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
Obviously one great debate performance shouldn't remove any misgivings you might have against a candidate (i.e. Harris for some) or a lackluster one destroy all good will (i.e. some people for Gillibrand), but it is good to keep in mind for who would be good at wooing voters and destroying Trump in debate.
Personally, I found this one much more engaging than the first debate.
Edited by LSBK on Jun 27th 2019 at 10:35:17 AM
This was probably more important for viewers for who this is their first time really hearing about many if not all of these people. We've already been paying attention, so we've mostly already made up our minds.
But yeah, let's hope they tighten up the requirements for the next debate because someone who's only been a writer is super unqualified for political position. Same as someone who's only been a failing businessman.
I hoped Gillibrand would've had a stronger night, but she hasn't lost any points for me. I just want the clowns to go away with all haste so Warren can truly shine.
PSN ID: FateSeraph | Switch friendcode: SW-0145-8835-0610 Congratulations! She/TheyWell, that was several pages to scroll through.
Let's see...
-Did anyone else notice that Hickenlooper's response to Trump's camps was to just propose "nicer" versions of those same camps? Because he's officially now vying with Biden and Gabbard for my least favorite candidate.
-Gillibrand seems to be becoming Sanders-lite, just swap "Corruption" for "the 1%". Also said that institutional racism couldn't be solved until after her pet issue. That's going to be a Yikes from me.
-And on a day that an 11th Black Trans woman has been murdered, the entire LGBTQ community was discussed TWICE. In passing. Entirely for self-aggrandizement. Disgusted, but not surprised.
-Ironically, Sanders seemed to elaborate the most on foreign policy this time.
-Harris did the best, and I am hesitantly going to keep a closer eye on her despite misgivings over her past record on Trans rights.
-I don't even like Sanders, but the fact that they kept giving Michael Bennet plenty of time to crap on him and then not let him defend himself was ridiculous. Some of that time could have been used asking Andrew Yang questions, too. He was barely fielded any.
Edited by AzurePaladin on Jun 27th 2019 at 12:10:00 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. -Fighteer![]()
![]()
Round three, which has a bit stricter requirements, will be on September 12. As of tonight, I believe it is only the top 6-8 who qualify, but that could grow
Edited by TheAirman on Jun 27th 2019 at 11:24:58 AM
PSN ID: FateSeraph | Switch friendcode: SW-0145-8835-0610 Congratulations! She/TheyOkay. So yeah.
- The Winners:
- Harris was a standout. She had her "food fight" sound bite locked and loaded, and used it at the perfect time. She shredded Biden, managed to play "adult in the room" and still get her points across. Most amazingly, institutional racism in terms of police and courts came up and her record on criminal justice, easily the worst spots on her record, didn't come up.
- Buttegieg: Composed, good answers, and he was given some tough ones. He also handled the police shooting question shockingly well.
- Yang: Now, this is largely because he couldn't go down and was basically a joke candidate to begin with (and as a result went completely unchallenged), but he honestly did very well every time it went to him. He followed the rules, got his message out, the message was a lot less crazy than most people assume it is, and came out looking better than he went in. I don't think it means much, but it's a thing.
- The Losers:
- Biden. Despite managing to be milquetoast and almost timid and yet getting into the most fights, none of which he came out looking better than he went in. Of course, he does have the opposite problem with Yang, he has nowhere to go but down. But he genuinely did poorly.
- Bernie: He hit his same old points, and they came across as super repetitive and dry in this crowd.
- Gillebrand: She had her talking points and wanted to get to them, no matter if it was relevant to the question at hand. And they weren't even great talking points.
- Swalwell: So, here's the thing... I think he succeeded because I genuinely believe his sole purpose out there was getting "pass the torch" into the national dialogue. Which he did, I suppose. But he did nothing to help himself. He's made his point, I expect him to drop out.
- Williamson: Honestly, she started off fairly strong, and kudos for bringing up "hey, what about resolving reasons for a migrant crisis rather than the symptom?" But between "having plans are bad" and "love!" she managed to make it abundantly clear that she had no idea about anything.
