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
Biden has apparently being doing stuff behind the scenes to get ready, he hasn’t needed to declare so he’s been able to hold off. Though there was a rumour at one point that Biden wasn’t entirely sure himself, because he wanted to declare and be a clear front runner, which isn’t going to happen. It seems that he’s come to terms with not being a clear leader and the fact that he’s going to have to properly fight for the nomination.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranIn some marvelous news, drug distributor Rochester Drug Co-operative, along with former CEO Laurence Doud III and former chief compliance officer William Pietruszewski
have officially been charged with "conspiracy to violate the narcotics laws, conspiracy to defraud the United States and willfully failing to file suspicious order reports."
The execs face a life sentence if convicted, and Pietruszewski has apparently already pled guilty!
Prosecutors said Rochester Drug Co-operative went against DEA and its own policies and distributed drugs to pharmacies that were "filling controlled substances prescriptions issued by practitioners acting outside the scope of their medical practice, under investigation by law enforcement, or on RDC’s 'watch list.'"
Rochester Drug Co-Operative "distributed controlled substances to those pharmacies even after identifying 'red flags,'" said a statement from the U.S. attorney. And at Doud's direction, the company took on pharmacies that had been terminated by other distributors.
Rochester Drug Co-Operative’s own employees "described some of the company’s customers as 'very suspicious,' and even characterized particular pharmacies as a “DEA investigation in the making” or “like a stick of dynamite waiting for [the] DEA to light the fuse,'" the statement said.
And executives at Rochester Drug Co-Operative purposefully kept suspicions of pharmacies' illegal activity from the DEA, fearing investigations into the pharmacies and potentially losing customers, according to a criminal complaint.
The company identified about 8,300 "potentially suspicious 'orders of interest,' including thousands of oxycodone orders," between 2012 and 2016, but only reported four, the U.S. attorney said.
In that time, Rochester Drug Co-Operative’s sales of oxycodone tablets grew nearly nine-fold, from 4.7 million to 42.2 million, prosecutors said. Their fentanyl sales grew from approximately 63,000 dosages in 2012 to over 1.3 million in 2016.
In that same time, Doud's compensation ballooned to $1.5 million a year.
"Doud cared more about profits than the laws intended to protect human life," Berman said.
Rochester Drug Co-Operative announced they have entered into a plea agreement in the criminal case and a settlement in the civil case. The company has agreed to admit to the accusations, submit to supervision by an independent monitor, reform its compliance program and pay a $20 million fine.
Though I can't say I'm happy about the routine "Oop, we got caught, so we'll pay $20 million in fines on the billions we made in the interim with our bad behavior."
That's akin to a bank robber keeping 3/4 of the loot they stole.
Edited by ironballs16 on Apr 23rd 2019 at 3:36:15 PM
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"I agree with all this, I think it's just a matter of how rhetoric is framed. From certain people (even in this thread) it often comes of as them saying that being white or male, or old are inherently negative traits. Which I think is something other people might be commenting on.
As far as age goes, while considering the stress of the job and someone needing to be fit and have (ugh, as Trump said) the "stamina" for it is important, the minimum age for the job is 35, and it's likely most people would be prepared for it have had much more experience for that. That it of all positions skews older is basically inevitable.
I agree with all this, I think it's just a matter of how rhetoric is framed. From certain people (even in this thread) it often comes of as them saying that being white or male, or old are inherently negative traits. Which I think is something other people might be commenting on.
As far as age goes, while considering the stress of the job and someone needing to be fit and have (ugh, as Trump said) the "stamina" for it is important, the minimum age for the job is 35, and it's likely most people would be prepared for it have had much more experience for that. That it of all positions skews older is basically inevitable.
This is all fair, how one shapes their rhetoric is certainly very important when it comes to this issue (and all others really).
Personally, this is why I like to frame it as increased diversity. So instead of saying "bleugh old white guys" (which I have admittedly said) I focus on the benefits of more perspectives and trying to gently point out that our Presidents generally have been very homogenous as backgrounds go. Essentially painting it as a positive change instead of a negative, more "yay diversity" then counterproductively insulting white people.
Of course, some white people will always view the former as identical to the latter but they can't be helped.[1]
I also agree on the matter of age, it's certainly a downside and is worth pointing out. Personally, it's the strength of Warren's policies that allows me to overlook the downside of her age.
