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
![]()
How so?
Yeah, the Republican Party is going to undergo a shakeup after this, because the moderates like Ryan and other non-Trump Republicans will say "You chucklefucks nearly got a psychopath in the White House!" while the hardliners will star to think "If Clinton hadn't won we would be in a lot of trouble."
rip in peace capn, you poor, paranoid bastard.
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?I wouldn't exactly call Paul Ryan a moderate, more that he's part of the plutarchic economic wing of the GOP than the populist social wing, and therefore his social politics which people are more concerned with this election sound more reasonable by comparison, even when they're still not great.
edited 24th Oct '16 3:08:11 PM by AlleyOop
I had the misfortune of someone linking a video to some guy named "Secular Talk" on Twitter.
Holy. Christ.
HOW does this insane fucker have subscribers? He's literally a left-wing nutcase, who just so happens to sound "reasonable" much like Mike Pence was "reasonable" during his debate with Kaine.
Darn, now where's my tinfoil going to come from?
Seriously, though, Hillary isn't enough of a warmonger for my personal tastes. If there were a functional American Empire, Duerte and Assad would be sharing a cell at the Hague about now.
Until we get a President who promises something like that, I'm all for more warmongering, not less.
![]()
Conquering nations willy-nilly because you don't like who's in charge of them is a great way to kick off WWIII.
I know it's bad form to say "well actually", and it's weird to bring this up, since I've often had vehement disagreement with Capcase, but I have been seeing things here and there on my news-feed (and think it was even brought up here) to the effect that Clinton is more interventionist than Obama.
These sources were actually raising it as a positive. Like one brought up about her possibly being able to act more beneficially in Aleppo. Not sure how much I'm on board with all of the sources in terms of viewing this positively, but the idea that Clinton is somewhat more hawkish than Obama probably has validity.
The whole idea that she would start a war (especially via False Flag Operation) to maintain domestic popularity as well as geopolitical strength is pretty crazy. And in what I think gets into my issues with the cynicism of the perspective, it's "poisoning the well" to attribute this motivation before anything has happened, especially because it ignores the possibility that Russia and the Philippines might just be bad actors and it would be the right thing to respond(not necessarily by war, but still).
edited 24th Oct '16 3:31:13 PM by Hodor2
![]()
Clinton is a hair more hawkish than Obama, generally due to a stiffer spine and more experience.
I doubt she'd have drawn a Red Line and then chickened out in Syria (bad show, Obama, bad show). She wouldn't have made that promise if she didn't intend to keep it.
edited 24th Oct '16 3:28:08 PM by Ramidel
I'm pretty sure talking about other banned users is against the rules, so let's move on, please.
I watched the SNL that was based upon the latest debate. I didn't think they could top the audience laughing at Trump's "respect for women" phrase. But I was wrong. Very wrong. Having the whole world laughing was glorious.
Shadow?![]()
I definitely agree with that.
Ah. Realize I forgot to include something in my post. So, what I've been seeing in my newsfeed is not just that Clinton is more hawkish but also that this fact is making the community of hawkish foreign policy thinkers feel happy again. I've seen this take more from the hard left anti-war perspective, but I think I've also seen it come up from the more right-wing side as a positive, so I think there is "something" there.
Granted, I think there's a problem with both sides in that Obama and Clinton don't actually have that different of foreign policy perspectives.
edited 24th Oct '16 3:39:24 PM by Hodor2
Likewise, I was eating pizza at the time though so I'll call it a win.
Clinton's foreign policy is more hawking than Obama but not by much, she was Obama's foreign policy for four years so we can actually do a comparison, look at Libya compared to the Syrian red line, that's the difference we will be seeing.
My fear was always that she'd be more easy on the US's asshole allies, however if her support for the Kurds is any indicator she might well be more willing to roll the dice on democracy over tyranny.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
