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
![]()
Well, that would be one of the many reasons why one doesn't go around and say Trump and Clinton are barely any different.
Neil fucking Gorsuch. If that man serves on the Supreme Court until he's Ginsburg's age, he'll still be there in the 2050s, deciding that companies can have a sincerely held, factually inaccurate religious belief that trumps your rights. And then there's however many judges of the over 100 vacancies in the Federal system that they'll wind up appointing.
2016 will fuck this country over for at least a generation. Maybe two.
edited 15th May '17 6:49:49 PM by TheWanderer
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |So this is from Jacobin magazine, a fringe publication that literally named itself after Robespierre's faction from the French revolution. I was first linked to them when a now banned poster tried to use one of their hack reviews of a book to prove that Josef Stalin wasn't so bad and that there was no genocide in Ukraine (and that anyone who said Stalin was a genocidaire was writing "right-wing history" and somehow defending the Nazis). I laughed all the way through the review then never read any of their trash again.
General rule of thumb—once a publication has engaged in genocide denial and apologism for Josef freaking Stalin, that publication should probably be regarded as untrustworthy. This goes double if said publication is itself named after a mass murderer or group of mass murderers.
edited 15th May '17 7:22:23 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Concerning whether or not one should vote for Gillibrand or Cuomo if they somehow end up running against Trump in 2020.
If it's Gillibrand vs. Trump, we've got one somewhat progressive candidate from New York with an iffy record when it comes to undocumented immigration vs. a dumpster fire from New York who wants to build a wall and start Trail of Tears Hispanic edition.
If it's Cuomo vs. Trump, we've got a competent but sleazy and opportunistic New Yorker vs. a horrifically incompetent, sleazy and opportunistic New Yorker.
Disgusted, but not surprised
Considering the voting in the primaries are supposed to more of a formality than anything else, it's entirely possible one of them will get tapped by the party bosses. Whether or not they'll be able to get their preferred outcome without having to use the superdelegates again is another question entirely, as is what happens if it comes to that.
edited 15th May '17 7:26:08 PM by CaptainCapsase
@Ambar: There are ample in-article citation links. The factual stuff is verifiable whatever you may think of the slant.
NYT: She did vote against the driver's license proposal, citing it as unpopular in her district
The Atlantic covers the voting records for the authorization of Bush-era survelience
NYT: She flipped on sanctuary cities when she moved from the house to the Senate
Now you could argue she's taking the view of voting the will of the people she represents rather than her own opinions. There's a case to be made for that but there are times conscience ought to be a consideration as well.
@M84: I'd take either of them over Trump but it's a tough call for the primaries. (I'd give a pass to Mad for writing in because in California she can get away with it.) I did notice Gilbrand had a good reputation for transparency and communication as a representitive which is something I'd call positive.
edited 15th May '17 7:32:13 PM by Elle
![]()
![]()
![]()
That's nice. Jacobin itself is not credible, however, and its interpretation and presentation of the information in those articles is unlikely to be credible either. Mad or anyone else would be better off linking to the New York Times etc, and letting people draw their own conclusions rather than linking to Jacobin's hack job summation.
![]()
![]()
Nicely summed up.
The slant is coming from a bunch of people who think that Robespierre and his henchmen are a good source for a magazine title. I do believe I'd sooner put my eyes out then read anything they've got to say.
edited 15th May '17 7:29:12 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Ambar, there's no reason to go ahead trying to deflate expectations several years in advance of the primaries.
Do note that you're also (deliberately unless I'm overestimating your self awareness) deflecting from an argument about largely agreed upon facts about the past positions of a politician by calling into question something totally irrelevant to said argument. (the piece which collated said facts, the particular spin in that piece was not being discussed)
edited 15th May '17 7:35:54 PM by CaptainCapsase
The piece collating facts does matter when they're the ones that present them and possibly twist them. See Faux News, Wiki Leaks, etc., etc.
The principled and more intellectually honest thing to do in such a case is to at least pursue those citations to double check what they say, and then to link to those sources instead. For example, I've had several cases where I've declined to link to sources like Raw Story because they made claims about a recording or such that they were citing, and after playing said recording or listening to it I found that the things said were either different than presented or much less inflammatory.
Ambar's being harsh, but shouldn't the intellectual rigor you so prize compel one to do exactly what I outlined? Or is that just for other people?
edited 15th May '17 7:40:33 PM by TheWanderer
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
The matter being discussed had literally nothing to do with the opinion being expressed in that article, it was being used indirectly as a citation for Gillibrand having held the positions which Mad claimed she did while in the House. Had they individually linked the various NYT, Time, and Atlantic pieces like Elle did, this would have been a non-issue.
Whether you realize it or not, you're deflecting rather than actually trying to continue the debate that I think was going rather well.
edited 15th May '17 7:41:55 PM by CaptainCapsase
I elaborated a little bit on my original (and admittedly somewhat glib) post. Would you care to recheck and make sure your criticism still holds?
edited 15th May '17 7:41:59 PM by TheWanderer
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |In the case of this particular article I don't think the slant is too distorting on the subject we're talking about (immigration policy), though they throw around the Wall Street boogeyman in other parts of it, mostly in connection with Schumer. Mad did also mention the links and I checked myself.
