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
You know what just struck me about the Greenland thing? Trump clearly doesn't know jack shit about Greenland.
Remember that Scandinavia , with Norway in particular, is his go- to "model immigrant" example (because white people).
Greenland which is politically connected to Scandinavia? Predominantly Inuit.
In other words, Trump wants to add a state that's predominantly inhabited by natives who'd hate his and his party's guts.
Talk about stupid.
Edited by DrunkenNordmann on Aug 15th 2019 at 8:20:13 PM
We learn from history that we do not learn from historyI remember seeing the dumpster fire that was 45's obsession with Rosie O'Donnel unfold on The Soup. The whole thing was just weird.
Do not obey in advance.To clarify my comment: No, I was NOT arguing for invading Saudi Arabia, I was just pointing out the hypocritical behaviour, especially given the current situation with Iran.
What I would be totally in favor however, is breaking off all diplomatic ties with them.
America has been protecting them for long enough.
Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% Scandinavianre: Greenland, briefly touching on it from the perspective of the current colonial overlords, this isn't the first time the US has tried this. Just after World War 2, they tried to buy Greenland for 100 million dollars (1.18 trillion dollars in today's purchasing power, enough to run the entire modern Danish state for six years) and the Danes refused.
At that time, the US wanted the territory for Arctic airbases and radar installations to deliver large amounts of instant sunshine to Moscow in case some dickhead pressed the nuclear button. The Danes refused to sell, but the Americans got their bases.
These days, Greenland still has that strategic value, but on top of that, surveyors have determined that there's most likely oil deposits in the area. So far, the Danish government have refused to let anyone actually extract the oil, but with the Republicans in charge, that obviously changes.
Leaving aside the legal argument of whether or not the Prime Minister or Parliament can legally sell members of the Commonwealth (I'd have to consult a lawyer friend of mine who's currently at work), I don't think the incumbent government would entertain the notion very long.
The Liberals would, because they're the biggest America sycophants you'll find outside of a Republican Party convention, but they're not currently in power.
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.Edited by tclittle on Aug 16th 2019 at 5:58:06 AM
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."EDIT: On another topic, I honestly don't know how one can confuse Rosie and Roseanne. Yeah their names are similar but they look, sound, and act totally different from each other, and have polar opposite political views. And Trump's had a beef with Rosie for a long time, even name-dropping her in the first debate.
Edited by speedyboris on Aug 16th 2019 at 6:58:40 AM
Hey, Dems -- If You Tank Biden, Who Else Wins the Middle?
...
Polling has consistently shown voters far prefer someone who can win rather than someone who represents their values. This has sustained Biden’s lead through months of attacks on his past opposition to busing, and support for the Hyde Amendment banning federal funding for abortion, the Iraq War, credit card companies and more. Biden is a known quantity, well liked, experienced as Barack Obama’s vice president and appeals to the middle of the electorate, particularly those in the Rust Belt, which gave Donald Trump the presidency by only 77,744 votes.
...
A Biden fall clearly leaves the party far out on the left, without a strong contender for the center.
...
And yet dozens of moderate Democrats who gave the party the House majority last year, as well as plenty of Senate candidates, will be running against radical change and an Elizabeth Warren agenda.
...
Polling, for those Democrats who care to check, shows the country stands strongly against many of the far-out plans Democrats have told us about in the previous two debates. Decriminalizing border crossings, eliminating private insurance, reparations and providing health care coverage for illegal immigrants. Those are no-way issues.
Pile atop all that the many other liabilities the primary has exposed for Democrats. They’re nearly all for tariffs, save for Beto O’Rourke and Biden, yet can’t tell voters how they would restructure trade minus the war. They never approach the all-important subject of China, and offer little reassurance, again save for Biden, that they seek to return the nation to a post-America First leadership role in the world.
In short, without Biden, many of the remaining candidates hold unpopular political stances that could hurt them in the general. How are they planning to cover that weakness? My suggestion would be to get Stacy Abrams as the VP pick, but I'm curious what you think.
Edited by Soban on Aug 16th 2019 at 10:04:29 AM
I disagree, the thrust of the article is that if Biden is not a nominee, then all of the remaining viable nominees are much farther to the left and have some unpopular things that they appear to be running on. That's a weakness that needs to be addressed. Democrat primary voters is not the same demographic as general election voters.
No, "Biden can't stop saying things like 'poor kids and white kids' every time he's in front of a camera" is a weakness that needs to be addressed.
That none of the candidates are perfect pristine unicorns is just reality.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Aug 16th 2019 at 9:01:45 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.I'm no fan of Biden, and if I had my choice I would definitely take Warren or Sanders, but I do agree with the general thrust that we need a moderate to win the election. I was hoping maybe Kamala Harris would be able to unseat Biden and to become a president who has a progressive outlook but does so in ways that aren't anxiety inducing to the regular voter, but she's kinda lost momentum now.
I don't want Biden, a repeat of the latter years of the Obama administration is not what we need right now, but if we lose the next election than America is doomed.
We need Democrats to be looking at November 3rd 2020 with enthusiasm and excitement for the future, not dismal resignation. We need a candidate that Democrats will want to take time out of their busy day and go vote for. Otherwise, they won't vote.
That's how Democrats work. They need to be inspired or they won't turn out. We need to operate within that framework if we want to beat Trump; we can't just cross our fingers and hope voters will spontaneously get their thumbs out of their asses. So we need a candidate who is inspirational.
Do you think Joe Biden is that candidate?
Edited by TobiasDrake on Aug 16th 2019 at 9:31:51 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.![]()
![]()
People do take VPs into account when voting for President though, and Presidential candidates take that into account when choosing them. They usually choose someone who will balance them out and make up for any perceived shortcomings they might have. Trump, with his (let's generously say) "chequered past", chose Pence because Pence has cred with the religious right. Obama chose Biden because Biden was an older more experienced hand with foreign relations experience. John McCain chose Palin because he was the exact opposite of him in many ways.
If Warren or Sanders got in, some moderates may be mollified by a more moderate VP.
(I mean, I think that would be Sanders if anyone, but that's just me.)
Edited by GoldenKaos on Aug 16th 2019 at 4:39:38 PM
"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."> but if we lose the next election than America is doomed.
America has survived far worse things then the Trump administration,see the civil war for what I mean.I mean yeah,Trump winning would suck majorly,however,it would not be unexpected,Presidents normally win their first term im office,but there are exceptions as noted before,it can happen.Personally I think if Trump does win it won't be a landslide victory,he'll win just barly and the democrats will have made important gains somewhere like virtually controlling both houses,they could even proceed to impeachment proceedings to make Trump's bad day worse
All in all,victory is never certain but neither is defeat,you gotta be prepared to accept either,along with good and bad conditions that come with them
have a listen and have a link to my discord server

Probably. I mean it's possible Rosie O'Donnell has done some of those things too, but IIRC she's a lesbian who has voiced support for progressive causes in the past.