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
Not where I was from. The main problem was that they were
A: A "freaky" strange religion, but one they were acutely allowed to mock as opposed to the "freaky" religions practiced by foreigners.
B: Mitt Romney was a Mormon, therefore it was their duty as Obama supporters to attack Mormons.
Mind you their were no actual Mormons at my school, so nobody to get really offended by this shit. But the stuff they said and did would probably be considered at best grounds for dragging everyone into the auditorium and lecturing them about diversity if it happened to most other groups. One kid in my sister's class wrote on the black board about how all Mormons must die.
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.The Trump thing isn't funny anymore
, so can we stop with the jokes and come back to reality now?
If these policies were enacted, what would prevent American citizens from destroying the documentation of legal Hispanic immigrants, and forcefully deporting them or using the threat of deportation as leverage for rampant abuse? Arizona already has the “show me your papers” provision of SB 1070 that essentially treats Hispanics as illegal until proven innocent.
<snip>
Essentially, even though 150 years may have passed, too many Americans are still advocating for oppressive, segregationist, and pre-Civil War policies. But this time these Americans may have decided to direct most of their hatred towards a different shade of people.
When you examine Trump’s unilateral and authoritarian foreign policy positions more red flags are raised. Invading a country to take its oil is something America has already attempted with dire consequences. Does he honestly think that he can force Mexico to pay for the construction of a wall along our border?
<snip>
In another time and another place we would probably view Trump’s rise to prominence along a fascist trajectory similarly to the European movements of the early 20th century and discuss his every move as a cautionary tale, but as of yet we have not. But we should pay attention when the Daily Stormer, a conservative, Neo-Nazi and white nationalist publication, endorses Trump for president, as it did Tuesday.
This is alarming. Yet I wonder if this lack of alarm exists because his language is not foreign to American society. We have always proclaimed ourselves to be a meritocratic society where anyone can work his way to the top with hard work, but parallel to this narrative was the reality that persons of color have always had limited opportunities for advancement. Therefore, it has always been commonplace to demean the poor and/or persons of color because they supposedly had “earned” their lower station in life due to an assumed predisposition toward sloth or some other negative activity.
As long as America ignored its oppressive structures then people had an unlimited license to demean and ridicule people who they felt had “earned” less than they. It now became acceptable to fabricate negative narratives to explain an oppressed group’s lower station in life, and Trump is invoking this cultural trait to a dangerous effect.
Trump is rallying his supporters around a narrative of nationalistic pride, collective frustration, and dehumanizing language regarding persons of color and women, and this cannot be a platform American society can embrace again. Our collective fear concerning his candidacy should be about what era of America’s past he wants to return us to in his quest to “Make America Great Again.”
I didn't really know much about Martin O'Malley before yesterday, but he gave a good speech at the DNC convention in Minneapolis yesterday.
I'm liking what I'm seeing.
“The Republicans stand before the nation, malign our president’s record of achievements, denigrate women and immigrant families, double down on trickle-down, and tell their false story, (...) We respond with crickets, tumbleweeds and a cynical move to delay and limit our own party debates.”
“Silence and complacency in the face of hate is not an honorable option for the Democratic Party of the United States of America, (...) We are the Democratic Party, not the undemocratic party. We need debate, we need debate.”
"Will we let the circus run unchallenged on every channel, as we cower in the shadows under a decree of silence in the ranks? (...) Or will we demand equal time to showcase our ideas, our solutions to the nation's problems, and our leadership for the better America we carry in hearts?"
I agree entirely with O'Malley in this regard, for the record.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
![]()
When was it ever funny? Sorry to be all hipster about it, but when this Trump business started a couple of months ago, I couldn't help but roll my eyes at people who thought he would just be a cute little gag that would go away. I remember thinking (and saying aloud a few times), "okay, you wait and see how far this goes before that grin disappears."
edited 29th Aug '15 8:30:07 AM by Aprilla
That's certainly true, but their efforts were a failure, as usual for a midterm. This is because their candidates willfully discarded the means for success out of fear.
NC had the closest Senate election in the country last year because it's the most purple state in terms of political views (no, really, it's the political median nationally). We had the most PAC, Party, and Candidate money flowing in to bombard us with ads out of any race that year. In spite of everything done to make the race salient to voters, a lot of Dems stayed home or simply didn't vote for then-Senator Hagan - more failed to vote for her than would have in a Presidential year, and that was enough to lose the seat.
Why did the Dems fail to turn out in sufficient numbers? Because Hagan retreated from practically everything the base was in favor of, out of fear of losing Republican crossover voters and Independents (protip: there are no actual Independents anymore, disregarding what their registrations say). She ran and ran and ran to the safe comfort of the center, but she still lost, because the way to win now is not to try for the other party's voters - it's to get your own base out and hope enough of the opponent's base stays home. This is borne out by studies of political attitudes and voting behavior more recent than a couple decades ago, when the paradigm was different.
Anyway, the point is that Hagan didn't stand for anything at all, so she lost even with all the protest votes against her extremely unpopular opponent, and the base's uneasiness with Clinton will, in all likelihood, cost her NC's delegates in the same way.
GM: AGOG S4 & F/WC RP; Co-GM: TABA, SOTR, UUA RP; Sub-GM: TTS RP. I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new Empire.And that was the story of the Democrats in 2014: Terrified of the "middle swing vote", they abandoned Obama's platform.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"This belies what Clinton's been showing. I'm not a believer in the triangulation strategy, but she hasn't been running from anything lately. Her rhetoric's been good and she hasn't been afraid to go on the attack.