I will say this: Gilbrand was quoted in the piece as explaining her change of views with a change in perspective from district to statewide, the district not having a major immigrant population. I can vouch for this being true though last time I was around it looked like the Capital District got a noticeable uptick in Indian/Middle Eastern immigrants from the tech industry boom.
edited 15th May '17 7:48:20 PM by Elle
![]()
I agree that it would have been better to individually link the pieces on Gillibrand rather than linked one strongly partisan piece about her which used those as sources, but I think the fixation on the source Mad linked to when, as Elle showed the in-text citations are credible, and support the claims that were being supported with the article (Gillibrand's past positions on immigration) makes it somewhat of a deflection, intentionally or otherwise to fixate so much on it, unless you can actually provide a source which refutes those claims, in which case we go on and compare the sources and try and figure things out.
edited 15th May '17 7:51:31 PM by CaptainCapsase
I find it hilariously pathetic that we're still talking about who's the True Progressive in the house when Donald J. Trump has probably committed high treason in front of the entire nation. Some commentary on this: [1]
![]()
Keep in mind I'm not debating Gillibrand's immigration position, I remember her having such positions during her time as a rep. My post was purely a (largely moot) point that Ambar's criticism of the source can be of merit, even if not in this particular case. There's a growing wave of misinformation preying on the left looking to equal that on the right, it behooves us all to be as sure as possible before giving random sources credit or taking them at face value.
My earlier defense of Gillibrand isn't me saying that she's perfect or a top choice for president. My disagreements with her policies don't disqualify her either. She's neither progressive savior or hated DINO to me, just a talented politician who under the right circumstances is a valuable tool/ally in hoping to make a better country. If she lives up to that, great. If not, she'll be tossed aside. We just shouldn't toss someone ahead of time, especially when they managed to win over a district that previously was 2/3-3/4 Republican. That takes talent, and we should be putting talent to use for us rather than judging it unworthy ahead of time.
edited 15th May '17 7:59:04 PM by TheWanderer
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |Wait, are we seriously giving crap to Ambar for pointing out that a source is biased bullshit (Jacobin in this case) and that it would be better to use more reliable sources? Especially in this era of wide-spread misinformation?
That's not deflection. That's advice.
edited 15th May '17 7:57:25 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised![]()
![]()
That's a bit of an exaggeration of what happened; as President Trump gets to decide what's classified and what's not, unfortunately. He broke protocol for declassifying, but that's not high treason. It might be an impeachable offense though.
It's deflection when, after someone (Elle) goes through the source and shows the in-article citations are credible in relation to the claim the article is being used to support, we agree that it's credible, and you continue to fixate on the source. Or, at the very least, it's an unnecessarily condescending way of giving advice.
edited 15th May '17 8:00:52 PM by CaptainCapsase
x5 It's only treason if you get caught. Even if everyone with half a brain knows you probably did it.
edited 15th May '17 7:58:41 PM by kkhohoho
![]()
Intellectual rigor kind of demands that you link to credible articles supporting your claims. Not fringe websites that contain credible citations that support your claims. If you can't be bothered to do that than it's best not to try and debate a point.
edited 15th May '17 7:59:31 PM by CaptainCapsase
Just heard Dave Chappelle said he was sorry and he fucked up for being on of the first on TV to say "give Trump a chance."
edited 15th May '17 8:01:58 PM by tclittle
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."An article about the "sovereign citizen" movement
. Dumbasses who consider the US government to have no legitimacy, yet want to take advantage of all the things that taxes pay for.
I get that corruption gets people rightly pissed at the government, but the solution would be to fix or replace it with one that's loyal to the people and behaves itself, not to say "screw it, anyone in charge isn't legit".
In fact, a 2016 report by the US Government Accountability Office noted that “of the 85 violent extremist incidents that resulted in death since September 12, 2001, far-rightwing violent extremist groups were responsible for 62 (73%) while radical Islamist violent extremists were responsible for 23 (27%).” (The report counts the 15 Beltway sniper shootings in 2002 as radical Islamist attacks, though the perpetrators’ motives are debated.)
Furthermore, not all sovereign citizens are white: Gavin Long, a black sovereign citizen, killed three law enforcement officers in Louisiana last year. An increasing number of black Americans are coming to the sovereign movement from the Moorish Science Temple, a black Muslim church that believes African Americans are the descendants of ancient Moors.
Experts believe white nationalism has waned in influence on some elements of the radical right, opening the movement to anyone enthusiastically anti-government and anti-law enforcement.
Extremist sentiment follows certain historical patterns, according to MacNab; the last cycle moved through a series of specific manifestations – tax resistance, sovereign ideology, the militia era – before ending with Oklahoma City.
“We are now repeating that cycle,” MacNab said, and getting near the end.

No reason to sigh and wait it out though. Twas on an article from some pages ago, but a large factor in GOP support of Trump is due to myriad vacancies he can fill in the federal court systems.
Given who had to step in to stay the muslim ban (among other things), the implications of that are clear enough—and they'll be there for life barring happenstance. note
edited 15th May '17 6:43:44 PM by CenturyEye
Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our lives