- Bennett and Hinckenlooper: I had to look up these guys, and I'm bunching them because both being "the moderate white guy with dark hair from Colorado" wasn't doing either of them any favors in terms of actually getting their message out.
Edited by Larkmarn on Jun 28th 2019 at 9:22:14 AM
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.Supreme Court takes up Trump bid to end 'Dreamers' immigration program
The nine justices took up the Trump administration’s appeals of three lower court rulings that blocked his 2017 move to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program implemented in 2012 by his Democratic predecessor Barack Obama. The program currently protects about 700,000 immigrants often called “Dreamers,” mostly Hispanic young adults, from deportation and provides them work permits, though not a path to citizenship.
The program has remained in effect despite Trump’s efforts to rescind it, part of his hard-line immigration policies that have become a prominent feature of his presidency and his 2020 re-election campaign. Trump has backed limits on legal and illegal immigration and has sought construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border since taking office in January 2017.
The legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the administration properly followed a federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act in Trump’s plan to end DACA.
So the Washington Post apparently dug up an old interview (1975) that Biden gave with a Delaware newspaper regarding an anti-busing amendment he was proposing, in which he said the following - Time link for ease of use
:
“We’ve lost our bearings since the 1954 Brown vs. School Board desegregation case,” he said. “To ‘desegregate’ is different than to ‘integrate.'” In the interview, Biden called busing plans racist, and said the integration plans “are really just quota systems.” He added: “I do not buy the concept, popular in the ’60s, which said, ‘We have suppressed the black man for 300 years and the white man is now far ahead in the race for everything our society offers. In order to even the score, we must now give the black man a head start, or even hold the white man back, to even the race.'”
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"I couldn't watch the debates because it's finals week for me, but I just saw this clip
, and I got to say it was beautiful.
If Biden has a modicum of human decency inside him, he'd drop out of the race in apology.
Also, did I get this right, a fricking anti-vaxxer and self-help guru is one of the primary candidates? Well, these debates will be a goldmine for memes for sure
.
Not much I can add that others haven't already, so when's the next debate due?
Thank you
Edited by HailMuffins on Jun 28th 2019 at 11:45:05 AM
Winners:
Harris for the memorable moment. She'll be getting her long awaited bump from this. Buttigieg for clarity and poise of answers. I expect distressed Beto supporters (who aren't stans that is) to flock to him as the real deal. Williamson: Kooky as all hell, but memorable enough that they will give her more time next month which, for a joke candidate, is a win. (by the way, can someone provide me with the details about her anti-vaxxing? Didn't see mention of it on her wikipedia page) Bennet: Rather unexciting, but he also was the only one other than Harris to actually get a lick in on Biden. But also made good points on the problems of overpromising. Yang: For the same reason as Williamson, also because he followed the rules and didn't seem kooky like her.
Losers:
Biden: Not even really for the Harris attack, though his lack of good response to it certainly is part of my scoring, but also for just seeming generally tired and old. His chance was in 2016 and personal tragedy ensured he didn't take it but jeez. That being said, first debates and front runners are always rough so I wouldn't count him out just yet. Gillibrand: She was very shrill. Also as one of six female candidates, trying to be THE woman candidate seems....out of sync? And also the two together just makes for an unfortunate trope. She needs to move beyond gender issues at some point. Bernie: Rehash of 2016, still curmudgeonly angry and really just wants to overthrow the government. Meh all around, generally in the background when he wasn't given time to just rant rather than give policy. I think this should prove to those on the fence between him and Warren that Warren at least, y'know, has a plan. Swallwell: He has a very punchable face. He got his spitballs in, now drop out please. Hickenlooper: Didn't actually do bad, but between the two Coloradoans, Bennet did better. Also spent too much time tutting rather than going into other policies.
Since the second debate next month has all the same rules, just about everyone already on stage will be back (unless they run out of money) so I don't actually expect anyone to drop out just yet.

Yeah, here's my key question from tonight:
Why the hell is Marianne Williamson here?