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
Crunch Time in Atlanta! and to start us off...
Breaking: Voters’ personal data at risk in Cobb theft
The equipment, used to check-in voters at the polls, was stolen Saturday evening, Secretary of State Brian Kemp said Monday.
Cobb County elections director Janine Eveler said the stolen machine, known as an Express Poll unit, cannot be used to fraudulently vote in Tuesday’s election but that it does contain a copy of Georgia’s statewide voter file.
“We have managed that so that what’s stolen could not impact the election,” Eveler said.
While the file includes drivers’ license numbers, addresses and other data, it does not include Social Security numbers, Eveler said.
But, she said, “the poll book that was stolen did have a flash card with a voter list on it. But, it does require some knowledge or expertise to use machine to retrieve the information.”
Cobb County Police and the State Election Board are investigating.
Kemp said it was “unacceptable” that Cobb officials waited two days to notify him of the theft.
“We have opened an investigation, and we are taking steps to ensure that it has no effect on the election tomorrow,” Kemp said in a statement. “I am confident that the results will not be compromised.”
Nearly 55,000 votes were cast in early voting ahead of Tuesday’s election, the culmination of a campaign that brought national attention to the state.
- the GOP did it to credit a fake news story if Ossoff wins
- Pelosi organized the theft to stuff ballot boxes with her name
- the Russians did it.
edited 18th Apr '17 7:32:03 AM by CenturyEye
Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our livesShe'd also be the first President who is not Christian (in any sense, including Christian-based Deist), as she's a Hindu (and it would also make her the first Asian American President).
I'd still vote for her, just because we need to get rid of Trump ASAP. And even if she isn't as Progressive as people would like, she'd still make a hell of a better President then Trump.
@Tactical Fox
Don't call them the radical left. There's nothing radical about them. Call them what they are—messianic twits. They haven't latched onto her because of any sort of radical policy proposal, they've latched onto her because she said nice things about the Progressive Messiah (TM).
These people aren't radicals in any sense of the word. In many cases they're actually further to the right then us dreadful Establishment centrists, what with the appeals to the WWC and tolerance of Gabbard's Islamaphobia, homophobia, and dictator apologism.
@Caspase
I can only conclude from your response that you didn't bother to read what I wrote in that post. For that matter I can only conclude you haven't bothered to read what I've written in the last several posts, given your cracks about "good little centrists".
The problem with the young people Mad Skillz idolizes isn't that they're radical, it's that they're obsessed with a messiah. They pick a single politician and pin all their hopes to that person, while decrying anyone who opposes that person as some sort of sellout. It's the same thing that they do with bands they like, and it's an attitude that does, demonstrably, die as they mature.
@Mad Skillz
Denouncing scientists as corrupt now, are we? Your climate change example is utterly ridiculous given that 99+ percent of scientists cannot and will not be conned, cajoled, or bribed into supporting the notion that it's a hoax. You want to try coming up with an actual example?
Devastating retort there.
No, they weren't. The youth vote actually getting out and supporting any candidate is an aberration. 9/10 times they stay home. Them staying home this election was entirely predictable because it's what they almost always do.
This is not a winning strategy.
Neither is wasting time promising them shit that they won't turn out to vote for anyway. Decisions are made by those who show up. The youth vote does not show up.
Which is why those seventeen year olds turned out in droves and gave the primaries to Sanders. Oh wait, they didn't do that, did they? They stayed home, because they always stay home. That's who they are and what they do.
@Dingo Walley
Can't say I agree with that. She'd only be better in the sense that the Democratic Party wouldn't let her get away with as much shit as the Republicans let Trump get away with—and that would only matter if she got a Democratic Congress or Senate. Put her in the situation Obama was in, with the Republicans controlling the Houses, and she'll show herself for the reactionary grifter she's always been.
edited 18th Apr '17 8:03:56 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar
They also decry that same messiah when they fail to live up to their impossible standards, look at the hate Obama has gotten from a number of young people for failing to achieve everything he set out to do. He has gotten a lot of flack for not being able to magically override 6 years of Republican obstruction and generations of political inertia.
On Gabbard, I'd note that she would pose a serious risk of turning voters away from Democrats for generations. The same way we're hoping Trump will cost the Republicans elections in the future due to reputation damage Gabbard could do the same to the Dems.
edited 18th Apr '17 8:10:50 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranAt this point, a Blue Dog is 1000x better then the Alt-Right-turn-Neo-Con Trump.
Also, I doubt highly she's a Reactionary. Grifter, sure, but nothing I've seen from her is out-and-out Reactionary (other then perhaps her Isolationism stance, but Sanders leans that way, too).
@Ambar: See how Obama does in the 2009 and 2012 general elections if you eliminate youth voters entirely. I did read what you had to say, by the way, I just disagree vehemently with your insistence that you don't take issue with the policies supported by young voters, given your argument is "the policies young voters support today are totally meaningless, they'll grow out of it and stop supporting such nonsense". That's essentially a roundabout way of saying they'll become conservative (in the traditional sense of conservatism) as they age, no matter how you spin it and insist that's not what your trying to say.
Preusmably millennials will be less fixated on particular politicians, but your argument that the policies they support today are totally meaningless and its all just a fad to us is disingenuous and frankly a bit insulting.
edited 18th Apr '17 8:35:24 AM by CaptainCapsase
If, by some crazy chance, Gabbard got the Democratic nomination in 2020, I'd say she'd have an even chance of being one of the few people who would fail to recover the White House from Trump. That's saying something.
