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
has anyone ever noticed that most arguments (that are not just Ad Hominem attacks), Trump supporters have are things either directly taken from Fox, Brietbart, the man himself. Like how Trump supporters will rant about something completely detached from reality, but when asked for evidence get defensive, because there is none. They are seemingly spitting back what they hear on conservative media. I once asked a Trump supporter to support a claim they made, and they just started ranting about cool aid and conspiracy theories.
edited 21st Mar '17 11:13:30 PM by megaeliz
This trend has been going back at least as far as Dubya's administration, with Karl Rove thinking "reality-based community" was an insult.
Hell, it arguably started with Reagan and Bush Sr. what with them coming up with bullshit economics aka Reaganomics and "no new taxes" and ignoring AIDS because it was supposedly a "gay" disease.
As for HRC being a "weak" candidate...what does that say about Sanders then, considering he lost to her?
edited 21st Mar '17 11:35:38 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedRussia's Kremlins
(or as I'd like to call them Gremlins) claims that the US intelligence committee is confused.
edited 21st Mar '17 11:36:09 PM by MorningStar1337
But still, how many Trump supporters have you guys seen, that can produce actual evidence for their claims, or use logical fallacies such as Ad Hominem and false equivalency. Like that Fox news frame going around, that shows the tax brackets of several politicians. Since Donald trump has the highest Tax bracket, they go around trumpeting that other politicians are not paying their fair share. The problem is tax brackets are income based, and Donald Trump has more money than any of the other listed politicians, so of course he would have a higher tax bracket.
edited 21st Mar '17 11:37:52 PM by megaeliz
Nothing considering a Democrat primary is different from a general election.
I mean anyone can vote in a general election at least theoretically.
In a Democrat primary, mostly only Democrats can vote and they have super delegates to make sure the result is the one the party wants which you don't even have on the Republican side.
The Democrat primary also gives a lot of influence to southern Democrats that they don't actually have in a general election.
So you could have all the North loving Candidate A and the whole South loving Candidate B. If the super-delegates were smart, they'd push for who the swing states were more in favor of and also who could pick up more people from outside the Democratic Party.
And where Independents were allowed to vote, it usually swung things in Bernie's favor.
Now Hillary did do better with centrist Republicans who jumped from Trump but I think Bernie could've carved out a bigger chunk of the WWC and energized the youth to vote which would've dwarfed whatever Hillary picked up in Republican moderates. Just my thoughts.
A lot of voters wanted change. Bernie was a change. Trump was a change. Hillary was seen as status quo.
edited 21st Mar '17 11:58:03 PM by MadSkillz
What they want is to be able to call themselves "anti-establishment". How many of them can actually point to a real significant problem in their lives that is actually the fault of the "establishment"? For example, the coal industry jobs aren't being reduced due to environmental legislation — it's due to the fucking free market and automation.
Disgusted, but not surprisedSee, here's the thing about what you just posted, Mad Skillz. When we give a big list of extenuated circumstances about why Hillary lost, you say, quite dismissively 'yeah, but she lost to Trump in the end'. But then when Bernie's loss to her is brought up just dismissively, suddenly you're the one giving context and digging up analysis.
You can't have it both ways. Either the wider context matters or it doesn't. If it doesn't, Trump > Hillary > Bernie. If it does, Trump beating Hillary isn't any inherently more meaningful than Hillary beating Bernie.
Doesn't matter. Like I've said before, it doesn't matter what you put on your platform if you're not seen as trustworthy and you know Bernie may have pulled her to the left but their policies weren't identical. And their rhetoric was different . Hillary didn't really rail against companies, she didn't talk crap about free trade agreements, she wasn't offering universal education or the federal legalization of marijuana as far as I know. She wasn't a populist.
She was seen as it, sure. You know Bernie pulled Hillary to the left but it's up in the air whether she would've stayed there and she was trying her best to appeal to moderate Republicans rather than the Bernie crowd who she assumed would've voted for as a given. I find it more likely that she would've governed as another Clintonian Democrat a la Bill and Obama although because of the context of America at that time , I still think she would've been left of Obama who was left of Bill.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Of course, they want change. Trump is change just in an awful direction that we don't agree with.
Thing is, I considered this to be a point in her favor. I really don't like populism, as previous posts of mine can attest. While others like Cap have pointed out that populists aren't always bad...for every FDR and Sanders there is a Mao, a Hitler, a Castro, a Chávez, a Berlusconi, a Le Pen, a Trump.
edited 22nd Mar '17 12:12:52 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedWandering over to her site
, I see a promise to make college debt-free and help with student loans. Nothing specifically about marijuana- closest is rhetoric about how addiction should be tried as a disease, not a moral failing.
Okay point well-taken but here's the problem. The Democratic Party chose to run a candidate that was under investigation by the FBI while her team lead an incompetent campaign Those were self-inflicted wounds.
And this was while Trump was making every campaign mistake so it's hard for me to say she was a strong candidate in the general election.
And you know if you look at the data, you'll see that a lot of people that voted for Trump did so not because they were pro-Truml but because they were anti-Hillary.
It doesn't have to be good or bad, yeah. It's just an easy way to win votes.
So if I find a populist I like I'll vote for him/her.
![]()
The Democratic Party didn't choose to run HRC as their candidate for the presidency. The people who voted in the primaries did.
That it is an easy to win votes is precisely why I find populists suspicious. That and the inherent anti-elitism which all too often is corrupted into anti-intellectualism.
edited 22nd Mar '17 12:33:47 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedYou're packing a lot of assumptions into the phrase 'under investigation by the FBI while her team leads an incompetent campaign'. Because in order of that statement to stand, you need to prove a) that her campaign was incompetently run, which is by itself an argument that you'll have an uphill time trying to win here, and b) that the DNC knew a bullshit nothingburger of a scandal would dog her for an entire year, helped along by the FBI breaking the law to remind people of it, which is downright illogical.

That list is actually incomplete, at a minimum to also took the Supreme Court, them striking down the Voting Rights Act seriously hurt Hillary due to what it did to the ability of minorities to vote. It's entirely possible that proper voting rights in Florida and North Carolina (former confederate states covered by the struck down enforcement rules) could have flipped the two states and thus the entire election.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran