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
But again, that's exactly what I said. He praised the system that led to the collapse. Then he stopped when it actually did collapse, the logical end result that had been predicted by economists for upwards of a decade before. He did this because then it became plainly obvious to everyone that the policies were a bad idea, and he could no longer support them and maintain any credibility.
You had a similar dynamic with Jeremy Corbyn in the U.K.
Edited by Kamiccolo on Feb 16th 2019 at 2:04:19 AM
Then does it really qualify for your argument if he stopped supporting it after it failed?
Edit: nevermind, I posted before you edited
Huh. I'd seen them around long enough in the Dragon Ball Z Abridged thread I hadn't thought they'd be an evader. They usually aren't subtle enough to last that long.
Edited by sgamer82 on Feb 16th 2019 at 3:25:43 AM
Kamiccolo is a ban evasion sock of Monsieur Thenardier and has been bounced.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
Aw man, I was about to go make a long post rebuttal.
Oh well.
Anyway, we were discussing the Emergency Deceleration?
Edited by AzurePaladin on Feb 16th 2019 at 5:08:48 AM
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -FighteerYeah, Pelosi won't let impeachment start unless it either a) has a chance of succeeding or b) Trump's approval ratings implode so much that any Republican senator who doesn't support it will lose reelection, and neither's the case now.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
For ban evasion? Off the entire site, almost certainly.
![]()
I'm a bit pessimistic about our chances in 2020, but if any recent President was going to be a one term President Trump would be it. Here's hoping.
Also, we probably shouldn't impeach Trump unless we've got a plan on how to prevent Pence from wrecking anything more. We do have the House though, so that's a start.
Edited by AzurePaladin on Feb 16th 2019 at 5:20:58 AM
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -FighteerWell, if we impeach Trump and remove him in his last year or so, that would prevent Pence even having time to do much with a Democratic House to ride herd on him. Especially if he opted to try to run for re-election (though I wouldn't expect that, given Trump was his last big chance to be somebody)
Edited by sgamer82 on Feb 16th 2019 at 3:28:44 AM
I mean, personally my plan is 'whoever is President after Trump is gonna have to make cleaning up Trump's mess their first priority- you can't accomplish much without a functioning government, after all. So, like, if he has ~18 months or less to work with, Pence won't be able to get much of anything done, and a Republican President who immediately follows Trump and then spends his entire term not getting anything done is a President who's unlikely to be re-elected.
Well on one hand, I'm a little hesitant to dismiss Trump, because I was wrong last time. Having said that, I'd still be pretty astonished if he won twice in a row. It is possible for him to lose and he's done quite a bit to piss people off.
Leviticus 19:34The thing is that it's not useful to look at the sample size of all Presidents- you have to narrow it to unpopular presidents to get a meaningful comparison- and then you have to consider that the ones who won re-election despite disastrous mid-term results are the ones who made some effort to course-correct and win back the people who'd turned against them.
While Trump, so far, has been doubling down to the strategy that lost him the mid-terms. It's possible, of course, that the situation could change by 2020, but Trump sure hasn't demonstrated the mental capacity to make the kind of moves he'd need to, so if things continue the way they've been going, he ain't gonna win.
I also think that Tump has a decent chance of winning 2020, like even if he is unpopular he was going into this mess too....
There is a not insignificant part of Amercia that really is as bad as what he appeals too.
Does that mean he WILL win, hell no.... But it is kind of dangerous to just assume that he will be out by 2020... as much as I wish that was a gaurentee.
Agreed, our nation is partisan enough that if Trump is legally capable of running as the Republican Candidate he's going to have some chance of winning.
So, it's not factual for anyone to assume he has literally 0% chance.
But on the end, anyone who assume he's definitely going to win are ignoring his clear weaknesses such as historical unpopularity, and are thus being just as ridiculous.
Thankfully I haven't seen anyone in this thread assume either.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangI'm not sure how I got forgot him given that I specifically mentioned him.
The pattern I'm looking at is pretty clear.
52, 56 Republican (Eisenhower)
60, 64 Democrat (Kennedy & Johnson)
68, 72 Republican (Nixon)
76, 80 Democrat (Carter) // This is where Regan steals what 'should' have been a democratic victory in 1980
84, 88 Republic (Regan & Bush)
92, 96 Democrat (Clinton)
00, 04 Republican (Bush)
08, 12 Democrat (Obama)
16, 20 Republican (Trump) // 20 is the up coming election
24, 28 Democrat (Democrat) // Good luck!
Edited by Soban on Feb 16th 2019 at 7:03:17 AM
... what kind of nonsense logic is that? You can't just disregard a single-term president, then three terms of another party ending in another president, and say "look, here's an immutable pattern!"
FFS, W was a hair's breadth from not being president at one point too, and only clawed back enough support to get his second term because of a massive terrorist incident.
Personally offending vast numbers of people is a specific reason, Trump is unpopular enough that I feel confident that if anyone could be a one term President it's him.
If we're going to focus on the economy the fact that he's so unpopular while the economy is doing fine is extremely telling.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang

I'd also like to point out that Sanders was commenting on the situation in 2011, the total breakdown of Venezuela had not happened back then yet. He also wasn't talking about Venezuela only.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman