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
edited 27th Jan '16 1:15:31 PM by PotatoesRock
Look, it's one thing to promote freedom of thought and expression, but it's another to condone blatant trolling, which is all that someone posting with a Trump avatar from a proxy network brings to the table.
We are not required by any law or policy to accept noxious forms of argument on our site.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Worth noting: Bernie supporters have engaged in campaigns of internet harassment
; the cited case involves people criticizing his healthcare plan. Nobody is condoning this.
Edit: Of course, anyone from the Trump side who criticizes anyone else for harassment is full of shit.
edited 27th Jan '16 1:29:30 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"On a different subject, I was directed to this Republican primary debate between George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
And what's changed, and what hasn't, is absolutely fascinating.
![]()
![]()
Krugman wrote basically the same article in 2008 about Obama's supporters. This isn't the first time he's recycled talking points in favor of Clinton.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html?_r=0
edited 27th Jan '16 1:38:49 PM by SolipsistOwl
![]()
I am not going to offer my own opinion on whether Krugman was correct to support Clinton over Obama then and over Sanders now. I will say that his concern about the danger of Obama's positions was ill-founded in retrospect. However, his criticisms of Obama's naivete in attempting to appeal to the good nature of the Republican Congress in 2009-2010 were spot on.
edited 27th Jan '16 1:40:12 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
No polls show Clinton holding onto the "Obama coalition." Her base is increasingly white voters aged 50+.
It's probably the same person. Someone incensed and with enough free time that they cannot tolerate their husbando being spoken ill of in a random topic on the interwebz. I mean, this isn't the sole subject in the forum. There's dozens of them, and we all go to different ones, this is just one of many.
The sole fact his handle avatar and everything are of eminent and unique political nature is enough to point out he doesn't care of the forums, the website or its purpose, and that this is not its main focus or anything. I can't really fault Fighteer for banning him but...I hate him for denying me my fun.
I want to hear the bellboy's words of rapt fascination as he speaks of the smoochy-lipped candidate's words as scripture and get my kicks off of watching such a phenomena. I am marveled at cognitive distortions.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesSince he's gone, does anyone have a cite for Clinton campaigning for segregation or even a lie claiming she did.
It just seems weird because when younger, she actually went under cover to investigate school segregation
.
edited 27th Jan '16 1:58:33 PM by Hodor2
Trump's base is consistently the Millennial vote: he controls over 50% of Republican voters aged 18 - 25.
Since Millennials are the least racist demographic in America, I imagine these voters don't actually support Trump, and are just trolling pollsters like 'Deez Nuts' was last year.
edited 27th Jan '16 1:57:31 PM by SolipsistOwl
x6: That was a relatively old account created to troll, using a known proxy network. Just wasn't ID'ed until now.
Trump enjoys a lot of support from people who resent the establishment, just as Sanders does. Not all of them are overtly racist, but I will note that, while millennials may not be racist themselves, they are often blind to systemic racism because they have been brought up to believe that it is a thing of the past.
edited 27th Jan '16 2:01:10 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Coming in here with a Trump avatar (and a proxy network, no less) will just get you bounced, mmkay? Get over yourselves.
It wouldn't surprise me that some Sanders supporters have been verbally abusive. They are a pretty opinionated lot. There've been informal social media campaigns dedicated to attacking anyone who dares criticize him.
Sanders shares some important attributes with Trump. In particular, he gathers to himself voters who have become disaffected by the centrist, wealth-dominated political establishment, of which Hillary Clinton on the Democratic side and Bush/Rubio/etc. on the Republican side are unabashed members. It would not surprise me to see some Trumpites flock to the Sanders camp should the former lose the nomination. Sanders, however, does not support anything resembling Trump's fundamentally bigoted agenda.
edited 27th Jan '16 1:14:02 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"