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
I don't see the Dems splitting the convention, Sanders and Clinton are both smart enough that once one of them establishes a solid lead and becomes a clear victor the other will drop, now we are viable to get many states in before that happens but I doubt it will past until the convention.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranLove how Clinton was asked by a viewer whether she would release the transcripts for her Goldman Sachs speeches. Hopefully the media carries it, because I know the Sanders campaign will not.
The reporter on MSNC seemed flabbergasted when it was brought up and annoyed when it was suggested the media should pursue it.
So they're probably as pointless as her E-Mails, but yeah, her lack of transparency makes her look sketchier than she needs to be.
Look, as former First Lady and Sot S, it's understandable that she would be paid a lot for her speeches. And who wouldn't want that much money? Likewise, the email scandal really was blown out of proportion, because I'm sure most in the government use their personal email.
But..."that's what they offered"? Hillary, you not only proved Bernies claim that you're connected to Wall Street, you just completely destroyed your claim that you understand the middle class and that you fight for wage equality. You are the one percent, Ms. Clinton.
"Somehow the hated have to walk a tightrope, while those who hate do not."
Well, it's at least one of the reason I will firmly never vote for Clinton. Things like these pricey speeches and, to tie in with that, her and Bill's massive influx of money since 2014
(disclosure)
play against her because they point out that she's a hypocrite. And she's just letting that slide.
Well, I hope to see you voting for Trump in November then.
Jokes aside, I don't think anyone here doubts that Clinton is a member of the American aristocracy. Of course she's a one-percenter, and of course she's an old white man. She has never denied that - to the extent that she supports breaking up the big banks, it's because the banks themselves would like a little restructuring.
This is why Sanders is getting traction - because he's willing to come up with new ideas and new solutions. But most of us here don't blame Clinton for being the heir apparent to a political family that was responsible for The '90s, which for all their problems were one of the best decades we've had.
Friend of mine had a fairly interesting take on the whole Trump vs Clinton thing.
In a nutshell he can understand the appeal of Trump. Trump's a racist dingbat; everyone knows that. But you can trust this guy to be a racist dingbat. You can't trust Clinton to be anything, in contrast.
While neither me or my friend endorse Trump - we're both fairly leftist - he appears to be at least authentic. Clinton looks more like the kind of candidate that people who want to vote for Trump were wary about in the first place.
That's an outsider's perspective, mind you. My friend and I are both German, so neither of us has a horse in this race. It's just the impression we get over here: Clinton looks to us like Merkel, just without the redeeming qualities.
edited 5th Feb '16 6:01:42 AM by DrunkenNordmann
We learn from history that we do not learn from history"A dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest. Honestly. It's the honest ones you want to watch out for, because you can never predict when they're going to do something incredibly... stupid."
I'm not entirely sure Trump is sincere about half of the stuff he spews out, though. The impression of him that I get is that he's an Attention Whore who will say anything to shock people into keeping their eyes on him; not that much of his rhetoric is something he truly feels passionate about.
Donald J. Trump believes in Donald J. Trump. His ego is his raison d'etre. It is a gross mistake to believe that he speaks truthfully in any respect other than about his own self-image. He is the kind of narcissist that other narcissists try to emulate.
Imagining that "straight talk" is enough to "fix Washington" is itself a kind of mental illness.
edited 5th Feb '16 6:15:51 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Well, I don't think he's "joking". But neither do I think he's actually running for president out of any genuine passion for his racist ideas. He's not ideologically driven, not even by a horrible ideology like Cruz. He's running for president as a simple ego trip, and his racist bile is his way of commanding the media around him, one that he's escalated once it became more and more evident how well it worked.
Donald Trump is a living embodiment of Poe's Law as it applies to the modern political arena. At a certain point it ceases to matter whether he is serious about his campaign for President, because if he is trying to get himself kicked out of the race by saying things that are so crazy that it drives people away, it's failing.
He said it himself: he could shoot someone in broad daylight in Manhattan and he wouldn't lose supporters.
edited 5th Feb '16 6:36:37 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Just had my college-attending little brother, having just become old enough to vote, ask me about Sanders because everyone at his apartment is saying Go Sanders.
Told him why college kids support him and told him the concerns people had about his methods, and said that he might be better off with Clinton instead.
I feel a lot of regret turning him away from the guy, but...
edited 5th Feb '16 6:51:46 AM by FFShinra
We've said it before, but he's the GOP's own creation. Their leaders have spent far too long extolling the virtues of "conservative America" and pandering to the "government sucks", "expel the Mexicans" crowd while failing to deliver on any of those promises. It's all a smokescreen to keep their plutocrat masters in power. Now someone comes along who says, "Those guys, they're all fakers. Vote for me and we'll really do all that stuff." Is it any wonder the people in question like him?
The Republican voters who fawn over Trump are victims of their own party to a far greater degree than they are of Democrats or Muslims or anything else. I'd pity them if they weren't so destructive in their ignorance.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Short term gain, long term pain. If the Republican party thought that lying about their ideals just to win votes was a smart idea, well, it could be the idea that ends them. That, and attaching themselves to religion so strongly.
I didn't watch the Democrat debate last night. Anything interesting happen? I see a headline about Sanders tripping up on foreign policy (which doesn't surprise me).
![]()
You may have said it, but that doesn't make it true. It's not some case of mind control Gone Horribly Right that the whole party bought hook line and sinker. It is, and always was, an interparty civil war that appealed to only part of the party. What we're witnessing is the end of the Reagan era GOP.
He famously was able to craft a coalition of four major factions: the hawks, the business elite, the libertarians, and the evangelicals. Due to the Cold War, it was the former two that ended up in the driver's seat. Til the last few years, the hawks and the business sides of the party remained in control from sheer momentum. Then Iraq discredited the hawks, and the financial crisis discredited the business. This gave the opportunity for a change, and the Tea Party was created as the alliance of evangelicals and libertarians revolting against them.
Those who have voted specifically for the Establishment (business and hawks) have never appreciated the Tea Party and the only reason the politicians of the Establishment have demurred in open criticism is because they don't have the leverage to stay in power and do so thanks to prior events. Therefore many opt to toe their line so they can have some control of the process. Those who vote for them either understand and keep voting for them or get impatient and want someone who will confront them.
The Tea Partiers are angry because there is still too much Establishment involved in running the party. They want absolute control, not sharing in the Reagan coalition with themselves on top, as has been the case the last six years.
So yes the party is angry, but they ain't one large sheeple crowd all baying the same message, angry at not getting heard. They know they're getting heard. They're wondering why the opposing faction in their party keeps sticking around.
edited 5th Feb '16 7:48:18 AM by FFShinra
Has Sanders been asked the question of whether he'd let the perfect be the enemy of the good when it comes to his various economic platforms? That'd probably be the biggest concern for voters, as it would make him look just as inflexible as Republicans when it comes to policy issues.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"

Sanders has critical mass and money. He's captured the imagination of a lot of people. He won't go away until the convention.
The GOP will enjoy the Dems schadenfreude just as the Dems do over Truz.