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
Broadly speaking, most of the leading US presidential candidates today and of the past few election cycles would be considered baby boomers, including both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. The inevitable conclusion? Baby boomer political views don't make any sense! That's not a harsh assessment. It's just a fair description.
@Millenial political incoherence
This is probably true of most demographics in most countries in the world. Also, the idea that America is getting less white can only be sustained by counting white Latin Americans as non-white, which I fear will not be true in the long run, given how Irish and Italian Americans were subsumed into 'whiteness' during the Gilded Age.
Of course, it supports my idea that voting should be elitist; we pay someone to stand in the door of each polling centre and quiz voters:
'And which way and why are you voting today?'
'I'm voting for Trump because The Apprentice is my favourite show!'
'I'm sorry, based on your answer it seems you are too stupid to vote. America's Got Talent may be more your speed. Goodbye.'
edited 31st Jan '16 5:25:19 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiI think most of the inconsistencies with millenials are pretty normal. Look at older people in the US. You've got everything from communists to fascists. You also have to take into account that various groups are deliberately lying to people which makes it hard for young people to figure out what they should believe.
I don't get how anyone could be loyal to Jeb!. I am not trying to denigrate your political leanings, but I just don't get him. He's Bush 3.0. He has no original ideas. He's a zero. Even his major donors think he's got no business being in the race any more and have openly stated that they're giving him money because they feel like the GOP machine requires them to and it's just being thrown down the toilet.
edited 31st Jan '16 8:03:00 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Political leanings? I'm not conservative or liberal or part of any party, which I've told you before. Nothing to lean toward or away from. I was all for Sanders until it became clear his foreign policy was weak and his economic policy wasn't all it was being made out to be. Clinton, I just don't like. Nothing against her policies (I actually like her foreign policy the most of all the candidates), but she comes off as cold and phony. As for Jeb, I don't see how he's W just because he has Bush family advisors. They're completely different people, personality-wise (W was the exact opposite of a wonk, for one). Neither are their father, who wasn't a bad guy in the first place. So throwing around the Bush name as some sort of insult just because one of them did dumb shit is silly. As for no orginal ideas, I'll take just being competant and workmanlike over revolutionary or, in Trump's case, devolutionary.
I also don't judge by who someone's family is/was.
Because having the same team doesn't mean you do the same job. Otherwise there would be no need for a president to actually, y'know, decide shit. Which is why I don't care who Sanders hires if its gonna mean he does everything in his power not to do anything in foreign policy.
Further, considering the last two republican presidents have been from the Bush family, ANY advisors from the last quarter century will have worked with them. Anyone else is either untried, from the other party, or too old for this shit.
edited 31st Jan '16 8:40:18 AM by FFShinra
x5 Interestingly, the New York Times has endorsed Clinton for the Democrats, and Kasich for the Republicans.
edited 31st Jan '16 8:45:19 AM by DarrenFox
There was a moment in one of the debates where Kasich was asked a question, and as he started responding I thought, hey, he actually has some good points! But then he just kept on talking... and talking... and talking... and the time ran out and the moderators tried to interrupt him, he kept going for like half a minute, and by the end of it I just wanted him to shut the fuck up. When he finally stopped talking he hadn't even really answered the question he was asked.
I dunno, Paul Ryan has managed to keep those fools in line to do some (relatively, which isn't saying much, but its something) good work with the White House. It's not an impossible task, especially for a mainstreamer.
![]()
Eh, his record seems better than his rhetoric, though I agree that said rhetoric is bad. More importantly, he's pragmatic rather than ideological without being outright toxic a la Trump.
He has a lot of bad personal policies, but as the current Speaker, he's been more useful than Boehner on his best day vis a vis the White House.
EDIT- You care more about what he states than what he does. Fine. I care more about what someone does over what they state.
EDIT 2- Also, Kasich is less personally toxic than Ryan, so it matters not.
edited 31st Jan '16 9:28:57 AM by FFShinra
Ryan was one of the darlings of the establishment despite having an economic playbook straight out of Sesame Street. The "magic asterisk" was coined to describe his budgets. He made his staffers read Atlas Shrugged and was a hardcore Randroid until someone pointed out that she was an atheist, at which point he said, "Oops!" and quietly dropped it.
He has blatant Presidential ambitions but accepted the Speaker nomination because he was literally the only choice anyone would accept. It's interesting that he's switched to what passes for pragmatism among Republicans since then. I guess he's more of a politician than an ideologue after all.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Look, I don't care how pragmatic any of them are. The Republicans have already lost control of the Tea Party loons. Trusting any of them when those same idiots control both houses of Congress is suicidal in my opinion. Even if they don't personally support the idiocy I'm sure they realize that their continued electability rests on not pushing too strongly against the tide.
Re: the last page and the Phoenix City Council.
The problem with trying to counteract religious trolls like the Satanists or the FSM Church (or others like the Dudists or the Jedi Knights) is that you can't block them while letting in the "serious" religions, because the trolls could easily sue and open up the whole can of worms on precisely what constitutes a sincerely-held religious belief, and the question of sincerity in faith is so muddy that courts could never allow it to be testable, (e.g. "Are you really Christian or are you just a misogynist hiding behind Christianity?") you have to let the trolls play, or they could ruin it for everyone.
![]()
![]()
Which is why I made the Ryan point in the first place. If he, of all people, can be pushed into some kind of pragmatism, Kasich, who already is pragmatic in both word and deed (save for the odd balanced budget madness comment), would be even easier to work with than Ryan, and be more willing to say no to the tea party (since he doesn't have to sit next to them day by day). Shit might actually get done.
![]()
Sanders promises the moon and has no way of making that happen. Clinton is just as pragmatic as Kasich and Jeb. I don't see how letting perfect be the enemy of good gets you anywhere.

Obligatory clip on surveys.