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
Look for Clinton's Super PAC to start attacking Sanders on issues of his health.
Didn't Hillary have heart surgery not too long ago? Will this just end up backfiring on her?
I don't really see Sanders and Clinton having much of a difference in what they can and can't do in the "getting stuff done" department with how Congress currently is.
Their only real practical difference is that I trust Sanders not to fuck us over in more minor ways since he's not connected to Wall Street like Clinton.
edited 16th Jan '16 7:15:34 PM by Ekuran
She had some kind of fainting spell like a year ago, but I don't recall anything about heart problems. Anyway, attacks on health are... actually pretty common and I think tends to fade into white noise. Also, I'm still concerned about PA Cs in general. Not really related to Hillary, PA Cs just concern me.
Bill has a history of heart issues but I thought that Hillary was mostly in the clear; barring the above mentioned fainting incident.
I think its perfectly legit to call Sanders out if his ideas really are unworkable in the current political landscape. There's no point in promising the world if you can't deliver it and if its obvious that you can't, thats a huge liability come the general.
edited 16th Jan '16 7:57:21 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.This is a month old, but attacking Trump just makes these voters like him more
.
Basically, they tend to view attacks on Trump as being out of context, and they trust conservative news sources.
I'm like, 8 pages late but someone brought up to old adage about "only a third of colonists supported the revolution", which isn't true.
I've heard conflicting stories about the specifics, But the "One third" estimate came from John Adams who himself did not claim to have anything to back it up, it was just his own estimation.
Studies have put the actual number between 15 and 20%, with a percentage in the high 40s actively supporting the rebellion.
And the taxes were hardly just a little side note. While those with an agenda certainly took advantage of the anger, average colonists were rather upset about the law requiring every day printed materials like newspapers and playing card to be made on imported, British made paper, and taxed on top of that.
Not to mention it wasn't even about paying for the war itself, but to pay for stationing troops in the colonies after the war.
Which hadn't been done before the war, and if anything was even less required after the war, what with the transfer of French colonies to English control.
/ends rant/
Of course it does. They fell "attacked" and "repressed" already. That's just backing it up in their minds.
edited 16th Jan '16 8:56:39 PM by Joesolo
I'm baaaaaaackHere, have a whole pageful of 'em:
http://facepalm.motifake.com/tags/facepalm
![]()
Governor of near-post-apocalyptic living conditions factory city decided to save money by pumping water directly from the corrosive, pollutant-laden river through aged lead pipes.
On that note Obama declares state of emergency
to free up extra FEMA funds for drinking water and such, but doesn't go so far as to call it a disaster, which would pay for much more but is currently legally limited to only natural, non-manmade catastrophes.
edited 17th Jan '16 8:04:28 AM by carbon-mantis
Then lied about the contamination, tried to discredit and bury reports about it, and refused to seek Federal aid until it became too publicized to ignore. Sent 20 people to distribute filters and water to a city of 100,000.
Also, technically the river water wasn't polluted, just corrosive. It damaged the city's pipes, causing iron and lead to leach out. The lead poisoned the water while the iron killed the chlorine used to prevent bacterial contamination, leading to an outbreak of Legionnaire's disease.
edited 17th Jan '16 8:22:18 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

This encapsulates the dilemma I feel with this primary. Clinton is the safe bet, the candidate that I know can win and can govern well. Sanders is the long shot, the dream, the candidate whose ideas I most agree with. But Clinton keeps waffling between centrist and progressive positions, and has no qualms about going on the offensive to secure her position. For his part, Sanders' ideas simply can't work without a massive and unprecedented shift in Congressional politics, and I don't know how serious he is about foreign policy.
So, I'm torn. I still don't know who I'm going to cast my primary vote for. I do know that I will be voting, though.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"