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
Honestly, I don't want to choose between Clinton and Sanders. I want both of them.
It's like back then with Obama and Clinton. I was also "why don't you two just run together???"
But seriously, if America picks neither (and votes in Trump), I'll be humming Chopin's Funeral March.
Plants are aliens, and fungi are nanomachines.As I recall a wormhole created by a sufficient gravitational warping of spacetime could send you to a point in time and space that is chronologically earlier than when you entered.
Such extreme gravitational forces would only be found in black holes though.
"War without fire is like sausages without mustard." - Jean Juvénal des Ursins
So, to travel back into the past, all you gotta' do is get sucked into a black hole, suffer a horrible agonizing death due to ridiculously severe compression, and then hope that you not only wind up in a earlier point in space-time, but also that you were somehow able to defy reality itself and rise from the grave?
Actually black holes are still poorly understood. Theoretically, you would never experience going through the Event Horizon; time would slow down as you approached it until you experienced all of eternity—although it's not clear how hat jives with black holes evaporating over immense amounts of time. And that's in a galaxy-rated mega-blackhole. Smaller one-star black holes, much simpler deal, you'll die by spaghettification way before you get close to the EH, as the gravity on the parts of you closer to the hole would be immensely stronger than that on the parts that are further away. Ouch.
Yeah, neutron stars and black holes are frickin' weird.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.(Slate) The GOP's Presidential Condenters are hijacking their own debate
The campaigns and their consiglieres put together a list of demands to which future debate hosts must agree to ensure the candidates’ participation. The finalized version, as obtained by the Washington Post, is hilarious in its granularity. Not once but twice does the document inveigh against “lightening [sic] rounds,” which must be banned “because of their frivolousness or ‘gotcha’ nature, or in some cases both.” The letter also implores networks to agree not to “ask the candidates to raise their hands to answer a question,” “allow candidate-to-candidate questioning,” “allow props or pledges by the candidates,” “show an empty podium after a break (describe how far away the bathrooms are),” or “leaves microphones on after breaks.” What about allowing hot mics in the distant bathrooms? There’s no clear rule on that, though it would certainly violate the spirit of the letter…
What was the point of having the RNC serve as middleman in the first place? To navigate the party through the primary process in a way that didn’t damage the eventual nominee too much before the general election. Priebus was able to cut the number of debates roughly in half, and he ensured that no mischievous entity like MSNBC was granted hosting duties. The candidates have found his efforts lacking, though, and are using the leverage that’s available to them as a group to run the show themselves. So far, it looks like they’ll use that power to ensure that they don’t, for even a hot second, have to factor general-election considerations into their primary strategies…
@Luminosity: We discussed Clinton a page or two back, so feel free to check on that if you want. It helps to know, in answering your question, where you lie on the left-right spectrum. In a nutshell, she is a center-left, establishment candidate. She has unparalleled experience in government, has plenty of foreign policy experience, has the endorsement and backing of friggin' everybody important in the Democratic institution, and is one hell of a debater. That she would be the first female President in our nation's history is not germane to her ability to serve that office but is a great bonus.
Before the election really began, there was some concern as to whether she would go whole hog on the centrism and try to run as a corporate Democrat, building bridges with the GOP like Obama tried to, and generally ignoring demands from progressives, but there were hints that her true allegiance was much farther left than her public persona. Thankfully, this has proven true — whether it's due to Bernie Sanders' influence in the primary or her own sense that the time is right, she's taken unabashedly progressive positions on wages, wealth inequality, climate change, gun control, gay rights, and so on.
It should be pointed out that, unlike on the other side of the aisle, there is no significant difference on fundamental matters of policy between any of the major Democratic candidates. Sanders and Clinton (and O'Malley) all agree on the basic problems facing our country and on the basic elements of the solutions to those problems. The difference is that Sanders has (for his whole career) gone whole-hog and unabashedly supported full liberalism, whereas Clinton has drifted with the political tides to some extent.
Whether you approve of either depends on how you feel about the need for gradual versus revolutionary change in Washington. There is legitimate concern about whether Sanders would win enough support for his agenda to be elected or to get anything he wants done while in office.
Clinton's image has been tarnished somewhat by manufactured scandals (Benghazi! Emails!), but those mainly serve as bait for the media and as right-wing gotcha messaging; there is absolutely zero evidence of genuine wrongdoing on her part.
She is, without question in my mind, the most qualified person in this country to become President who is currently running for that office. I would also be highly pleased with a Sanders presidency.
edited 3rd Nov '15 5:24:57 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!""Anyway, why do people actually want Clinton?"
She has the best chance of winning, and if she wins, she will be in office at the right time to appoint a couple Supreme Court justices. That is more important than anything, right now.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."Just as long as that sentiment doesn't lead to lower Democratic turnout...
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Glenn Beck's network The Blaze offered to host one of the GOP debates in lieu of the canceled NBC one. Trump, meanwhile, is fighting against the debate on Telemundo.
It should be easy enough to create a sense of urgency. If the next president is a two-termer, they could get up to 4 supreme court justices. Possibly 5 if Clarence Thomas has more distinct health problems.
edited 3rd Nov '15 6:09:50 AM by Ogodei

Nor was it when Sheen attempted to use it, although it generated a great deal of hilarity.
edited 2nd Nov '15 2:13:08 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"