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
Lebron James is that well known basketball player, yes?
You know, I have always noted that a relatively large number of well-known African American people are active in sports. I wonder if this is a coincidence.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanThis society is already plagued by HFDSS (Heel–Face Door-Slam Syndrome). One mark on your record and - no matter your desire to contribute, no matter if you payed your debt - you earn countless "fuck you's" from employers in careers you might've excelled at in terms of knowledge/skill. Perpetuating that kind of mentality, even on politicians, will just keep influencing others to keep it alive and well.
I don't think it is a good thing, if he keeps doing the same things while in office he should do time again. However it doesn't necessarily mean he isn't doing a decent job as a mayor or has policies that are harmful.
His history with sexual assault is and should be something to be considered when voting but that alone shouldn't determine if he can run or not for office.
Inter arma enim silent leges![]()
Probably little. Democrats are rolling out armies of lawyers to polling places in key states to ensure that no shenanigans take place.
"Correct, but it is up to the voters to decide whether someone who has been convicted of a crime in the past is someone they want to represent them."
Depends on whether they like the crime(s) in question.
edited 6th Nov '16 2:59:40 PM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
That really depends on the crime. Again, some crimes say something about a person. Maybe if he'd been out for a decade or two and nothing had happened again I'd be more charitable. But he hasn't, and there's too many charges, not "just" the statutory rape one orbiting him.
edited 6th Nov '16 3:08:07 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Apologies if this has been posted already, but apparently Comey's come out and said the content of the emails had nothing incriminatory whatsoever.
John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House judiciary committee, signalled political battles to come, saying: “We will have many questions about the FBI’s handling of this investigation.”
Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat on the Senate intelligence and judiciary committees, said the end of what she called Comey’s “October surprise” made his decision to intervene “even more troubling”.
Feinstein called on the justice department to “look at its procedures to prevent similar actions that could influence future elections”.
Kellyanne Conway signalled that fire may be coming Comey’s way from both parties, telling MSNBC: “I immediately thought that he’s mishandled the investigation from the beginning.”
edited 6th Nov '16 3:25:01 PM by nervmeister
The crimes that would betray the most dangerous traits in a president are also the ones one doesn't usually get arrested for.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.![]()
![]()
Wow, that's really surprising. So the whole hullabaloo was over nothing, go figure.
![]()
I can't say those are the most dangerous traits. Unless you're trying to argue that being a crooked exec is worse than rape/arson/murder/what-have-you.
![]()
![]()
Not necessarily what I was driving at per se, but an idea I could certainly get behind. With a sliding scale of length of wait period proportional to crime.
edited 6th Nov '16 3:32:30 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
The only way that Trump enforcers will swing things seriously is if ''tis either a super close call anyway or if they do something crazy like shoot up a polling station in a heavily Clinton area.
If we get a Trump win that's how I see it happening by the way, multiple black polling stations being shot up by Trump supporters and thus tons of votes either not being cast or be destroyed in the bloodbath.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranHave we ever had a case of voters being subject to multiple mass shootings? Because I think that would merit at least some sort of recount.
Oh God! Natural light!A recount wouldn't effect things, those who died or fled wouldn't have voted so there would be no votes to recount. I mean you could rerun the election but that's different and I don't even think there's a way to do that in the US.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran"In terms of the sheer number of people affected at once as a traceable byproduct of such ethics violations, one could indeed make the argument that "white collar villainy" is the nastier crime."
If President Trump raped, murdered, and ate one innocent child every day, and otherwise governed responsibly, he would do less damage in four years of tenure than if he threw one nuke, or failed to repair the wrong dam, or caused a financial crisis, or got rid of Education, or slashed public healthcare, or stopped backing NATO members unless they paid up, or...
At that scale, personal evil is way, way less dangerous than even simple negligence in policy-making, let alone active malice.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

The idea of any particular attribute or past act being "disqualifying" for a candidate is pretty much meaningless. The only literal qualifications for public office are those defined in the laws and/or constitutions of the respective governments. Otherwise, it's nothing more than a part of the process of deciding who can get enough support to be worth putting on the ballot.
"Disqualifying" in the sense we're talking about here means, "Enough people will never vote for a candidate who has said/done/been convicted of X that it's not worth running them." But if the voters demonstrably support them even given those traits, as with Trump, then they can win an election.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"