[1]= I'm not referencing any posters in this thread, just general viewpoints that I've seen.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Apr 23rd 2019 at 12:43:18 PM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangBiden is well liked by the next generation, which frustrates the Old Guard a great deal.
Mind you, the next generation doesn't necessarily dislike the Older Democrats if they've updated their policies.
A factor a lot of people ignore.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.Man, I'm looking at how the Democrats are divvying up the delegates, and a brokered convention is a real possibility if someone doesn't break ahead of the pack at some point.
Almost seems like an overcorrection regarding concerns about 2016, aggravated by the clown car nature of the primary.
Edited by Rationalinsanity on Apr 23rd 2019 at 5:34:42 AM
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Right now I think if Joe somehow ended up as the last candidate standing the democrats would lose the election,which is honestly what I think a lot of Republicans are hoping for
They stand a decent chance of winning with any of the other candidate I think
Elizabeth Warren I'd vote for without question but I feel her winning would be too good to be true,as in it could happen and that would wonderful,but life isn't fair sometimes
have a listen and have a link to my discord serverBiden has (big) issues, but between his popularity among independents (especially in the Midwest states Trump needs to take to be re-elected) and good numbers among Democrats (most of whom will likely view Trump as a far greater evil, and vote accordingly) I don't think electoral viability is one of them.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.@Fourthspartan: You'll get no argument from me on the diversity front. I was only arguing against the brought up idea that if you want change, you better not vote for a white male candidate. Yet, for example, Bernie should bring forth more new ideas than Klobuchar.
Life is unfair...I think Biden has the best chance of beating Trump but the least gain the public to compare against other candidates.
Edit:
Some minority candidates have also gotten as far as they have by pursuing non-progressive as well. Harris made her career based on being the toughest, hardest, and most-anti crime candidate possible. Which is a problem if you're for lighter and softer policies regarding law enforcement or prison reform.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Apr 23rd 2019 at 2:22:15 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.I don't know if I'd say Biden has the best chance. Sure he has name recognition, but given his tepid voting record and history of inappropriate behavior towards women, I don't think he will energize the democratic base as much as you would like. I think they need someone who can constrast strongly against Trump, and someone like Warren is far better for that.
Um, sure that Harris made her name as a tough-on-crime candidate when she was the AG of California? I was thinking that she actually played the "smart on crime" card but along with that things like that crack-brained truancy law (enforcement) happened.
Incidentally, regarding Biden there was this poll on the 10th of April
which kind of carries the implication that to (California) Democrats view the white men as more electable.
The thing I got from this last few pages is that we might as well not discuss anyone's chances in the primaries because things can turn around pretty much overnight at the current juncture.
Consider toning down the confrontational attitude a bit, if you may. It's the kind of thing that gets you banned.
Edited by HailMuffins on Apr 23rd 2019 at 6:31:37 AM
Literally all the current Democrats would be better than Trump, I would vote for all of them in a heartbeat. Then again, the bar is really low. I would be a better President than Trump, and I would be horrible President, just because of my complete inexperience with politics.
If, somehow, Trump is defeated in his primary by a sane Republican with sane stances and policies, I will consider voting for them over the Democrat choice, but not until then.
Edited by PushoverMediaCritic on Apr 23rd 2019 at 2:32:03 AM
I don't support Joe Biden as my candidate.
He's not even in my top 3.
Warren and Sanders and even O'Roarke are over him.
I just have a very different view of how much inertia Joe has versus the rest of the board. I think he's going to win the primaries even though I don't think he's the economic candidate we need.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Apr 23rd 2019 at 2:36:16 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.

Maybe they said otherwise but 99% of the time when people make this argument it's a strawman, diversity can be good without it being the only thing that matters and just because it's good to have someone who's not an old white man doesn't mean that every non-old white man is good.
Acting as if their personal attributes are irrelevant is frankly just as bad. One's race, gender, or any other characteristic are relevant in that they directly determine one's life experiences, not to mention that more diverse leadership can have a very real effect one fighting discrimination. So no, it absolutely matters what personal attributes candidates have.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Apr 23rd 2019 at 12:12:13 PM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang