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
and because is name dosent end with clinton, Trump outsider status make him somewhat inmune to scandals(well, kinda) and he only lost so much because is unstable nature and the debate(which why I think Bernie should debate him, Trump didn really have a change there)
A Biden campaign in 2016 would probably have ended on a three-way deathmatch until DC (last primary in the schedule) or one of the three dropped. Biden would've had more overlap with Sanders and less with Hillary than some seem to think. I'm leaning slightly towards a Hillary win in that What If? because I assume she'd keep the lead on female voters she had on the primaries
, even if she splits the older voters and/or minorities demographic with Biden, but I could see the race going to any of the three. Also, I agree with Azsur that there's a bit of a meme of "Hillary is evil/corrupt" that makes people underestimate her chances.
But yeah, in a general with Biden as a candidate, I believe he could have fared better than Hillary because he wouldn't have had the sexism of many USans pushing against him.
*A bit of a Shoutout here to Capsase because he always kept mentioning that point before the election until he was (temporarily) banned.
1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KVWhen it comes to the primaries, I think that people underestimate Hillary a lot. When it comes to the general elections, I think people also underestimate the fact that the republican party could put a literall ball pen point as a candidate and their people would still vote for that over anything else, simply because it's the candidate the republican party put forth.
Many of the republican voters are tied to the evangelist votes, ever since the 70s, and they are absentee voters that are organized to make their votes cast (remember am ajority of the absentee votes are ignored). These numbers are easily millions, that as you know can easily turn the tides from one side to the other in U.S elections
There are however ufndamental votes the republican party can always count on: The wackier evangelists, that command large enough segregations to make voting in certain regions basically impossible to overturn
edited 25th Mar '17 5:42:31 PM by Aszur
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesAdding to the post earlier on this page: Bannon wanted to use healthcare vote to make enemies list.
I've said this before and I'll say it again: GET BANNON OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE. He is a danger to this country with such authoritarian intimidation tactics and his masturbatory fantasy of tearing down Washington from the inside. At least the healthcare bill didn't pass, but it's a temporary victory. This guy needs to be watched like a hawk, because who knows what he'll try to pull next.
edited 25th Mar '17 5:50:07 PM by speedyboris
This piece of Crap needs to be impeached and imprisoned for life!
"The next best thing to having a reliable ally is having a predictable enemy." — Sam Starfall
This Space Intentionally Left Blank.![]()
![]()
That sort of thing is why it's significant that so many Republicans were against this. If there were, say, 5 of them that voted against it, those five could be be intimidated, ostracized, sabotaged, bribed, or whatever. But 50 is far too big a number for those tactics to work.
edited 25th Mar '17 6:11:51 PM by Gilphon
Trump is officially throwing Paul Ryan under the bus and wants him to resign.
"But this bill didn't just fail," she continued. "It failed when Republicans had the House, the Senate, the White House."
The network host assured viewers that she hasn't spoken with Trump about the subject, but it seemed as though the president knew she would cover the issue on her show when Trump tweeted earlier in the day to "watch @Judge Jeanine on @Fox News tonight at 9:00 P.M."
"Americans elected the one man they believed could do it: A complete outsider beholden to no one but them," said Pirro on her show. "And Speaker Ryan, you come in with all your swagger and experience and you sell them a bill of goods which ends up a complete and total failure, and you allow our president, in his first 100 days, to come out of he box like that?"
"I want to be clear," she concluded. "This is not on President Trump. No one expected a businessman to completely understand the nuances, the complicated ins and outs of Washington and its legislative process. How would he know which individuals upon whom he would be able to rely?"
Breitbart has also been going in hard on Paul Ryan recently saying he should resign too.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10158400875185716&id=24085780715
Seems Dan Rather had an answer for my "had a President ever failed so hard so early" question. Spoiler alert: it's no. At least it's the biggest, earliest failure Rather had ever seen. I think he'd know.
edited 25th Mar '17 8:43:41 PM by sgamer82
So, apparently Bannon was trying out some eleventy-dimensional chess, and using the vote to draw up a list of enemies/targets. What can he do with that? Trump can't just fire elected officials. He can try and shut them out, but he and his handlers were doing that anyway. And of course, we're never going to get rid of the bastard early if the Republican majority Congress wants to keep Trump.
They'll elect a new Speaker. That's kind of how the process works. Trump and Bannon can't tear down the structure of government until they're the only ones left to run things.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The other reason a list of "enemies" wouldn't work too well is because there were three reasons people were moving against the new bill. 1) They think it sucks and that Obamacare just needs some work. 2) Their constituents hate the new bill. 3) They don't want any healthcare system at all. Bannon seems like he would get along with the third category just fine, but he wouldn't be able to tell from the voting results because there's no details on why someone voted a certain way.

In a Democratic primary, I think gender wouldn't have mattered as much.