Capsace, young people tend to be balls out stupid politically. I was one; I know. It's not their fault; they lack experience to temper their idealism, be it left, right, or something else, leading them to latch onto fringe movements and unicorns. Which is not to say that they should not participate — that's the best way to get less ignorant — but that if you're relying on them for a political movement, that movement is going to share their ignorance, and that's not good for anyone.
edited 18th Apr '17 8:36:17 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
That's not what's being argued though; it's about whether the policies young voters support today have any bearing on the political beliefs they'll hold going into the future. Study after study suggests people's political beliefs are largely set in stone by the time they're in their early 20s, so while people in my generation will undoubtedly become more pragmatic about pursuing a political agenda, the policy positions aren't going to shift in the way Ambar seems to assume they will.
edited 18th Apr '17 8:40:09 AM by CaptainCapsase
Let me put it this way: when I was in my twenties, I was absolutely certain how the world worked and how we could best fix it for everyone. It took me well into my thirties to realize just how wrong I was. You need a mix of enthusiasm and experience to formulate good policy: enthusiasm without experience leads to chasing unicorns and windmills; and experience without enthusiasm leads to cynicism and hideboundedness.
Obviously, of all the ideas out there foaming in our political dialogue, some accurately describe reality and thus can work if applied. But sorting those out from wishful thinking requires experience and the willingness to critically evaluate one's ideas.
edited 18th Apr '17 8:42:51 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Your own experience (starting out as a libertarian and shifting to center-left positions) is not representative of the general population based on empirical evidence, among them the numerous studies on political affiliation over time by Pew Research
edited 18th Apr '17 8:42:37 AM by CaptainCapsase
See how Obama does in the 2009 and 2012 general elections if you eliminate youth voters entirely.
He specifically pointed out that the youth turn out for Obama was a historic statistical anomaly.
I just disagree vehemently with your insistence that you don't take issue with the policies supported by young voters, given your argument is "the policies young voters support today are totally meaningless, they'll grow out of it and stop supporting such nonsense". That's essentially a roundabout way of saying they'll become conservative (in the traditional sense of conservatism) as they age, no matter how you spin it and insist that's not what your trying to say.
That is literally the opposite of what he said. He said they will tend to favor the same policies, but will be more realistic about how to implement them and stop hunting for unicorn candidates.
Ambar was distinctly arguing that youtth voters support for Sanders is completely irrelevant in terms of how they'll behave in future elections, and that's what I'm vehemently disagreeing with. In all likelyhood they'll be more pragmatic about chosing candidates, but I definitely think the sort of policies put forwards by Sanders will remain quite popular among my generation, with more thought put into them but no less transformative in their intent.
edited 18th Apr '17 8:45:41 AM by CaptainCapsase
![]()
![]()
The funny thing is that, while I talked libertarian, I voted Democrat, because I believed in the practical version
, not the militant "get out of my face" version currently masquerading in its place. I still hold some of those same ideals, but experience taught me just how impossible they are without changing human nature itself.
My mother was (well, is, but I'm looking back) fairly liberal for most of her life, and my father tended toward the libertarian-conservative mindset. I have no idea if that contributed to their troubled marriage, but the point is that I was exposed to both views and had the opportunity to choose what I believed in.
The point is that, if the youth vote is going to consistently chase unicorns, then it cannot be relied on to choose sound candidates, on either side.
edited 18th Apr '17 8:47:52 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"You should bear in mind that when the anti-climate change crowd wheel out a scientist to defend their position, the person they've wheeled out is usually either a pseudoscientist or a genuine scientist in the wrong field whose position reveals they know very little about the field of science they're criticising (it's usually physicists or engineers that get wheeled out).
For example, take one of the most famous sceptics, Willard Anthony Watts. He is cited as being a meteorologist who opposes man-made climate change, and he did work for years in the role of a television/radio meteorologist. He initially went to college to do electrical engineering and did a couple of meteorology classes on the side while there. However, he did not complete college and has no degree of any kind. He isn't a trained meteorologist at all, and has no more knowledge of the subject than you'd expect from an experienced television weatherman.
The other big name on the sceptical side, who is also consistently introduced as a Ph D scientist, is Bjorn Lomberg. He does actually have a Ph D in a science subject - political science.
That isn't to say that people who are not scientists in the relevant field cannot have very good points to make or sound knowledge to offer, but they have to be investigated on a case by case basis to see if they understand the subject they're talking about and whether the points they're making genuinely are sound, and whether or not the correct scientific field has already addressed the subject that being discussed (which is the case for most of the sceptical arguments made, e.g., the solar activity argument or the global warming pause debate).
edited 18th Apr '17 8:54:26 AM by Wyldchyld
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.These two statements are directly contradictory to each other Caspase, the contradiction is visible to anyone who reads Amber's posts, so please try reading again, because you're clearly misreading.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranAs far as issues of ethics the sciences goes, while it's significantly less of a problem in politics, conflicts of interest are an issue, and there are a depressingly large number of cases of data being suppressed, as was the case with medical data on the risks of smoking and early climate change research conducted by energy companies, because the interests commissioning a study didn't like the outcome. Plus the occasional cases of data being outright fabricated that come up here and there. The inherent subjectivity you get in the social sciences compared to the physical sciences must make it an absolute nightmare to sort those sorts of things out in fields like economics and psychology and so on.
I think I'm presenting my argument wrong then. I'm arguing that Ambar is wrong to simply dismiss young voters as politically irrelevant and ignorant, especially when we're talking about young voters who will be in the core voting age a few cycles down the line.
edited 18th Apr '17 8:57:09 AM by CaptainCapsase

Honestly, I wouldn't blame anyone for staying home in a Gabbard VS Trump/Pence/whoever race.
On the subject of Trump, the "prediction professor" (who has successfully called every election since 1984) now predicts (in what he admits is a less scientific progress) that Trump will be impeached before the 2020 election.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/allan-lichtman-prediction-prof-trump-impeachment-1.4073261
Legal and presidential scholars are less convinced.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.