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
It's perfectly clear: it's a set of groups that stick together very badly and have a tendency to break off and fight each other. They're dramatically different in how dissatisfied they are with the status quo and in what direction to take things beyond that. This is misleadingly labeled "ideological purity". It's anything but.
![]()
No, the "purity" bit comes in what certain factions of the left refuse to accept a candidate whose record isn't absolutely perfect and free of even one minute wrongdoing in every way, no matter what they've done to make up for it since or what their current stance on things is.
Edited by PhysicalStamina on Jun 8th 2019 at 8:07:35 AM
i'm tired, my friendLook at the text of that declaration.
‘On June 6, 1944, 160,000 Allied troops landed at Normandy, signalling the beginning of the end of the war in Europe. Casualty figures on all sides were immense, with hundreds of thousands of soldiers, sailors, aviators and civilians killed or wounded in the days and weeks that followed.
‘We stand together today to honour the memory of those who paid the ultimate sacrifice on D-Day, and those many millions of men and women who lost their lives during the Second World War, the largest conflict in human history.
‘We affirm that it is our shared responsibility to ensure that the unimaginable horror of these years is never repeated.
‘Over the last 75 years, our nations have stood up for peace in Europe and globally, for democracy, tolerance and the rule of law.
‘We re-commit today to those shared values because they support the stability and prosperity of our nations and our people. We will work together as allies and friends to defend these freedoms whenever they are threatened.
‘We commit to work constructively as friends and allies to find common ground where we have differences of opinion and to work together to resolve international tensions peacefully.
‘We will act resolutely, with courage and tenacity, to protect our people against threats to our values and challenges to peace and stability.
‘In this way, we salute the surviving veterans of D-Day and we honour the memories of those who came before us.
‘We will ensure that the sacrifices of the past are never in vain and never forgotten.’
Why would he not screw this up.
Problem is that Sanders’ “brilliant” strategy of shitting on the Democratic Party like he did in 2016 is too polarizing. It almost felt like he was negging them. And by all accounts he is using the same strategy that failed in 2016.
Edited by M84 on Jun 8th 2019 at 8:57:59 PM
Disgusted, but not surprisedWhile Warren is single-digits, she's also consistently been third in the polls, and Sanders is a comparatively-paltry 6 points ahead of her. On top of that, as others have pointed out already, this is all without a single debate being held as-yet - once that happens, the landscape is pretty much bound to change, as about the only factor right now is name/brand recognition.
And in yet more petty politics news, the Trump administration blocked a State official's written testimony to Congress
because he described the impacts of climate change as "possibly catastrophic".
Edited by ironballs16 on Jun 8th 2019 at 9:46:31 AM
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"![]()
Exactly- right now, most people aren’t paying attention yet. I didn’t know Bernie existed until July 2015, and at the time I was keeping up with the news pretty decently, although not nearly as much as I keep up with it now.
I strongly disagree. I know tons of people who know almost nothing about the candidates yet. And those are fellow law school grads who are also preparing for the bar exam and busy.
Edited by wisewillow on Jun 8th 2019 at 6:55:31 AM
Not what I'm getting at - my main point is that while people may be familiar with Biden from his time as VP, and Sanders due to the 2016 campaign, nowhere near as many would have been paying attention to Warren, Harris, et. al who are also running this year. That'll change after the first few debates, in which gaffes can be made and platforms firmly established in full public view, rather than piecemeal town halls.
Edit: And Warren herself has pointed out that, if you look at the 2008 and 2016 elections, who the hell would have thought that Barack Hussein Obama and Donald J. Trump would have been their party's nominee, let alone the eventual winner of the Presidency (shenanigans in the latter notwithstanding)?
Edited by ironballs16 on Jun 8th 2019 at 10:41:38 AM
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"![]()
Though Warren is hardly an Obama or a Trump. She lacks the former's campaigning ability and the latter's "it's like staring at a trainwreck" attention-whoring.
Warren it should be noted is someone who isn't even able to do particularly well in her own state when it comes to Senate elections.
Edited by M84 on Jun 8th 2019 at 11:05:49 PM
Disgusted, but not surprisedWarren has been consistently third in polls, in a smaller race that would be terrible, but in a race where 67% are considering multiple candidates and the candidate list is huge, that’s not bad.
Warren has 8-9% in a 20 person race, between them Biden and Bernie have about 50% of the vote, that leaves 35-40% of the vote up for grabs based on people dropping out.
Do I think that’s going to be enough for her to win outright? No I don’t, she won’t pick up all the other votes, but she (alongside Harris) is perfectly positioned to be the compromise candidate, if it looks like things are going to go 28% Bernie, 37% Biden, 18% Warren, 11% Harris, 6% other, than Warren and Harris are well positioned to say “pick me rather than one of the two polarising candidates”.
Low is relative, she’s polling third in a 20 person race where 67% of voters aren’t seriously committed to a single candidate. If she’s still at 8-9% when it’s a five person race she’s out, but it’s still a 20 person race right now.
Edited by Silasw on Jun 8th 2019 at 3:53:17 PM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

> Right-wingers value loyalty and cohesion. They're not a bickering, fractious coalition like the Left,
[Audience laughs]
And now a musical number..
Seriously that is not true and comes across as a little praising of the right,I don't what else to say other then calling the left a 'fractious coalition' is just weird terminology
Edited by Ultimatum on Jun 8th 2019 at 11:58:06 AM
have a listen and have a link to my discord server