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
Nah, we're cool.
I don't know whether to cry or laugh so I'm going to compromise and laugh until I cry.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.For what it's worth, Agrabah's irresponsible handling or magic that constantly falls into the hands of unscrupulous viziers probably makes it a threat to national security.
(I didn't make that joke, but I heard someone else say it and thought it was funny)
edited 18th Dec '15 11:22:26 PM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34Scientist Studies Evolution of Anti-Evolution Bills, Finds They Aren't Intelligently Designed
I mostly like this for the burn.
edited 19th Dec '15 4:20:52 AM by TerminusEst
Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele
It's heartening to know that young people are increasingly accepting the scientific viewpoint, but it is absolutely true that Republicans are undermining the teaching of science.
It's odd how DWS is so much more pro-Hillary than Hillary herself is. Hillary and her campaign have been nothing but respectful to Sanders and vice versa, and the DNC has been going out of its way to silence him because they don't want a fight.
Of course, Hillary might just be grinning and taking advantage of DWS' assholishness while keeping her own hands clean.
edited 19th Dec '15 5:44:09 AM by Ramidel
A late November You Gov survey conducted after the attacks in Paris but before San Bernardino found that Hillary Clinton stood apart from Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Marco Rubio and Carly Fiorina as the only candidate a majority of voters believe
is ready to be Commander in Chief. She is the only one about whom as many people express confidence in her ability to handle an international crisis as say they are uneasy.
There is a striking dichotomy between voters’ evaluation of the Democratic Party’s ability to deal with terrorism and their belief in Hillary Clinton.
These findings suggest that Clinton has effectively separated herself from the liabilities of her own party. In February, when Pew Research Center asked voters which party could better deal with the threat of terrorism, the Republican Party won hands down, 51-31. CBS News reported similar results in a series of four surveys in 2014 and 2015.
On Nov. 16, three days after the terrorist attacks in Paris, the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania sponsored two focus groups in Columbus, Ohio to gauge the strengths and weaknesses of Hillary Clinton compared to three of the best-known Republican presidential candidates.
Peter Hart and Anna Bennett, both Democratic pollsters working with Annenberg, asked participants to consider Jeb Bush, Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Clinton, and to give their opinion of the candidates: “What material is their backbone made of?” The focus group sessions were transcribed.
According to the transcript, the 12 women and 12 men — a mix of Democrats, Republicans and independents — variously described their impression of Bush’s spine as made of “marshmallow,” “styrofoam,” “Jell-O,” “play dough,” “pillow,” “papier-mâché” and “chalk.”
In contrast, participants described Hillary Clinton’s backbone as made of “titanium,” “steel,” “ice” and “cement.”
In a report on the sessions, Hart wrote that participants “attribute this to her experience, ability to be tough and not take any ‘crap,’ and her know-how. None of the other candidates comes close to measuring up.”
The men and women in the focus groups were not all Clinton loyalists – indeed, most told Hart and Bennett that they supported someone else for president. Nearly half of the men and women were critical of, or outright hostile to, Clinton, using the words and phrases “dishonest,” “a liar,” “not good vibes,” “don’t trust.” At the same time, no one suggested that Clinton was weak.
Hart asked the 12 male participants to first consider the wide scope of responsibilities — from foreign policy to the economy — a president faces and to then indicate with a show of hands “who can do the job?”
“How many people say, yeah, I think Donald Trump could do the job?” Hart asked. Six raised their hands. For Bush, six also raised their hands. For Carson, it was three.
“How many say Hillary Clinton could do the job?” Hart asked. “Eleven out of 12.”
In the women’s group, Bennett asked the question in negative terms: “Is there anybody who you do not feel comfortable that they could handle the enormity and the complexity of the job?” For Trump: seven raised their hands; for Bush: also seven; for Carson: 11. For Clinton: none.
Some of the comments made during the focus group sessions indicated that the Benghazi Committee created by House Republicans in May 2014 to damage Clinton’s presidential prospects had backfired. Referring in part to Clinton’s performance during an 11 hour interrogation by the committee, a participant identified as Thomas noted:
Her ability to walk through what she’s had thrown at her just in the last six months should give you an idea that the woman has definitely got some strength. She’s there. I don’t necessarily agree with where she’s coming from, but still, you cannot knock what that woman is like.
Alan, another participant, added:
I don’t necessarily agree with her positions, but she is definitely strong. For lack of a better term, she’s got some balls, you know. She stands up and stands firm.
Similar views emerged in an ABC/Washington Post poll taken between Nov. 16 and Nov. 19 that asked voters to compare Clinton with Trump, Carson, Bush, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Those surveyed were asked “Who would you trust more to handle the threat of terrorism?” Respondents trusted Clinton more to handle terrorism than they did any of the Republican candidates by an average of 7 percentage points.
Polls have consistently found that the public views Clinton as “tough.” In March 2014, Pew found that 69 percent of those surveyed agreed that the word “tough” describes Hillary Clinton. By 65 to 31, voters surveyed in May 2015 by the Times agreed that Clinton “has strong qualities of leadership.” On issues of “toughness,” voters see Clinton as tougher even than her Republican adversaries.
The data suggest that Clinton has remained undamaged, so far, by President Obama’s sharp loss of public backing on the issue of terror.
From 1980 to 2012, American National Election Studies asked American voters whether more or less money should be spent on defense. The average percentage of Democrats who say less, 34.1 percent, is nearly double the percentage of Republicans, 18.0.
Over a longer period, from 1956 to 2012, ANES asked voters whether or not they agree with the statement: “This country would be better off if we just stayed home and did not concern ourselves with problems in other parts of the world.” From 1956 to 1968, there was very little difference between Democratic voters, 22.8 percent of whom agreed, and Republicans, 20.8 percent. From 1972 to 2012, the difference increased significantly, as an average of 22.2 percent of Republicans agreed and 28.6 percent of Democrats agreed
In times of peace — during the years following the end of the Cold War in 1989 to 1991, for example — or in a period like 2005 to 2008, when voters had lost faith in George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq, these partisan differences worked to the advantage of Democrats.
Conversely, at times of heightened international tension, such differences worked to the advantage of Republicans. In 1984, when relations with the U.S.S.R. had become increasingly strained, Ronald Reagan’s campaign capitalized on perceptions of Democrats as weak in their dealings with Russia, notably in the now-classic “Bear in the Woods” commercial:
There is a bear in the woods. For some people, the bear is easy to see. Others don’t see it at all. Some people say the bear is tame. Others say it’s vicious and dangerous,” the narrator says as the camera follows a large bear wandering in the wood. With no reference to Walter Mondale or to Russia, the narrator continued: “Since no one can really be sure who’s right, isn’t it smart to be as strong as the bear? If there is a bear.
Clinton is determined to insulate herself from such attacks. She has taken steps to create some distance between herself and the president, staking out a more aggressive stance on ISIS than Obama.
In a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations on Nov. 19, Clinton called for directly arming Kurds and Iraqi Sunnis if the Iraqi government in Baghdad refused to do so. She also called for the establishment of a no-fly zone in northern Syria; prevention of financing extremist forces by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states; and strengthened government surveillance of electronic and digital communications, including steps to access encrypted terrorist messages.
These stands provoked sharp criticism from some quarters. Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, wrote on Huffington Post:
Clinton’s speech shows that she and her advisers are good loyalists of the military-industrial-intelligence complex.
Clinton’s positions have not, so far, damaged her prospects in the nomination fight. She has, in fact, gained ground in the Democratic nomination contest over the past five weeks.
In the general election, the Republican nominee, whoever it is, will try to make an issue of Clinton’s reluctance to declare that the United States is “at war” with ISIS. Her opponent will also draw attention to her rejection (along with Obama) of the phrase “radical Islam” – “that sounds like we are declaring war against a religion” – preferring instead “radical jihadists.”
Clinton currently brings some unusual strengths for a Democrat to a contest dominated by the fear of new attacks, but the crucial factor could prove to be the extremism of the leading Republican candidates.
Cruz has called for indiscriminate bombing of Isis-held territory: “We will carpet bomb them into oblivion.”
Trump, no slouch in this quarter, set even Bill O’Reilly back on his heels when he told the FOX News host:
With the terrorists, you have to take out their families. When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives; don’t kid yourself.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
O’Reilly felt compelled to warn Trump against “making statements that get you into trouble.”
Apparently, Trump didn’t get the message. Earlier this week he called for blocking all Muslims from entering the United States.
Nearly 30 years ago, before the 1988 election, Hedrick Smith, former Washington Bureau chief for The Times, published the “The Power Game.” In that book, Smith quotes Peter Hart, the pollster who ran one of this year’s Columbus, Ohio focus groups:
Looking back over the past three presidential elections, Hart sized up the qualities that were valued most by voters and noted that this could change from year to year. “In 1976, political virginity and purity counted more than competence,” he said. “In 1980 it was toughness that counted – can-do, stand-up type of leadership. The 1984 election was defined by Reagan, so toughness still counted.”
Clinton needs to put the 2016 election on the most favorable terrain, which might not be on the basis of her experience. As Peter Hart noted three decades ago to Rick Smith:
Experience is like a pair of twos in a game of poker. It’s the lowest hand you can form. It’s the best there is until something better comes along, but it’s pretty easy for something better to come along.
Trump is coming after Hillary, and others will undoubtedly follow. Experience alone will be unlikely to prevail. Under current circumstances, a candidate’s credibility depends on his or her perceived “ability to handle international crises” – a criterion that demands a persuasive combination of toughness and tactical skill.
For Clinton the struggle will be to maintain her advantage on multiple fronts, demonstrating not only a titanium backbone, but subtler skills like ingenuity, cunning and that most elusive component of leadership, charisma.
edited 19th Dec '15 6:16:23 AM by JackOLantern1337
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.@Ramidel: Hillary, along with the other few Democratic candidates, has gone on record as asking for more debates, I believe. It seems like she'd like to be more out there to show what's she's made of. Frankly, as much as what's her name may be rooting for Clinton, I don't see how having so few debates when even the candidates are asking for more helps Hillary get the nomination. It's obviously making more people look at her with the side eye.
Since I was living recently with a guy who got arrested for carrying more than the legally allowed (50 grams) this song describes the situation to a tee when you got stoners who will mess up with the minimum amounts of weed and still get arrested.
edited 19th Dec '15 9:29:46 AM by AngelusNox
Inter arma enim silent leges![]()
Debatable. Since Hillary already has the lead, exposing her opponents more might cause her to lose her edge. The more people hear from Bernie Sanders, the more support he gets. Of course Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is going to limit the debates.
As for it making people look at her with a side eye, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is not known for effective campaigning. She certainly hasn't helped the Democrats keep Senate seats, and she couldn't get Hillary elected in 2008.
edited 19th Dec '15 10:40:42 AM by Lennik
That's right, boys. Mondo cool.Campaign co-chair
per Wikipedia.
IIRC, all naturalized US citizens can run for president in theory (though, in practice you need to be well-known and have a lot of money to spend on campaigning).
If it was possible to just not let people run there'd be no Trump campaign.
edited 19th Dec '15 1:10:04 PM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34

I see that Ben Carson's support is starting to wane.