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
x4 As I said before in this thread, Trump can dish it out but he can't take it.
EDIT: Loved the Home Alone 2 reference.
edited 16th Oct '16 10:20:24 AM by speedyboris
A random thought that's occurred to me over the last couple of days: I've often said that my main reason for voting for Clinton (even over Sanders and definitely over any Republican) is that she always seemed the most competent candidate of the bunch.
As has been said here before, Clinton has fought against scandals and accusations for decades and it has hardly been a bump in the road for her to eventually reach the Presidency. Meanwhile, it's now making the Republicans seem more and more desperate as they try to find something they can pin on her.
Which brings me to my random thought: If you believed every bad thing ever said about Clinton is true, either she is very very good at avoiding the consequences of her actions, or her opponents are very very bad at making her Evulnesz apparent. Regardless, even at her worst Clinton is still the most competent person in the room.
Pretty much.
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.
x5 Yes, that's one of the reasons I'm With Her.
x12 So Trump embodies the Evil Has a Bad Sense of Humor trope too.
How many Villain tropes fit that man?!
edited 16th Oct '16 10:45:03 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedJust for fun:
http://www.whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
Or, if you prefer the PG version:
http://whattheheckhasobamadonesofar.com/
edited 16th Oct '16 10:44:28 AM by sgamer82
![]()
Well, since projection is a thing with him, then You Are What You Hate certainly applies. That's why I'd just rather consider him a "liability" than some kind of unholy fiend to be despised, and stay light-hearted towards him. Though since I haven't been in his crosshairs (sort of), it's easy for me to say.
In all due honesty, Hillary may in fact be on some kind of stimulant to keep her energy up during public appearances and debates. Even if she successfully recovered from pneumonia, the ordeal must've left her weakened to an extent. Still, wont hold it against her or Trump for that matter.
edited 16th Oct '16 12:16:07 PM by nervmeister
Released Emails Suggest the D.N.C. Derided the Sanders Campaign
. But we already knew that.
This, however, is more interesting: Bukowski advocated against this antagonistic approach
, instead opting to speak well of Sanders and his campaign in order to rely on his voters for the main election. He seems to suggest some kind of monetary transfer ("when the time is right I will have money in the bank with him and his peopleas a liberal to urge them to come out in force to vote for HRC"). The media outlets reporting this try to spin it as Sanders taking bribes to sell out to the Establishment.
This doesn't seem to me like a fair interpretation of the facts available; we don't know if "Sanders and his people" accepted the money, we don't know what they may have done with it (presumably for downticket campaigns?), and given the sheer danger that was Trump, it seems like they would have advocated for voting HRC regardless.
All we know is that someone in the HRC campaign was smart enough to maintain friendly overtures to the progressive wing of the Democratic party and the general voting public.
The eeriest part of this is that Trevor Noah's Daily Show reflects both strategies one after the other, with absolute lack of subtlety in both cases and a stark contrast between the two positions that makes the show's editorial line seem inconsistent.
Contrast this:
with this:
Which is still tremendously condescending.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Finally, an explanation for Hillary's oft-derided "turtle on a fence post" country-ism:
It's actually a very compelling metaphor, but it requires a bit of contextualisation for outsiders to understand and take seriously.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Ok, having taken stimulants as a medication and having once been given a dose that was too strong (it was a test to see what amount I needed); I think can safely say that there is no way in hell speed would help you in a debate. That crap makes you act without thinking, twitch more than a dying insect, and in general makes you a wreck. Hell, some of them can make you hallucinate and cause paranoia...
Wait a minute, why are we talking about Clinton being on this stuff?
Dosage matters a lot, I get prescribed what's effectively speed (for my ADD) and it can help calm and focus the mind, you're no longer paying attention to 100 thing but instead just 2 or 3, thing is you've got to get the dosage right and not mix it with other stimulants.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

"Never Gonna Be President Now..."
edited 16th Oct '16 9:47:46 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised