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
Also like I said in the initial post, giving them the benefit of the doubt for the moment, (which not all of them deserve) since people who are more likely to say they aren't interested in politics at all go to Sanders in high numbers, I'm guessing that quite a few are simply going to the name they know best once you disregard Bernie. I'm sure that for people who aren't politically engaged, the number of Democratic candidates has the same effect if you give someone way too many choices about a subject that doesn't matter too much: the eyes go blank, the brain shuts down, and they pick something just because thy know it or it sounds right/cool just to get it over with.
For example, put someone who isn't a metalhead and make them choose between the dozens of subdivisions of metal, many of which don't have very indicative names, (grindcore, symphonic power metal, death metal, nu metal, industrial, sludge, viking metal, etc.) most aren't going to spend a lot of time researching the different subgenres, they're going to either just pick something randomly where the name grabs them or that sounds familiar and like something they'd like.
And never forget, people who vote according to any kind of consistent ideology are a small minority
. The vast majority of people, even a lot of consistent voters don't vote according to political ideas. They vote by party, they vote by what their friends, neighbors, and communities are doing, they vote according to how they identify with candidates, who has the best story to tell, etc. Shit there's a very small but not small enough to be discounted percentage that votes purely according to who they think is going to win, and then root for them like a sports team, and if that person does win it produces a similar high to a sports team winning a championship.
Nor is everyone who has a theory of how to vote consistent in ideas or patterns. Just speaking anecdotally, I've met people who might be committed Republicans but will automatically vote against an incumbent in the primary, even an incumbent they like and helped put in, just because they're an incumbent. Or one guy I met who switches what party he votes for every election cycle because his philosophy boils down to "fuck 'em, disrupt the powers that be".
Reason and a vision of politics and how the country should be run are way down the list for most people. As in, at least prior to Trump's election, around 20% of overall voters. So you gotta appeal to other things if you want your candidate to stick.
Edited by TheWanderer on Jul 22nd 2019 at 10:34:44 AM
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |![]()
Well, there are only so many models of universal healthcare that we could go with. Sanders has been an accelerationist in that debate, pushing for an immediate transition to fully public insurance from the beginning. The flip side of that is a gradualist approach wherein we offer a public option and/or Medicaid buy-in, which expands over time until eventually everyone is covered.
There's not much else to choose from besides those positions, so if someone is going to advocate universal healthcare at all (a core Democratic promise), they have to adopt one or the other approach. Inevitably, if they take the "do it now" option, they'll get accused of aping Sanders.
I've been a policy voter for the last decade or so. I'm not attached to candidates per se but to whether their policy positions make sense and fit with what I know/believe about economics and other issues. I want the candidate to understand what they are proposing and be able to argue it reasonably and with supporting evidence. I want someone who knows the why and how as well as the what.
Edited by Fighteer on Jul 22nd 2019 at 10:43:31 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I have two questions
1. Who are you guys supporting Warren or Yang for President why and why not?
2. Will the concentration camps only be limited to migrants and naturalized citizens or do you think that I.C.E will eventually go after the homeless and black folks?
Place your past in a book burn the pages let them cook.> 2. Will the concentration camps only be limited to migrants and naturalized citizens or do you think that I.C.E will eventually go after the homeless and black folks?
I can confidently they won't go that far unless Trump eliminates all opposition and I.C.E is suddenly granted a ton of new sweeping powers
So its unlikely except in worst possible case
have a listen and have a link to my discord server- I support Warren because of her detailed, nuanced policy positions, her long track record of arguing for pro-consumer economics, and her willingness to engage in thoughtful debate about her policies. I have little to say for Yang, who seems like a dilettante.
- If things keep up, the situation in the detention camps could get a lot worse before it gets better, as Trump and his cronies seek to escalate their abuses to appeal to their base and stir up more and more hatred. If a Democrat wins the election, the camps will be torn down as soon as possible once they take office, but it's painful to think of what could happen between now and then.
Edited to add: The concern about round-ups of naturalized citizens is something that worries me personally because my son is adopted from Guatemala. Granted, I don't expect ICE to be raiding eastern Pennsylvania, but he is aware of what's going on and occasionally asks about it.
Edited by Fighteer on Jul 22nd 2019 at 11:07:43 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Part of the nightmare of the camps is that the authorities have been (intentionally, as far as I can tell) "losing" information about the parents of the seized children, such that reuniting them could be as much of a disaster as putting them there in the first place. I wouldn't even put it past ICE personnel to destroy records.
The next administration will have its hands full not only shutting the camps down but finding the parents of all of those children. It could last years.
I'm not joining the reflexive "abolish ICE" calls that a lot of people have made, but I can certainly understand the motivation for them.
Edited by Fighteer on Jul 22nd 2019 at 11:42:42 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"If I ran a news station, every single family reunion would get reported on with a headline along the lines of “Another Family Restored After Being Cruelly Torn Apart By Trump and the Republican Party”.note
I probably wouldn’t make a very successful journalist.
My musician pageYou'd absolutely want to publicize the hell out of the reunions, yes, with tearful stories of the horrors the detainees faced. Make it clear how much of a human tragedy the camps were.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"For some reason I just have a bad feeling that homeless are going to be targeted and rounded up by I.C.E pretty soon down the road.
Then again I could be absolutely wrong I just feel that my spidey-sense is tingling is all.
Edited by warrior93 on Jul 22nd 2019 at 12:42:32 PM
Place your past in a book burn the pages let them cook.Why would ICE care about homeless people? No, that's generally the job of local police. Also, we don't look kindly towards doomsaying in this topic.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I disagree about Kamala Harris being charismatic. I think she's a black hole of charisma. Every time I see her, she's stiff. I see it as a major problem for her going forward, on top of her being female and having a fishy record, if we're being frank.
Edited by BearyScary on Jul 22nd 2019 at 9:07:06 AM
Do not obey in advance.The reason why I brought up the homeless maybe being targeted by I.C.E is that there was an interview with Trump where he suggested to place the homeless in these camps.
To keep the streets cleans and the cops safe so that they won't have to deal with the homeless vermin. I don't know if it was just talk but it seems very worrisome.
Here's some links
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/01/donald-trump-
Edited by warrior93 on Jul 22nd 2019 at 1:06:59 PM
Place your past in a book burn the pages let them cook.
There is no federal agency or law that Trump can use to do something like that to the homeless in general.
That sort of thing is, like others have said, the pervue of local law enforcement.
That being said, I would not be at all surprised if homeless shelters become a new target for ICE in there ever expanding net. Whether there are any immigrants there or not.
Not to mention I vaguely remember hearing that ICE or other federal law enforcement has started participating in “welfare check ups”, so the leap to targeting the homeless as possible illegal immigrants isn’t too far I think.
Edited by Mio on Jul 22nd 2019 at 1:15:34 PM
I absolutely refuse to accept that being a woman is a downside, that's the kind of nonsense that is only true if people believe it.
I also don't really see how she's stiff and uncharismatic not when she did so well at the debates against Biden. Considering that clear evidence to the contrary I'll just slot that under "gendered criticism due to subconscious sexism".
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jul 22nd 2019 at 11:07:13 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang

I think the problem with health care in the primary is that there is a perception that most candidates aren't coming up with their own plan, so that Sanders's own M4A is the only big game in town.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman