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
You mean the part of their foundations took donations from big whatever groups therefore they are corrupt and in the pockets of the big whatever ?
Because under this logic there is not a single living or dead politician that isn't a sellout or in the pockets of the big whatever. It is the most common practice from corporations to unions to donate money to candidates, often on both sides, in the hopes or certainty they will receive some benefits or won't be left out by the administration decision making.
And at its day and age is virtually impossible for major companies and corporations to have no influence in modern politics. Specially when they make up a large share of the country's economic power.
This by itself isn't evidence of corruption and you'd need to be a naive purist to believe that the only politicians worth to vote for are the ones who're completely independent of the Big Whatever influence, because those candidates simply don't exist and those who didn't get large donations from those Big Whatever have as much chance to become president or influential in politics as my left nut has the chance of being crowned the queen of Persia.
Inter arma enim silent leges![]()
![]()
![]()
The Sanders wing has inadvertently cultivated a group of people who despise the DNC or DCCC for existing. Not in the sense of "repent and I will forgive", but "just stop existing already".
While encouraging voter registration and educating them about how their vote matters is a good idea, suggesting that the DNC attempt this for that segment of Sanders' base is a total waste of resources. Unless you have a half decent proxy.
edited 18th Apr '17 12:41:49 PM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot@Krieger: So you're literally saying they should do nothing in light of Trump's victory, and count on him being unpopular enough that the party's pick coasts to victory in 2020? Or did you misread my post, because your response doesn't really seem to address my point?
edited 18th Apr '17 12:45:05 PM by CaptainCapsase
@Kreiger, do you think the Bernie folk are Traitors to the Democrats, the Unwitting Pawns of the alt-right, Spanners In The Works, or just fanboys?
edited 18th Apr '17 12:47:39 PM by MorningStar1337
It runs the gamut. There are Bernie supporters who went on to support Hillary, but on the other side of the coin you have those who insist that every "progressive" policy must directly benefit them, and everyone else outside that tiny circle can get lost. Those are the traitors to the Democratic Party. They don't care about the big tent, just theirs.
Yup. I'm agreeing 100 % with this. Most politicians can call the other corrupt and singling it out as an individual problem when it's really a systemic one.
I view that as a problem. Are you telling me you don't?
Again it's systemic corruption. Go check the study I just posted. Policy is determined by the rich not the lower classes.
And lobbyists themselves tend to be walking bribes in suits. Legalized bribes that is. You can't tell me it's not happening. The Republican Party has been completely bought out for instance.
Yes, I'd rather have a politician taking money from solar energy companies than from oil companies but l don't see that as admirable. The ideal should be for politicians to listen to the public first and foremost and not take any money from companies.
Now I don't think that the only ones worth voting for are the ones independent of big money but I am criticizing and pointing out why it's wrong.
I mean I still vote and campaign for people who take big money because it's better than the alternatives.
Hell, I even campaigned for Hillary.
edited 18th Apr '17 12:57:57 PM by MadSkillz
![]()
No, he means that chasing unicorn chasers is a waste of time and effort.
I don't view that as a big problem , specially for a country that makes up for a large share of the global trade and wealth.
And yes, addressing those donation to politicians issue isn't a ideological problem, it is a transparency problem, which means it has to be fought in the courtrooms or by the public administration agencies in order to check if the donations are resulting in favoritism.
Fighting over which candidate is or isn't in the pockets of someone is a complete waste of time. By the way, one of the reasons why Trump voters got duped into voting for him was exactly that. That he was so rich he couldn't be bought and would represent the interest of the working America and Hillary being perceived as being in the pockets of the Big Whatever. Well that wasn't exactly true was it?
Corporations, companies, unions and whatever has money, power and influence will interfere in politics as long as they see they will gain something from it. Their weight and influence in the economy can't be ignored by politicians. Yes, they will have a say in whatever government because it is practically impossible to govern without their support.
But guess what? Being in touch with the voterbase desires and needs but also making sure that the companies that don't feel like they have something to lose with your government has a name and it is called compromise. Try to govern without it to see how far you will go.
edited 18th Apr '17 1:01:28 PM by AngelusNox
Inter arma enim silent legesGonna re-post what I quoted before:
@Angelus: We'll have to come to an agreed upon definition upon what exactly constitutes a unicorn chaser. I get the distinct impression that MadSkillz and myself (and more pertinently about 50% of Sanders's voters as opposed to the <10% who refused to vote for Clinton) would be categorized as such by certain posters in a conversation behind our backs. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's what I'm taking issue with.
edited 18th Apr '17 1:18:55 PM by CaptainCapsase
Here is some.
- Bernie of bust crowd
- They are on the pockets of the corporate big whatever crowds
- They are career politicians = bad crowd
- They don't subscribe to by ideas of social justice or whatever is my pet cause crowds
- Single issue wonks crowds
- Taking issues with politicians who don't cater 99.99% to their needs crowds
- They did something 20 years ago I didn't like and I refuse to acknowledge they chanced their stances crowd
- They are just as bad as each other crowd
To list a few.
Inter arma enim silent legesYep. I get the impression that a lot of people here view Sanders and his wing as a second enemy to crush and throw into the wind.
I mean you guys are endlessly complaining about a minority of Bernie supporters.
It's obvious, yes, but what are we doing about it?
edited 18th Apr '17 1:51:03 PM by MadSkillz
Funny story there, the complaints about the Unicorn Brigade generally only start when someone takes a potshot at Clinton or makes an "if only Bernie had won the primary..." sort of comment.
It's less people blaming the Unicorn Brigade for all the world's ills and more a collective rolling of eyes when it's suggested that Saint Bernie would have fixed everything.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Go ahead and put that in your signature. Frame it and stick it on the wall. Bookmark it. Save EVERYBODY some time next time this comes up.
Say to the others who did not follow through You're still our brothers, and we will fight for you![]()
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I've seen plenty of people bring up topics or articles so they can take potshots at the Unicorn Brigade. Anytime Tulsi is brought up, she's mocked and then people attack the Unicorn Brigade. When a progressive initiative/candidate is defeated, I've seen a troper or two mock "the Unicorn Brigade" and bring it up as evidence to confirm their beliefs about the Unicorn Brigade's faulty thinking.
edited 18th Apr '17 2:03:01 PM by MadSkillz

You call Trump voters rational?