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
![]()
Hmmm, Googling I can only find one recent op-ed along those lines, criticizing Warren's trade plan.
Elizabeth Warren's trade plan is bad politics and worse policy
You'd have to go back further for other articles criticizing some of Warren's plans, like more op-eds pointing out the issues with her wealth tax thing.
Edited by M84 on Aug 1st 2019 at 2:06:52 AM
Disgusted, but not surprisedI think for some people they recognise that Obama couldn’t get stuff done due to republicans blocking him, but feel that he should have responded to their obstruction with Then Let Me Be Good rather than more offers of compromise. Republicans would never meet him in the middle, so why did he keep trying to meet them in the middle?
The threat of Russia is probably a key example of this, when faced with a hostile government meddling in US elections with domestic support Obama chose to compromise with Republicans and didn’t warn the public or take any serious action against Russia.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranAlso, Obama ran and won on being a unifier and encouraging bipartisanship.
So ironically for all the accusations of him breaking campaign promises his repeated attempts to meet the Republicans halfway through merely behaving as he promised to behave. And it's likely that he sincerely believed in it.
That's obviously a horrid attitude to have now but without hindsight bias, I understand why he had it.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangI’d argue that while the attitude made sense in 2008 and even a bit later it was obviously insane by 2016, when Obama was still compromising, as seen by how he reacted to Turtle taking Russia’s side over election interference.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThat wasn't a compromise, it was Obama deciding against revealing the interference because he knew that it would just shake America's trust in democracy and result in Republicans muddying the waters.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jul 31st 2019 at 11:25:30 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangIt was still a mistake, though.
At a time when the Russians are trying to suborn our elections, shaking Americans' trust in democracy is a good thing. The people needed to know, walking into the poll booths, that the Republican candidate for POTUS was a Russian stooge.
When an election is being interfered with, the only people who stand to gain from keeping public confidence in the election high are the people interfering with it.
Obama, like the rest of the United States including the Right, believed that Trump didn't actually have a snowball's chance in Hell of winning the election. So he opted to avoid what seemed like an unnecessary controversy. And that came back to bite him and us.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Jul 31st 2019 at 12:48:07 PM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Edited by sgamer82 on Jul 31st 2019 at 12:57:18 PM
Sorry, ~Septimus Heap I edited my post to remove the specific attack.
Edited by sgamer82 on Jul 31st 2019 at 1:01:09 PM
Maybe, but that doesn't make it any more of a compromise.
When an election is being interfered with, the only people who stand to gain from keeping public confidence in the election high are the people interfering with it.
Obama, like the rest of the United States including the Right, believed that Trump didn't actually have a snowball's chance in Hell of winning the election. So he opted to avoid what seemed like an unnecessary controversy. And that came back to bite him and us.
No, this is entirely false.
The Russians wanted to cause chaos and have us lose faith in our democracy, it's simply false to suggest that there is no reason to keep it a secret. Obviously, stating it publicly and warning people would be good but without the Republicans, it would just muddy the waters and do the Russian's work for them.
There would be no benefit to revealing it and would just look like a deliberate attempt to interfere, thus validating Trump's narrative of the election being rigged against him.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangThere would be no benefit to revealing it and would just look like a deliberate attempt to interfere, thus validating Trump's narrative of the election being rigged against him.
And I'm sure we'd wind up having to investigate those claims.
I'd rather need to have an investigation into whether Russia rigged Trump's candidacy during a Clinton administration than a Trump one. It's better for people to be nervous about the legitimacy of a fair election than to be totally confident in an unfair one.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Jul 31st 2019 at 1:18:57 PM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.The Roots has a great article on the debate, Democratic Debates, Day 1: Elizabeth Warren Came to Detroit and Caught a Body
Beyond being absolutely right it's rather hilarious
>I'll bite: What does the dark psychic forces anti-vaxxer offer that makes her a better alternative to put against Trump than literally anybody else currently running to do that themselves?
I don't think she is more qualified then anybody else. In fact, she's significantly less. As others have noted, she'd be a disaster in almost every way. Which is why my statement is a qualified one not an absolute. If she had good policy. If she wasn't a crazy antivaxer. However, she doesn't have good policy (I don't think she has any) and she is crazy.
The thing that makes her stand out is what might be described as her 'spiritual' appeal. In terms of strategy (but not objective) it's very similar to Trump's Spiritual appeal. Also similar to 2008 Obama.
Yes, it's a type of emotional appeal, but it is one that has worked both for good and ill in our recent history.
It's not just "why can't we all get along". There are other canidates for that. It's about talking to the heart of America and not just it's mind whereas everyone else seems to just be appealing to the mind.
It's about being able to say something completely without content and slip through my defenses and make me want to hear more of what she has to say.
If she was as well known as Trump was or Biden is, there is little doubt in my mind she would be leading the field.
TLDR; her strategy is the one that both Obama and Trump used successfully and one that I think could work against Trump. This election could be won on the sucess of the spiritual/emotional appeal rather then on policy.

Well, they do.
Structurally speaking most of the institutions in the US favor right-wing policies and voters, and even beyond that, most people are going to have something of a conservative bias even if they aren't right-wingers per se, because the right represents the status quo. Progressive ideas are a lot scarier to them because they represent something completely different.
Consider the fact that the last two times democrats managed to get into office, it took a lot of factors coming together. An exceptionally charismatic candidate that managed to rally the whole party behind them, a terrible economy, etc.
Basically it says quite a bit that the GOP can field out mediocre or downright disastrous candidates like George W. Bush and Trump and still win while democrats have to field out Bill Clintons* and Obamas at the right time to even have a chance.
(I'm only talking about Clinton in terms of his personal charisma and affability, which was one of the main reasons behind him being a strong candidate at the time.)
Edited by Draghinazzo on Jul 31st 2019 at 2:03:30 PM