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
x5 America's motives for intervening in foreign affairs are often no better than Russia's. Notice how our government claimed to be outraged over human rights abuses in Libya and Syria, but looked the other way when the same things happened in Yemen and Bahrain.
edited 24th Nov '16 10:38:01 AM by henry42
One does not shake the box containing the sticky notes of doom!![]()
![]()
There's a reason a lot of Wall Street brokers were cheering "Lock her up!" when the election results were called.
Just because she gave a few speeches behind closed doors to Goldman-Sachs does not make HRC an "ally" to Wall Street. She's just pragmatic enough to actually talk to them rather than immediately write them off as predatory and evil like Elizabeth Warren.
And for the sake of balance, Stein's response:
http://www.jill2016.com/jill_stein_russian_environmentalists
edited 24th Nov '16 10:40:01 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised![]()
I swear, the Clinton campaign has turned "pragmatic" into a euphemism for "letting the Republicans get their way on everything."
edited 24th Nov '16 10:41:59 AM by henry42
One does not shake the box containing the sticky notes of doom!To an extent. But mainly because there are gasp private citizens who work for bankers who have liberal political leanings.
Shocking concept I know.'
Now, I'm sure you're trolling.
Because I refuse to believe you're that dense and disingenuous.
edited 24th Nov '16 10:43:14 AM by TacticalFox88
New Survey coming this weekend!![]()
![]()
Wall Street isn't a monolithic entity. It's a bunch of different people who don't always share the same views.
But yeah, the higher-ups of Wall Street, the big players, backed HRC over Trump because they're worried that an idiot like Trump will fuck up the global economy.
And they're right to be worried. He has threatened to start trade wars with Mexico and China. Even making those threats can impact the economy, let alone following through.
edited 24th Nov '16 10:45:03 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedSo what? America's humanitarian policy interests line up with political and economic interests. You've just stated a fact of the world like it's some damning condemnation. Still, you're comparing a party whose platform involves judicial use of U.S. diplomatic and military power to intervene in crises across the world in an attempt to maintain peace with:
- A person who would abandon all foreign obligations and turn us into an isolationist nation.
- A person who would turn us into General Ripper on the world stage.
As for the Greens, they got barely 1 percent of the national popular vote, which might as well have been a fart for all the good it did. Their foreign policy platform isn't that objectionable in and of itself but it's basically a lost cause.
edited 24th Nov '16 10:46:20 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
![]()
Dodd-Frank would like to speak with you; it caused Wall Street to all but abandon the Democrats out of pique. Sure, they have too much power and influence, but if you think you can simply cut that off like a child refusing to eat their peas, you are dangerously naive. Any solution to our economic doldrums has to include Big Money, not pretend it doesn't exist.
edited 24th Nov '16 10:48:05 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I mean, while I don't find it constructive to blame third party voters, I do have to seriously question the mindset that takes even the briefest glance at Trump and thinks 'welp, it looks like this election is gonna be low-stakes enough that I can afford to cast a protest vote.'
Really, the only way I can wrap my head around it is if you're a normally Republican voter who's casting a protest vote against Trump.
Glass-Steagall wouldn't have stopped the 2006-2008 financial crisis. Seriously, it's fetishized to an almost pathetic extent by certain parts of the left. It might have helped keep consumer banks insulated from the crash, but it wouldn't have done jack to stop the shadow banking that fed the bubble.
Anyway, you're badly missing the point that it was Republicans in Congress who, backed by their big money interests, staunchly opposed even the most basic efforts at reform. The idea that Obama could have unilaterally put all the bankers in jail and broken up their institutions is laughable.
Also...
It takes an incredible level of willful blindness to blame the Democrats for the current mess over Republicans, to the extent that you'd put Republicans in power as a means of revenge. "Take that, all you folks who tried to reform the system, even though it didn't go as far as we (or they) would have liked. We'll make damn sure the system gets as fucked up as possible so you are properly motivated next time."
edited 24th Nov '16 10:52:43 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"edited 24th Nov '16 10:54:04 AM by henry42
One does not shake the box containing the sticky notes of doom!Please share this with everyone you know who would be interested!
First my stepsister shared with us a petition to abolish the Electoral College, and now even better: Petition for the Electoral College to Elect Hillary Clinton on December 19. This was linked on my professor, Nnedi Okorafor's, Twitter: https://www.change.org/p/electoral-college-electors-electoral-college-make-hillary-clinton-president-on-december-19
I hadn't known this, but there's no legal way of stopping Electoral College members from voting against the majority of their State. They just have to pay a small fine, which would be well worth it.
![]()
While I definitely don't want Trump to be POTUS, an EC revolt is not going to happen. There won't be enough electors willing to go against the will of their states' voters.
And even IF it happened, that would just send the decision to the House. The GOP dominated House.
The only thing I can see coming out of this would be incentive to finally eliminate the EC. TBF, that's something I could support.
edited 24th Nov '16 11:07:37 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised

Stein doesn't quite get that other countries also contribute to climate change.
edited 24th Nov '16 10:35:06 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised