US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5507

On October 12 2016 03:18 Trainrunnef wrote:


http://www.popsci.com/booby-trapped-isis-drone-kills-kurdish-soldiers-french-commandos

This doesn't bode to well.

On October 12 2016 02:53 Gorsameth wrote:

The diehards are still going strong (Oblade, Nettle, Dangler) They have ignored reality sofar so why change now.
Zeo is making sure this thread represents the real US dialog by playing the role of Russia
But most actual Republicans seem to have realized their party elected a complete moron.

And yes one of the 3 (cant remember who) has tried to claim that its perfectly normal to talk about assaulting women in the locker room.

On October 12 2016 03:27 Slaughter wrote:
Lol got around to watching the debate. Trump looks so weak now. Really Trump? Whining about your time? Are you Jim Webb now.....

On October 12 2016 03:27 Slaughter wrote:
Lol got around to watching the debate. Trump looks so weak now. Really Trump? Whining about your time? Are you Jim Webb now.....

On October 12 2016 03:36 Plansix wrote:
I don’t know, the number of discussions we have had about why “random youtuber number 57” is not reliable source makes me thing we need to re-educate the population on the subject.

On October 12 2016 03:41 Slaughter wrote:


Younger people are better at it then older people but yea they still do suck at it in general.

WASHINGTON ― The U.S. is in a shooting war in Yemen, where the American military has spent years vaporizing suspected terrorists in airstrikes and a Saudi-led coalition is busily slaughtering civilians with American refueling and intelligence support.

You wouldn’t know it from watching the second presidential debate Sunday night. Even after one of the deadliest attacks of the Saudi campaign — a series of airstrikes on a funeral in Sanaa, Yemen’s ancient capital, that killed more than 140 people Saturday — neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton was asked about whether the U.S. should keep aiding an ally that appears to be actively targeting civilians.

Since debate moderators won’t ask the presidential candidates about Yemen, we did. But neither campaign answered, and their public statements alone make it impossible to tell whether they would continue President Barack Obama’s policy of supporting the Saudi-led coalition’s war against the Houthi rebel group that now controls much of the western part of the country, including the capital.

“Shouldn’t this be something we’re discussing as a country?” asked Adam Baron, a visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, who lived in Yemen from 2011 to 2014. “Shouldn’t the American people be aware of the fact that the U.S. is a major part of a war in Yemen?”

Because the U.S. isn’t directly involved in the Saudi-led fight, there are no U.S. troops on the ground and both sides have committed human rights abuses, Yemen barely registers in the political consciousness of American voters. It’s hard to quantify exactly how little the electorate cares about Yemen because pollsters don’t even ask about it.

That helps explain why Clinton and Trump have been able to campaign for over a year without ever being made to outline a plan forward in the country.

On October 12 2016 03:45 Mohdoo wrote:


Had a really interesting conversation with an older co-worker. They basically had no idea how they are ever supposed to know if something is credible or not. Lots of websites give the illusion of being legitimate. Think about how hard it is to make a website that looks at least comparable to CNN. People just say "looks legit". Or on Facebook, if 2000 people liked it, surely they can't all be dipshits, can they?

On October 12 2016 03:46 Dromar wrote:
Honestly, I fully expect Donald Trump to not accept the result of the election if/when he loses.

He will demand an investigation. He'll say it was rigged. He'll imply in some way that "we need to take our country back, by force if necessary," all of which are things he's set up the groundwork for already. The question from the first debate "will you accept the result of the election?" was in reference to these things, and while he did eventually say that he would honor the result, he only did so under duress. What else could you say in that situation? Aside from that, he's shown that he's very comfortable not keeping his word. I imagine he'll deny that he ever said it.

I'm not sure how things will transition from there. Maybe he puts out a message to his most devoted followers "We're gonna continue getting to the bottom of this, and make America great again, on Trump TV. Check your local cable provider." Maybe he's actually 100% insane and will try to stir shit up with the goal of becoming a martyr. Either way I think things only actually get worse once the election ends. Trump has given a voice and validity to a group that will openly denounce the presidency of the US. And that group is much larger than many of us thought it was.

This election has been a nonstop shitfest. But I really think that the shit has only begun to hit the fan, so to speak.

To end on a bright note, I can say 2 good things:

1) Democracy works. The republican party has been largely ignoring the people they claim to represent for a long time, saying what they needed to say to get voters, and then doing their own thing in congress. It's become very clear that that's not gonna fly anymore.

2) I feel like Donald Trump has been such a unique presidential candidate that the average American will be much more involved in government in the coming years. Some credit is definitely due to Bernie Sanders here as well.

On October 12 2016 03:50 Plansix wrote:
The misunderstanding of the role of the press and how they remain neutral is a problem in general. The efforts to justify Trump’s banning and threatening legal reprisal for their coverage was troubling. That the press can only be neutral if the candidates take all coverage as part of the process, warts and all.

Press are not allowed in the well of the senate or house. The cameras in there are controlled by congress, not the press. The press is allowed into the white house because the presidents before now believed that the best place for the press was within government. Even if they didn’t like the coverage, it was part of the deal. Trump and his supporters like Bannon threatened to end that.



Crowd sourcing as a metric for merit is a blight. From reddit to steam reviews, you see people saying that the number of people who clicked a thing proves something.

I said it a couple days again: It is a myth that authoritarianism is unpopular. That is why we are supposed to fear it.

On October 12 2016 03:59 Danglars wrote:

Will it take four, six, eight, sixteen years out of power before a new crop stops ignoring the interests of the people who sent them there? It's been a very good year for GOP primary incumbency.

Half the involvement has been spectacle. The very same people who hated on the way Clinton and Trump conducted their campaigns, America deserves better etc, told me the vice presidential debate was boring. They had productive policy exchanges even on local policing for god's sake. I'm not sold on the idea.