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
Lel, more poll denialism from Trump
. So now that the polls are showing 9-to-1 odds for Trump my Republican relatives are going back to the "Trump was a Hillary plant" conspiracy theories again. Except the only reason the polls are this way is because of the Billy Bush leak tape, which itself was unearthed by serendipitous events, and which was made way before Trump even started running for president. For Clinton to have any hand in requires way more than Occam's Razor can handle.
Two women have told the NYT that Trump "touched them inappropriately"
Someone on my FB feed was prattling on about how some leak proved that Clinton conspired setting up Trump as a republican candidate because she wouldn't have been able to beat a regular candidate from the GOP.
Are they referring to anything in particular and misconstruing facts or is this just some completely made-up nonsense?
edited 12th Oct '16 4:58:50 PM by Draghinazzo
No offense to Beary, who originally posted this, but I see a lot of people online who throw out comments about not feeling inspired, or not voting for a candidate because they're not sufficiently moving, and it has really come to frustrate the hell out of me. Politics, first and foremost, is about the practical solutions and general philosophy you want your government to adopt. It's about how issues will be solved, people will be treated, how your government will function.
It's not about you feeling swept away in a maudlin, diabetes inducing, Stephen Spielburgesque uplifting moment. Because guess what? Problems and issues that are critical to your life and the lives of people around you occur even at times when you don't feel inspired, or over issues that no one could find inspiring. The tax code, trade deals, insurance law, industrial standards, workplace safety regulations, how companies are allowed to market their products, how many people work for the FDA... these things mean the difference between life and death, being caught in a cycle of poverty for generations or being able to rise out of poverty, and more. These and dozens of other issues exist whether or not a candidate excites you and makes you feel a special connection with them or not.
I, personally, would vote for a block of wood candidate that was on what I feel is the right side of those issue over a charismatic one who would be bad about them. And I think that until the American Left learns that lesson, and learns how to push for things even in those silly things like local or midterm elections, or when the candidate in question doesn't look like the savior who will solve all our problems, we will never get out of the perpetual shuffle we're in where the best we can hope for is 2 steps forward, 1 step back. (And sometimes, on some issues, is more like 2 steps forward, 3 steps back, and then hoping we can make up the ground we lost later.)
[/end rant, sorry to everyone here who actually had the misfortune of reading it
]
edited 12th Oct '16 4:59:42 PM by TheWanderer
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |The Columbus Dispatch, which hasn't endorsed a Democrat in over 100 years, has thrown its support behind Clinton.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.the fact that Bill was implicated most publicly in an affair lends credence the the view that at the least some might have been consensual on both sides then the women lied about it being so. Of course, all of them could have just been flat out lying, he is and was a public figure. Most cases like this, public figure or not, have a he said she said element.
edited 12th Oct '16 5:01:25 PM by TheWanted
I can totally believe Bill sexually harassed women. A guy can't be that much of a horndog for so long without at some point violating someone's personal space or overstepping boundaries.
But rape? That's tougher. It doesn't help that cases like Broaddrick's have some contradictions in them.
That's right, boys. Mondo cool.Before I forget, another public Trump supporter has basically said Better to grab a pussy than to have one
, because The Holey Bibel. Video included at the link, if you want to hear the bile from the source.
On Monday, Right Wing Watch posted a video of “Coach” Dave Daubenmire, a former failed candidate for the Ohio legislature and founder of Pass the Salt Ministries, who argued that the billionaire reality TV host deserved to be president more than Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, because “women are not to have authority over men.”
“[W]hen is the last time your pastor stood up in the pulpit and said, ‘Hey, listen, we cannot vote for Hillary Clinton because women are not to have authority over men’? If we want to follow the Bible, that would sure be a good place to start, wouldn’t it?” Daubenmire said in a You Tube video. “Rather than worrying so much about the immorality of a sinful man, what about the biblical principle that when a woman rules over a man … it’s a sign of judgment of the Lord?”
Daubenmire isn’t the only right-wing Christian zealot to double down on his backing of the GOP presidential nominee despite the emergence of his open bragging about grabbing women by their genitals without their consent. The 700 Club’s Pat Robertson also recently threw his weight behind Trump, dismissing the embarrassing audio as Trump being “macho.”
Daubenmire is a former high school football coach who was fired from his job for forcing the boys on his team to pray with him. He also blamed the anti-bullying movement on “the homosexual agenda.”
Pretty good. Bill's reputation didn't come out of nowhere, and isn't entirely undeserved. And even those cases where things may have been consensual, there's nothing to say that consent wasn't affected by Bill being a powerful man who may have been able to negatively effect their lives and careers if they refused him.
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
x? Paula Jone's case was a sexual harassment case and the one that let to Bill's impachment trial when he lied under oath. She received a settlement from the Clintons.
Juanita Brodderick: Hers is an actual rape allegation. We discussed her case here yesterday and the short answer is "it's complicated". There are inconsistencies in her story but not ones that necessarily disprove it' she initially denied it in a sworn statement then later changed her story. The only two people who probably know for sure what happened are her and Bill Clinton.
Kathleen Willey: I had to go to Wikipedia for her story
. Her claim is assault and again, she and Bill are the only people who likely know what really happened.
Monica Lewisnky has said and continues to say that her relationship with Bill was consensual, but very likely influenced by the unequal power dynamic..
edited 12th Oct '16 5:11:19 PM by Elle
About that NYT article... Really? One claim is from thirty years ago! The other is ten! And the times decides now is the time to bring it up? Even if it was all absolutely true it's despicable for the times to use those women, and in such a blatant attempt at attacking trump. And these women are just NOW coming forward about this? I call bullshit. And don't say "oh he's a powerful guy and nobody would believe them" at the very least the media would have lapped it up the moment he became the nominee if their claim was in any way verifiable, not to mention even earlier when the accusations of misogyny against Trump after his dustup with Meagan from Fox.
Encountering a group of young girls at Trump Tower, the now-GOP nominee engages in small talk with one of the girls before turning to the camera and saying, “I am going to be dating her in 10 years. Can you believe it?” According to CBS, the clip first appeared in an "Entertainment Tonight” Christmas feature.
Trump is still deeply embroiled in a scandal surrounding comments he made to “Access Hollywood” host Billy Bush on a recently leaked tape from 2005.
In that footage, Trump can be heard bragging about using his star power to grope and kiss women.
After he denied ever physically engaging in those behaviors, several women have come forward to claim that Trump touched them inappropriately.
One of the women recalled an incident in which she said Trump kissed her without consent by an elevator.
That incident also allegedly took place in 2005.
edited 12th Oct '16 5:30:03 PM by NoName999
![]()
![]()
![]()
This may come as a shock to you, but not everyone is entirely rational about these things all the time. These were obviously very traumatic experiences for them, so I think they were obviously concerned about what would happen if they did make these stories public.
I really don't think any of us have a right to judge how other people deal with these experiences.
edited 12th Oct '16 5:36:27 PM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!

Nothing because he won't do it. It goes against his entire MO and his decades of politics and military service.
Oh really when?