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
@Rational Insanity: Probably not good. Just because Trump doesn’t like it doesn’t necessarily make it awesome. The AT&T/Time-Warner merger is just another step toward cyberpunk-level corporate domination, regardless of how much Trump hates CNN.
"Cynic, n. — A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be." - The Devil's DictionaryHonestly, I do find it funny that most of the big things that Trump opposed, that were actually reasonable to oppose were anti-competitive moves from companies.
I wonder if the logic involved is him worried about compeition/other businesses when he leaves.
The main reason I wonder and not know for sure is his buisness sense is quite..... bad... over all.
edited 12th Jun '18 3:23:23 PM by Imca
World net is among the crankiest of right wing cranks, from what I gather. It’s there that then Judge Roy Moore wrote his essay saying that Keith Ellison must be prevented from taking the oath to become a US Representative because he was an evil Muslim that would try to overthrow the government and see the States overrun by Muslims, and so on and so forth.
I also have to applaud Ambar’s post, as I’ve seen that specific attitude he mentioned a number of times. Every now and then I think he’s a little too quick to assume the worst of others, but like him I’ve seen the scenario play out a number of times. There is a sadly common undercurrent, even in some otherwise quite liberal/progressive people and circles, that the problems and desires of racial minorities and women aren’t “real problems” and thus take a distant second place (at best) to their own priorities like legal pot and free college.
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |https://thinkprogress.org/dnc-ban-fossil-fuel-companies-408e1595bcda/
The DNC no longer accepts money from Coal Companies.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.RE: Elizabeth Warren being a "dodge"
Except that ignores any other reason someone might have had for not wanting to vote for Clinton, and it'd be like calling me anti-Semitic for being willing to vote for Sanders but not necessarily for Chuck Schumer as President, based on my objection to his support for recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capitol
.
Yes, some legitimately use it as a dodge, but equating support for her and Sanders to Black Best Friend is painting with entirely too broad a brush.
That probably won't bode well for Democrats in Texas, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, or any other area that has a large presence of such industry.
edited 12th Jun '18 4:08:44 PM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"![]()
I think the point is that if you have all these issues for voting for other women, some of which might very well apply to men but for some reason you don't blame them for it, you might just have a problem with women.
And it's convenient to have a "but I'd vote for this woman" option, especially when you know it's never going to come up because said woman has no intention of running for president.
That might not personally apply to you, but it's definitely a thing that happens.
And incidentally, have other people been having issues with post formatting lately?
edited 12th Jun '18 4:11:54 PM by LSBK
Decided to read up on things after I learned about the Trump's North Korea summit. I have to say, I really liked TobiasDrake's post about how Trump is probably some kind of authoritarian strongman fanboy. It almost seems kind of cute until you remember he's President of the United States. :V
This makes me wonder if he thinks he could possibly form some grand worldwide authoritarian alliance, failing of course to realize that strongman leaders don't tend to get their reputation through cooperation and accepting anything less than first place for their country. Though I suppose it's better this way, otherwise he might start WWIII purely in an attempt to 'outdo' them in that department. :V
Those sell-by-dates won't stop me because I can't read!Except that in the context of the conversation that has been taking place today Warren was first brought up when a poster tried to downplay the sexist attacks on Clinton, Harris, and Gillibrand by pivoting to "but what about the people who'd vote for Warren."
That's a dodge. Hell, that's a dodge even if it's true and they would vote for Warren. You've tried here to say it's not analogous to the "some of my friends are black" problem, but it totally is—because even if you have lots of black friends, that doesn't mean you haven't just said something racist.
The Schumer analogy fails, by the way, because for it to be true you'd have to be holding Schumer, a Jew, to standards that you do not hold Christian politicians to, then pivoting to "I'd vote for Bernie." Because in the context of this conversation, people have been holding Harris and other female politicians to standards that they blatantly do not hold male politicians to.
"I'd vote for Warren" is not, and never has been, an appropriate response to someone suggesting your critique of another female candidate might be rooted in sexism. Not even if it's true.
edited 12th Jun '18 4:18:19 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Wait, I just remembered I lost some part of this thread way long ago. Where is it demonstrated that people are holding Clinton to an explicitly stricter standard than Bernie?
Saying something racist doesn't automatically make you racist. It increases the odds exponentially, but it remains possible it was just said out of non-malicious ignorance, or an attempt at a Crosses the Line Twice joke that fell flat.
edited 12th Jun '18 5:20:26 PM by TroperOnAStickV2
Hopefully I'll feel confident to change my avatar off this scumbag soon. Apologies to any scumbags I insulted.![]()
![]()
That last sentence seems kinda silly. I've seen people get murderous for stating that accusations of anti semitism have been thrown around to shut up the critics even though spoiler alert it does happen a lot and then imply that somehow making that accusation is anti semitic. What you're saying sounds similar to that brand of nonsense.
I admitted that I should have acknowledged Brown. Thing is, that doesn't absolve Harris of wrongdoing. She wasn't just "tangentially related" to the case; she actively had the power to make a difference and chose not to.
edited 12th Jun '18 5:09:29 PM by LordYAM
Which only brings me back to my question: Does that actually matter, in the sense that there's an existing viable candidate that can do her current job better or be better suited to anything she might yet run for?
Like I said before, you can complain about her all you want, but unless there's a better (and, again, viable) alternative it doesn't really matter all that much.
Also gonna have to applaud Ambar for that post. FFS, just today I saw a post on another website saying that, because "establishment" Democrats focused on "identity politics," they therefore lost when they obviously should have been paying attention to "the common man."
Y'know, I've honestly been wondering what WWIII would look like under Trump. Here's my list of Axis and Allies:
AXIS
- Russia
- North Korea
- United States
- Phillipines
- Turkey
- Saudi Arabia
- Poland
- Hungary
ALLIES
- Canada
- Mexico
- Germany
- France
- South Korea
- Iran
- Ireland
COULD GO EITHER WAY
- China
To be fair, Trump isn’t ‘’all’’ that racist by 1930 standards. FDR did institute Japanese internment after all.
Leviticus 19:34

The merger between Time Warner and AT&T has been approved by a judge. While the Trump admin opposed this....I lack the context and knowledge to know if this will be a good thing or not.
http://money.cnn.com/2018/06/12/media/att-time-warner-ruling/index.html
edited 12th Jun '18 2:39:31 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.