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
I have to wonder what ABC was thinking with that. Are their ad people really so dense?
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I assume the GOP paid for an ad so ABC ran it, and no further thought was given on the matter.
Conservatives have been buying adspace on opposition media for a couple years now. I constantly see pro-Trump ads on YouTube when, and only when, I'm watching liberal talk shows like the Daily Show, Late Show, or Some More News (Cody's Showdy). It's also pretty much a guarantee that if you make a pro-LGBT video of any sort, someone's going to buy a "GAYS ARE SATAN" ad and run it in front of your video. People have just had to get used to this.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Sep 13th 2019 at 8:06:00 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.My feeling is that Biden's the big winner of the debate.
Not because he did well, but because he's done so poorly in the previous ones and is so far ahead that "somewhat passable" is enough to really count as a win. He's in a position where he just needs to not fuck up and he managed to do that.
Throw in the fact that no one else totally stole the show means I'd say the debate was a net win for him more than anyone else.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.If you don't want content creators to get paid for their work, sure. Not a big deal for the big media enterprises like the Late Show, but I'm not about to take money away from an indie You Tube producer.
If the Church of Dickheads wants to pay MMMMACK to make me watch five seconds of homophobic nonsense before clicking Skip Ad, I can tolerate that to put the money in his pocket.
Ah. Yeah, that does explain a lot right there. Sinclair is trying to make all local news outlets across the country into Fox News, regardless of their channel.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Sep 13th 2019 at 8:35:03 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Nobody was really bad this time around. Harris tried too hard for snappy zingers on a few occasions, Sanders was raspy, but that's about it.
Except for that moment Castro attacked Biden on his memory. I feel like that's not going to play over well with the average voter. But he's already only at 1%, so it's not like he had anything to lose by trying.
Which still made him stand out more than the rest of the 1-3%ers. They didn't to bad, but none of them really stood out either. I don't see this debate helping any of them in the polls.
Edited by Parable on Sep 13th 2019 at 7:40:42 AM
I do think that Sanders’ content was strong, even if he sounded raspy. Honestly, I’m perfectly fine with him as my second choice.
Oh God! Natural light!I might be missing something, but i keep wondering, from watching all this...
Why can't the democrats just play nice and fair towards one another?
Get up on the debate floor, present your idea and proposals, without attacking anyone else on the stage, and then let the public decide if your idea is convincing and logical enough to follow and support the one proposing it.
Since (and this is personal belief) "if you have to attack anyone else just to make your own stance "stronger", then you must be weaker than the one you're attacking already." The more one attacks, the weaker they come off and the less convincing they become.
So why can't the democrats just play it fair among one another and have the "best candidate" win through the support of the people for their ideas, and not their "kick"(since the symbolic animal for the party is a donkey) against other people?
Am I wrong to believe this to be a better approach to this than what I saw last night?
![]()
![]()
Because even though they all agree on disagreeing the most with the Republicans, they still disagree with each other and think their plans/views are best, and see it as best for America (or just their own career) to get as far as they can towards the goal, and yes, the ends do justify the means if those "means" are petty shit-flinging.
Ah, that's a calculation they have to make and a risk they have to take. It could backfire on them, it could be a zinger that sinks someone else.
Edited by GoldenKaos on Sep 13th 2019 at 4:30:02 PM
"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."Attacking other people doesn’t cost you anything in politics. Well, unless you make yourself look bad in the process, but that’s true of everything.
Coming after your opponents is standard practice, you’re trying to prove you’re the better choice.
Edited by archonspeaks on Sep 13th 2019 at 8:31:51 AM
They should have sent a poet.And, let's be honest, every one of us here knows that the bickering proves nothing, but the general public cares way too much about it. If trying to be the voice of reason won primaries, someone would already be doing it.
My musician pageYou're not wrong, exactly, but a principled refusal to go negative is not usually a winning strategy, especially when there are serious reasons not to go for candidate X or Y.
That said, there's rarely the degree of mudslinging in a primary that you see in a general, especially among the Democrats. Attack other candidates' arguments and attack them on points of disagreement, yes, but everyone knows that the Democratic base has no interest in nonscandals regarding email servers. (Plus, the Democrats are unable to, and unwilling to even if they could, put out the kind of solid wall of noise that's necessary to properly manufacture a scandal like that.)
![]()
Sure, all of them have tried. Everyone wants to be the voice of reason, but at some point you also have to go after your opponents or else they’ll screw you over and make you look bad.
I mean, can you imagine trying to win a debate where you weren’t allowed to say anything about any of your opponent’s positions?
Edited by archonspeaks on Sep 13th 2019 at 8:36:55 AM
They should have sent a poet.

You can count me in the sceptical camp for removing the filibuster - but that's not to say that it is sacrosanct. From a UK perspective I'm always a fan of the Salisbury convention - which is to say that the House of Lords should not oppose anything that was part of the manifesto that the Government of the day was elected on.
So, adapting that for US politics would be to say that the Senate cannot filibuster any bill that originates from the House of Representatives that goes towards fulfilling a portion of the party platform that the current House Majority was elected on.
This hopefully gets around the problem of the filibuster being used to block a progressive agenda whilst retaining the filibuster should it be needed. It means that if the Republicans do want to push through something abhorrent that we'd want the filibuster to block - well they have to go public first giving ample opportunity to warn the voters who would get a say.
The obvious downside is that this elevates the party platform from a meaningless wish-list to a quasi-constitutional document with very serious legal consequences - and so would almost certainly end up in front of a court to determine if a filibuster could or could not be used in each circumstance.