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 doubt a second run by Perry would be any more successful. Even before his weird... thing on stage he wasn't doing all that great. Paul Ryan still has the stigma of a failed VP campaign, so he's going to have to do something to repair that in the coming years if he wants to make another run.
I still think it's a little early to be talking about presidential candidates though. So much is going to change in the next two and four years on the political field, and any one of the people mentioned might decide not to run for various reasons.
By Jove, Oh, My Gods!!
@Sila:I'd predict either Santorum-Palin of Santorum-Huckabee as more like to happen than Santorum-Bachmann for some reason.
Blue-and-Orange Morality! It's my new favorite trope! Also, it's my signature trope! It's also going to be my Catchphrase!Lascoden: Probably but I think the Religious Right would overrule the moderate defection if his candidate is Biden. Unless Obama really gets his act together he'd still have the stigma of being president of an unpopular guy on him. He is also prone to gaffes that could be easily used against him.
Palin/Bachmann dammit! It's the perfect plan. When you divide a negative by a negative you get a positive!
A new memo has been released regarding the drone program. It states that the Obama administration believes that high-level administration officials — not just the president — may order the killing of “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or an associated force even without evidence they are actively plotting against the U.S.
Like he said, "I go skeet shooting all the time". Nobel Peace Prize my ass.
edited 5th Feb '13 5:21:59 AM by Sledgesaul
"High-level administration officials" is vague. How far does "high-level" extend?
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.I expect the Secretary of Defense to be on the list as well, and maybe the Secretary of State. Which US Secretary(s) handles the domestic law enforcement agencies again?
edited 5th Feb '13 5:38:06 AM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.Uh, Homeland Security is headed by this office
, actually, not John Brennan.
edited 5th Feb '13 5:52:27 AM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus....isn't this part of the problem with US Politics? That they have to be in "campaign" mode all the time and are not allowed to do the sorts of negotiations that they used to do?
In other words, WHY THE F*** ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE NEXT ELECTION WHEN THE PREVIOUS ONE JUST ENDED?! It's not like there is plenty of other stuff to talk about. "Obamacare", the fiscal cliff, what we should/shouldn't be doing with our military, etc. (gun control gets a pass because we have been talking about it a LOT lately)
...sorry, one of my little pet peeves.
edited 5th Feb '13 6:03:13 AM by Belian
Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!It used to be that elected officials would campaign for a few months and then spend most of their time wherever their office is. They were trusted to do their job and would do what they felt was necessary to get the best results ("best" being whatever their own definition of the word was) and help the people who elected them. That is the whole point of a Representative Democracy, right?
Just by talking about the next campaign, it means that these people are already under the microscope and can't just do the jobs they were elected for.
It is this exact environment that is forcing the Tea Party canidates to keep up their original stances on various subjects even if some would say "Ok, I'll compromise because not doing so will hurt my voters."
edited 5th Feb '13 6:33:26 AM by Belian
Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!
By Jove, Oh, My Gods!!
@Belian Actually, best as defined as the voters definiton of best. Also, their duty is to represent the political will of the people who voted for them. They are delegates sent to Washington DC because we don't have a direct democracy. So, when a person votes someone, it assumes that the person is supposed to vote they way their voters would vote in a direct democracy. Also, different ideologies define people's interests differently, so Tea Partiers are actually supporting the interest of their voters by not comprimisng.
Blue-and-Orange Morality! It's my new favorite trope! Also, it's my signature trope! It's also going to be my Catchphrase!Nope. It's their duty to represent the will of their constituents, not just the ones who voted for them but all of them, the same way that the president is meant to look out for all US citizens, not just the ones who voted for him.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
By Jove, Oh, My Gods!!
@Silaws:Under majority rule, it's the same dif!
Blue-and-Orange Morality! It's my new favorite trope! Also, it's my signature trope! It's also going to be my Catchphrase!No it's not. If nothing else there is the simple fact that not everyone who votes with a person agrees with them on all their stances. In sure there are plenty of people who vote republican but don't agree with everything the party says. Hell you don't even have majority rule, you don't need a majority to get elected in the US (or the UK) you need a plurality but not a majority.
Just because you got more votes than the other guys doesn’t mean everyone agrees with you on that stance, it doesn’t even mean everyone who voted for you agrees with you on that stance.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran@Kostya: Obama isn't as unpopular as he looked in 2012, when the entire right-wing media establishment of the country was engineering the most expensive propaganda offensive in history to sink him. Quite simply, that backfired horrendously, and Obama's approval ratings are around 60% now that the storm is receding (and now that he's at least making a token effort to fight back against the Republicans and seizing the moment to get stuff done).
One does indeed have to wonder if Fox News has overplayed its hand with the center-right and/or center-left. They live in such a bubble that it's hard to be sure.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

What if Paul Ryan or Rick Perry decide to run?
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.