I think the Democrats' strategy isn't about trying to stifle dissent, it's about avoiding the kind of clown-show the Republican side has become. Four debates is about all you need (more than what the actual nominees get, no?)
I'm really not sure where all the "democratic party is being undemocratic!" rhetoric is coming from. Just because they don't have a clusterfuck of a dozen plus candidates in the primary doesn't mean that they're squelching minority opinions or something. The two main candidates are Clinton and Sanders, which is a pretty clear choice between the moderate centrist democrats and the left-er, liberal-er side of the party. Of the two, I tend to hear more about Sanders as a whole (specifically, other than the BLM thing, about how he's consistently drawing large crowds), so it's not like he's being shoved aside as a fringe candidate in favor of Clinton's mainstreamness. I mean, someone was complaining that there are only four debates? Really? How many do you actually need? Unless you're dealing with a stupidly huge candidate field like the Republicans, two seems like enough. Three is certainly plenty. What's the benefit of doing more than that?
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.It's a bit too early for that though. Most of the people that really hate the Republican candidates were never going to vote for them anyway and the on the fence voters haven't started paying attention yet.
You got me. Personally I think it's better if there are only 4-6 candidates at the most. Any more and the field gets too cluttered. You also run the risk of them fighting it out so fiercely that they give the eventual opposition candidate free ammo to use against the winner. We're seeing this issue with the Republican side.
edited 29th Aug '15 11:52:58 AM by Kostya
The Republican race is a clown show because they have seventeen candidates tripping over each other, not because they're actually engaging in public debate. Three or four primary debates, and even six total, is a pitifully low number. Neither party has had five or less since three and a half decades ago in 1980. They don't damage candidates, either, unless candidates' positions "evolve" too radically between the primary and general election. The Democrats had 19 primary debates in the 2008 primary, twelve of which were before the first primary votes were cast. That didn't diminish Obama's chances at winning the general. It meant that Hillary lost, sure, but a much better candidate than her emerged with a more enthusiastic pool of support and wider appeal.
More importantly, as I was saying, a lack of debates is indicative of a coronation by the elite of the party, which would be wholly undemocratic. Unlike general election debates, primary debates actually have real potential to change the primary race. Primaries in years without an incumbent President are supposed to be a vigorous method for choosing the best from among your own party's candidates, not a glorified crowning ceremony that transparently pays lip service to democracy while prematurely attacking the other party. Debates and vigorous primaries also happen to help with solidifying the Party's positions and priorities in the minds of the voting public, which is essential to mobilizing voters and therefore to victory in the new electorate.
edited 29th Aug '15 1:46:17 PM by darksidevoid
GM: AGOG S4 & F/WC RP; Co-GM: TABA, SOTR, UUA RP; Sub-GM: TTS RP. I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new Empire.I really don't think debates matter any longer. A lesser-known guy like O'Malley might protest, but aside from a bit of churn (like Carly Fiorina getting out of the also-ran pile from her performance in the rush hour debate), you're not going to see someone explode out of the gate because of resonant oratory or anything like that. It's just an opportunity to create soundbites, opportunity which is easily afforded to even the most neglected candidates in our era of information abundance.
There's a lot i don't like about the DNC, but this is hardly being unfair.
I agree that four debates in a party primary seems like plenty; certainly sufficient to get a clear understanding of each candidate's positions on the issues when there are a small number of candidates.
I don't think there's anything undemocratic going on with the Dem primary; it's just that Hillary is such a dominant candidate that a lot of people are going to feel like it's a waste of effort to run against her. In contrast, the Republican field is wide-open this year, so a lot of people are running.
It's not worth paying any attention to Trump; it's too far from the election for the polls to matter. Look back at 2012. In Nov. 2011, Newt Gingrich was the dominant candidate, polling with as much as 37% support. In January 2012, he was still ahead of Romney. He ended up winning exactly 2 states and a little under 7% of delegates. In mid-February 2012, Rick Santorum was the leading candidate. He ended up winning 6 small states and under 12% of delegates.
Looking further back, at 2008, throughout most of 2007 Rudy Giuliani was consistently the leader in the polls. For a while in September-October, Fred Thompson led in the polls, and Thompson was in second place in polling most of the rest of the time. Giuliani's support collapsed, he left the race in January 2008, and he received no delegates and won no state. Fred Thompson won no states and got 0.5% of delegates.
Until January 2016 at absolute earliest, none of the polls matter. None of the horse-race stuff matters. It's just a media circus. Pay attention to the candidates' positions and statements insofar as it informs your voting in 2016, but ignore the rest of the fluff.
edited 29th Aug '15 2:06:51 PM by Galadriel
In any given race there are probably only 4-6 candidates at the absolute most that have a serious chance. I didn't pay too much attention to the Republican field early on in 2012 but from what I remember Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul were the only candidates that ever had a serious chance. As for the Democrats I still don't see the need for so many candidates. People can run against Hillary if they want to. Most of them just don't want to bother for various reasons. As for the debates I really don't think we need more than four. I find the concept of debates outdated in general though.
edited 29th Aug '15 2:30:40 PM by Kostya
I'm really not sure what size has to do with it. What factors should make a country take longer with its elections just because it's larger?
100 different small countries can all have their elections simultaneously, so why exactly should size make the US take longer? The actual voting process, sure, but that part still only takes a day (plus early voting, obviously).

RE dem hostility to Mormons: Wasn't there also the problem of Mormons
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."paying the BSA not to accept gaysbeing strongly anti-gay and the BSA's biggest donor?