM by Elle
Looks like Wikileaks has leaked more emails from the Clinton campaign.
I don't see what's so damning about them TBH- it's just a bunch of scheduling, spam, etc. there was one interesting bit about the Koch's spying on the Democrat party.
edited 10th Oct '16 3:11:51 PM by Xopher001
Oh, so the Forum software now treats the post as mine.
If you PM me what's supposed to be in it I'll edit it.
I'm not completely ruling out that I made a mistake here but frankly I can't imagine how I could have produced the exact same text in two different edit windows (one for the wrong post) and not even noticed that I'd written it twice. It must have been a bug.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.![]()
![]()
That's not linking to anything for me.
edited 10th Oct '16 3:15:49 PM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!I think this is probably the original PolitiFact article I was talking about.
So it's not the same as the one I linked a couple of posts back.

Even before that, TTIP was looking unlikely (For that matter, TTIP was one of the factors that led to Brexit).
edited 10th Oct '16 2:04:47 PM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling On