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
Or if Trump loses in 2020 despite getting a majority of the popular vote, but I don't think that outcome's so likely (it was a genuine possibility in 2012, by the way. The EC is not as pro-Republican as people like to claim).
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanDid you guys hear that an Alabama newspaper called for the KKK to reform. How long until the Right Wing politicians ask for the same? Despite the "Alt-Right" label the Alt-Right and American Right Wing are virtually the same now. The right wing mostly approve of the "Alt-Right" talking points. Otherwise they would speak out against ICE's actions, police brutality, Nazi's marching through the streets, or care about the right wing-violence that happens constantly.
I'm confused at the idea the KKK has gone anywhere.
It just broke up and fragmented because of David Duke's attempts to peddle a Lighter and Softer more mainstream racism.
Which, sadly, seems to have worked.
There's 100 KK Ks than 1 KKK and that's much worse.
(The main KKK also was bankrupted by lawsuits)
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Mar 4th 2019 at 9:31:49 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.![]()
I think the overwhelmingly negative reaction in the mainstream scotched any possibility of a KKK revival. The author and editor of the newspaper was also an eighty year old man who was already known locally as a racist.
It's something to keep an eye on, but not worth freaking out over.
![]()
![]()
![]()
I think we need to expand the House, personally.
Edited by CrimsonZephyr on Mar 4th 2019 at 12:35:51 PM
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."So, unless I learn anything new about him he's getting sorted into the lower-middle section of my personal rankings.
I agree with him being in the lower-middle section of rankings.
But I do think that whoever our candidate is, they need to have a plan for Trump's Trump-isms. People like Trump more than they like facts. They like Trump more than they like policies. Or platforms. So you can have the most factual policies in your platform and it won't matter because people like Trump more.
They like him because he's a bully. Because he exudes power in his words and actions. He's bristling with unreasonable confidence, and that's attractive. He talks like he knows what he's talking about, and even though he's making up everything he's saying, that resonates with people.
If you don't have a plan to beat his fact-stomping platform-crushing ignorant pride charisma, people aren't going to listen to your really intelligent and well-developed platform because they'll be too busy laughing at it alnongside Trump.
Trump does not debate. Trump ridicules. Our 2020 candidate needs to have a plan for when Trump starts shouting over them and going, "WOW, that is SOME BULLSHIT this person is spouting. Does anyone care what this idiot thinks? I DIDN'T THINK SO!"
From the confines of his glass house, Trump throws stones with the best of them. And it's really hard to get your message across to the audience when all they see is you getting pelted with rocks.
So, yeah. It's important to have a real solid platform and plans in place. But in the 21st century, that can't be all you bring to the table. You have to make people interested in listening to you. Our candidate needs to be able to lead, which means holding people's attention and keeping audience engagement fixed on them, despite the dancing monkey at the other podium flinging his poo around the stage.
Democrats have a hard time competing with Republicans in sheer memetic entertainment value. Which means we have a hard time getting people to remember a single thing we said at the debate floor.
Basically, what I'm saying is that we need a candidate who can go viral the way Obama did in 2008 and Trump did in 2016.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Mar 4th 2019 at 11:19:06 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.>This incident highlights the disconnect between intersectionality in theory and intersectionality as practiced by the most hysterically identity-obsessed activists. If intersectionality merely means that progressives must consider how all sorts of injustices overlap, then Sanders is clearly an intersectional progressive. But if it requires its adherents to themselves be the victims of overlapping identity-based oppressions—to not just support the right causes but also possess a number of immutable characteristics—then a white male like Sanders will never be good enough.
![]()
Sure. Technically, at least, he could be considered one, if you squint at it just right. As in, he has mentioned those concepts before. He's just rather bad at it. Like, you can still recognize multiple types of injustice only to devalue or ignore it. And Sanders...definitely does that. Which is in itself a form of racism.
Edited by AzurePaladin on Mar 4th 2019 at 1:32:28 PM
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -FighteerToday's bombshell expose:
The Making of the Fox News White House.
Not that this wasn't plainly obvious to anyone who was paying attention, but the massive level of influence is just gross.
Edited by speedyboris on Mar 4th 2019 at 12:36:26 PM
![]()
![]()
![]()
Don't know that site one way or the other, but not going to lie, it's kind of a garbage read. Seriously, it's "he did in fact say racism at the 6-minute mark and that totally wasn't in passing and was a substantive remark even though it wasn't, at all. And it only came that late because his best friends are black."
Also, I saw the speech. He did the thing where he said that Trump is the cause of racism, not the symptom.
Some Clinton partisans are still pushing this narrative. Enter Zerlina Maxwell, a former communications staffer for the 2016 Clinton campaign and current director of progressive programming at Sirius XM Radio. Maxwell, a black woman, appeared on MSNBC to react to Sanders' campaign kick-off speech at Brooklyn College on Saturday. She was not impressed.
"To be very serious about it, I clocked it," said Maxwell. "He did not mention race or gender until 23 minutes into the speech. And just for point of comparison, I looked at Elizabeth Warren's opening speech for example, she mentioned race and discrimination in the first paragraph. So that's a big difference and as somebody who is a black woman, knowing that black women are going to be a core constituency for any Democrat who hopes to win the nomination, I was looking to hear messaging specifically for my community, and I did not, at least until 23 minutes into the speech." Maxwell went on to accuse Sanders of failing the test of intersectionality.
But Sanders did not wait until minute 23 of his speech to address race and gender. He brought them up at the 5-minute mark: "The underlying principles of our government will not be greed, hatred, and lies. It will not be racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, and religious bigotry."
This was one of his very first substantive remarks: The only reason it did not occur sooner is because the crowd kept interrupting him with applause, and Sanders took several minutes to thank the various speakers who introduced him—three of whom were black. (One was the Black Lives Matter activist Shaun King.)
In case there were any confusion, Sanders also declared that his vision for the country was based on economic, social, racial, and environmental justice. As The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald points out, "Sanders did not just mention race and gender once in his speech before the 23-minute mark Maxwell claimed, but did so repeatedly. It was not only the major theme of the speakers who introduced him but a primary theme of his own speech from the start."
Maxwell eventually conceded some ground, tweeting: "I've rewatched since yesterday and while I can acknowledge that I missed the passing line at 6 minutes I stand by my point since talking about criminal justice is not the same thing as talking about race and gender and if you don't get why Bernie won't win....again."
For the record, Sanders clearly talked about race and gender outside the context of criminal justice as well.
This incident highlights the disconnect between intersectionality in theory and intersectionality as practiced by the most hysterically identity-obsessed activists. If intersectionality merely means that progressives must consider how all sorts of injustices overlap, then Sanders is clearly an intersectional progressive. But if it requires its adherents to themselves be the victims of overlapping identity-based oppressions—to not just support the right causes but also possess a number of immutable characteristics—then a white male like Sanders will never be good enough.
Sounds about right. Reason/rationalism has seemingly become a red flag buzzword these days.
Edited by Larkmarn on Mar 4th 2019 at 1:40:54 PM
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.Look who finally got around to shifting blame:
Trump blames Cohen testimony in part for failed deal with North Korea – President says holding the hearing while he was overseas “may have contributed to the ‘walk.’ ”
Re: An alternate source for Sanders speech, there's a politico article about it. I haven't looked myself though since the title seemed clock baity, but since it may be relevant:
In Chicago, Sanders talks race – He looks back to his activist days as he vows to combat wealth gaps and other inequalities between white and black Americans
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/03/bernie-sanders-chicago-civil-rights-1200723
Edited by sgamer82 on Mar 4th 2019 at 11:43:38 AM
Christ almighty, that's just... dumb. Like, seriously. Say that the Dems holding the hearings publicly weakened our bargaining position, thus making the Norks emboldened and asking too much, so you heroically walked away.
Don't go "I was hurt by the mean Dems words and left because I was impatient."
Like... it's astounding that he can't even do his lies well. I truly don't understand his cult when he can't even blame their mutual enemies right.
Edited by Larkmarn on Mar 4th 2019 at 1:53:57 PM
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.Wait, someone called W a socialist?
Ok, that’s easily one of the dumbest things I’ve heard.
Leviticus 19:34

I can see it happening, but it's going to require sustained pressure from the population. 60% of Republicans oppose the Electoral College, so there's some serious weight behind the move - it's just that this hasn't translated into Republican politicians (who know damn well that it'd suck for them) accepting it.
Swing states in particular might throw in for the NPVIC if they get Democratic trifectas at any point.