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
Yes.
We have and it won't help nearly as well.
And the other candidates will not help at all.
That's completely incorrect, pretty much every Democratic candidate supports universalist policies of one form or another.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jun 19th 2019 at 11:35:57 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangExactly, she has the same extensive universalist policies that Sanders supports but with more focus on minorities and much more substance in-general.
Though, Charles has said that he supports her so I highly doubt he'll disagree with us in regards to this.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jun 19th 2019 at 11:37:52 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangAnd they're not nearly enough.
It's like global warming.
The actions needed to be done are major not small and we passed the small part a long time ago.
It basically goes like this to me.
Warren = Massive infrastructure reform, economic aid to the destitute + Minority focused programs.
Sanders = Massive infrastructure reform, economic aid to the destitute
Everyone else = Band-Aids to Middle Class and some fig leaves
It's genuinely frustrating to see Sanders not realizing how much better off his campaign would be with Warren-esque ideas on race.
But he's the second pick for the fact he'd deal with stuff that has otherwise destroyed rural economies because he will save lots of lives that otherwise won't be saved.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jun 19th 2019 at 11:41:08 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.I have to be honest Charles, you keep saying you're not particularly enthusiastic about Sanders, but almost everything else you say besides that gives me the exact opposite impression.
If you like the guy, just say it. I feel like that alone would sort of mitigate these discussions that keep popping up with you.
Even that’s not really true, because Warren actually has concrete plans and Sanders doesn’t really seem to have any idea how he’d accomplish his proposals.
I’ll also point out that there are more ways to fix inequality than Sanders-style socialism, which is something his supporters don’t seem to understand.
Edited by archonspeaks on Jun 19th 2019 at 11:47:46 AM
They should have sent a poet.CT PHIPPS POLITICS EXPLAINED
I voted for Hillary in 2016 but I was generally behind Sanders for the majority of the election because I live in an economically depressed region and have seen the massive suffering going on. I've also visited the Rust Belt cities for missionary efforts and to meet with friends where the conditions are appalling.
Warren has been someone I've consistently supported well before she announced her candidacy and I think she is by far better qualified as a candidate than everyone else. I don't mean that by degrees, I mean it by kind. I did not like Hillary's economic policies or her foreign policies and I love everything Warren has said.
I believe Biden is going to win the Primaries and have said so because the Democratic Party leadership and a lot of the Democratic voters (especially older ones) are afraid of the radical reform that Warren and Sanders represent. Which sickens me.
He's gone from being 3rd or 4th Candidate to my least favorite.
Generally, I feel like Sanders needs to be defended because whenever people criticize his policies, it feels like it comes from a place of economic privilege. They talk about dying industries, how it's not perfect, or whatnot but I wonder how many people know people who have lost their homes, been reduced to destitution, or have been drug addicted or killed because life has become impossible to live normally.
Sanders does talk a language that I speak and I am eager to here more from because the situation in the Rust Belt and Appalachia is horrifying. Warren is the best candidate but I'd be okay with Sanders—and I feel like the criticism of him doesn't incorporate the needs of the bottom 13.5%. Those Americans living below the poverty level.
I am not a 1 issue voter but of my 3 issues, I choose the poor as my primary one (which Sanders and Warrens are the only two people who seem to appreciate the magnitude of the problem—and it is frustrating as fuck Sanders doesn't grasp that he needs to address racism to really fix it versus half-assing it).
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jun 19th 2019 at 11:51:33 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.Pretty much ALL of Warren’s plans include aspects targeted at systemic racism. For example, her college plan includes dedicating more funds to historic black and other minority colleges, and it also has provisions that would regulate for-profit colleges that take advantage of mostly vulnerable minority students.
I'm not against Sanders-style socialism and definitely think we need more of that either way.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.Remember, the Oval Office isn't everything. I can't see a more moderate Democratic President (ie; someone who isn't Warren or Sanders) going around and vetoing progressive policies and reforms. They have an impact, but getting a moderate/center-left President hardly heralds the end of progress for another 4/8 years.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Yeah, I feel his critics don't understand a lot of what he's saying and irrationally prejudiced against the man's work.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.![]()
No offense, but that’s kind of a conversation-ending position to hold. You can dismiss any criticism without a thought like that.
People understand his policies. That’s why they’re criticizing them. Middle class, “whites first” socialism isn’t adequate to help the destitute.
Edited by archonspeaks on Jun 19th 2019 at 12:03:58 PM
They should have sent a poet.A weird but real point against both Warren and Sanders, but affects Warren more than Sanders: If either of them become President, the Democrats lose a senator, which makes it that much harder to gain control of it. This a bigger problem for Warren because it's pretty unlikely that Vermont would elect a Republican to replace Sanders.
![]()
![]()
Massachusetts is unlikely to elect another Republican. We're not going to nominate Martha Coakley a third time, and there's really no one in the Massachusetts GOP who would be an electable choice. Now, it's likely that Governor Baker would nominate a Republican, but that would trigger an immediate special election. The 2010 election that inflicted Scott Brown upon America was midway through Ted Kennedy's last, unfinished term.
Edited by CrimsonZephyr on Jun 19th 2019 at 3:18:02 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."This, unsurprisingly, soured the Democrats on the idea.
It's just an interesting example of how common sense things like holidays on the days of elections can have unintended consequences.
I have mixed feelings about this.
We have a comprehensive mail-in ballot system. A couple months in advance, we mail out packets to all registered voters. The packet includes their ballot as well as a comprehensive booklet explaining the ins and outs of each bill on the ballot. There's little need for anyone in our state to go physically vote in person, beyond tradition.
So on the one hand, I'm not sure how much it would actually hurt our electoral process to not have those infrastructure employees manning their stations; most people have already turned in their ballots by that point anyway.
But on the other, I'm not sure how much it would actually benefit our electoral process to make "Absolute final last chance to drop off yo ballot, ya lazy procrastinators!" into an actual holiday. The whole concept of voting day in Colorado is really just a deadline.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Jun 19th 2019 at 1:19:24 PM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.@Unintended consequences: That was an issue raised when California passed a bill saying candidates had to release their tax returns before being allowed on the ballot. The argument being that if Trump isn't on the ballot, then turnout will be depressed since people won't need to turn out to vote against him, which will affect down ballot races.

I think he means "better than nothing" in regards to candidates that have no specific economic proposals or, worse, have economic policies identical to all the ones already tried that has led to vast income inequality across all boards, not just racial ones.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"