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
Of course I know this. Trump's voters are drawn from the bloc of people who have felt disenfranchised under both the Republicans and Democrats, but have been induced by the conservative media to blame it all on government, media, and evil foreigners.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Most of those people haven't voted at all in years though. And I'm not sure its the messages about being against government (Trump isn't Cruz after all, he's fine using government...just for things most normal people would not want it to be used for). It's the message that the US is no longer a superpower and that thats an existential threat (which it isn't, obviously, but...), which itself is an argument derived from the America Is Exceptional argument that is used by both parties to say why something can or must happen.
But otherwise, yes.
EDIT-
Is it true, Sanders went full Ben Carson on foreign policy last night?
edited 5th Feb '16 8:06:41 AM by FFShinra
Here is the summary I am reading
I think this is what's happening with the Democrats as well, the Progressive and Labor arms of the party is getting fed up to death with the Neoliberal arm saying "No, we can only do things slowly, and we'll be damned if you think of trust busting, protectionism, undoing treaties, or regulations".
The GOP's business arm and the Dem's Neoliberal arms are both having their wheels pop off, I think, and we're looking at the start of party realignments.
Big Business on the whole seems to prefer the Dem's social/immigration positions, but can't stomach the Dem's stronger pro Labor and pro Regulatory desires.
Of course, from the outside Sanders also appears to fit both those criteria. Then again, I'm highly doubtful of our version of Bernie Sander'snote common-man credentials.
![]()
![]()
I guess it is something like "what happens outside our shores should be none of our concern, and it is no concern of mine"?
edited 5th Feb '16 9:29:29 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling OnWhich is a dangerously naive policy. The world is too interconnected in so many ways to simply ignore. Especially when thats one of the most important things a president does, diplomatically and militarily. Considering the reality that his economic plans will not survive contact with the House and Senate intact, his lack of care on foreign affairs boils down to him being completely useless.
Near as I can tell, Sanders' foreign policy is "Diplomacy first and foremost, and war should be the last, final and least used option." So he's technically a dove, but I think he's cowering on the matter because the Military-Industrial Complex would rip him a new asshole, and derail his focus on the domestic agenda (which arguably the US really does need to focus on)
Congress made Martin Shkreli look like a jerk, but it bears responsibility for high drug prices
Essentially that the very Congress that's ripping Smirky McAsshole a new one is responsible for the rules that allowed him to do what he did.
![]()
![]()
There's no scandal—yet.
Clinton has stated that she told Wall Street to "cut it out," but those who attended her Goldman Sachs speeches have paraphrased her as talking more in favor of the banks and their interests.
Since Clinton talks out of each side of her mouth, it's very well important to know what she said.
Hillary Clinton scandals are like illuminati conspiracy theories; if you can't definitively disprove them, then they exist and are a menace to everything you hold dear.
If you can definitively disprove them, then whatever you disproved just proves one of the following: a) that whatever you disproved was a distraction designed to take your attention away from the real Clinton scandals, b) that your attempts to disprove things would be shown to be wrong if only we could dig a little deeper, c) that you're part of the coverup, or d) the old "where there's smoke there's fire" adage. Sure, maybe you disproved this one thing, but it sure left a lot of smoke behind anyway, and there's so much smoke from all those other scandals, so there must be a fire... somewhere...
This is why everyone should have given up on the Clinton scandal game about 20 years ago. (Seriously, it's not the 90s anymore.)
edited 6th Feb '16 12:49:23 PM by TheWanderer
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |And Clinton basically sucks at Charisma, the way she deals with stuff like E-Mails, these speeches, Bengzhai is just REALLY painfully awkward. That's a factor. And when we do get leaks, it's because it makes her two faced since a lot of these leaks argue a position that goes against position she holds.
Basically she's lousy at PR.
edited 5th Feb '16 11:41:20 AM by PotatoesRock
https://twitter.com/martin_oneill/status/695674837948354560
edited 5th Feb '16 12:25:39 PM by SolipsistOwl
@Potatoes Rock: Actually, I think it's more that she ultimately doesn't care to waste energy fighting scandals - she knows they won't damage her position, and she can't stop the Republicans from blowing smoke at her.
edited 5th Feb '16 1:41:34 PM by Ramidel
Hehe. No, she's not a man, she's an old white man!
(For the humor-impaired: "Old white man" in this context is a gender-neutral term.)
"I believe the American people want and deserve Policy X, Policy Y, and Policy Z. However, the current polarization in Congress renders passage of most of what I want unlikely in at least my first two years, due especially to the House. Therefore, I will continue to advocate forcefully for my agenda for the first two years, take what executive actions I can, make use of the bully pulpit, and compromise pragmatically when necessary, building coalitions among like-minded Congress-critters on certain issues where common ground may exist (as I did during my many years in the House and Senate). I will start my negotiations at my ideal position or above it, because I realize that starting with half a loaf rather than a full loaf will leave me with a quarter loaf or no loaf rather than half a loaf. Meanwhile, I will use my position to attempt to continue invigorating the electorate, including alienated or apathetic voters, and will do all I can to encourage high turnout for the Democrats in the 2018 midterms, whereby a further blue-ing of Congress may give me the means to more wholly implement my priorities."
By the way, this isn't specifically to do with the above, but an observation of my own: precluding large swings of Senate seats to the Republicans, 2016 will be the best shot Democrats have at flipping away large numbers of GOP Senate seats until at least 2028, which is the next time a Presidential election (AKA reliable high Dem turnout) coincides with this batch of Senate seats.
GM: AGOG S4 & F/WC RP; Co-GM: TABA, SOTR, UUA RP; Sub-GM: TTS RP. I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new Empire.An editorial about why Bernie's lack of religion makes him better for America
.
Sanders’ deeply humanist views make me think that he could turn out to be a good leader for our heterogeneous nation—both because he is brave enough to speak a new kind of truth about religion, and because he is motivated to do the right thing for its own sake.
Should Donald Trump win the Republican nomination and Sanders snag the Democratic one, it’s possible that we could have a presidential race between two people who appear well outside the model of faithful Christianity. A recent poll by the Pew Research Center shows that the American public perceives Trump as the least religious of candidates, followed by Sanders.
But whereas Sanders has now spoken fairly openly about his lack of religiosity, Trump has blundered in his attempts to fake his way to godliness. Witness his botched effort to cite a book of the Bible as “Two Corinthians,” and his mistaken attempt to put a few bucks into a communion plate. That said, perhaps Trump doesn’t need to be a convincing Christian. He’s uniting some Americans through a new language of exclusion, much of it centered on hatred for losers, women, and immigrants.
By contrast, rather than emphasize a special Jewish piety, Sanders has pushed his religious affiliation aside. His relative forthrightness highlights the insincerity that characterizes the relationship between religion and contemporary American politics.
<snip>
I am also struck by Sanders’ language of inclusion—in powerful contrast to Trump. When Sanders spoke at Liberty University, the evangelical Christian school where Trump made his Corinthians gaffe, he movingly addressed the differences between his audience’s belief and his own:
I am motivated by a vision which exists in all of the great religions — in Christianity, in Judaism, in Islam, Buddhism and other religions — and which is so beautifully and clearly stated in Matthew 7:12, and it states: “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the law and the prophets.”
A candidate ready to admit that he is not a part of any religion, while respecting people whose beliefs differ from his own, might well be the person who can lead our fractured country toward trust and unity. In a diverse land, imagine the power of having a leader with no “people” but the people.

The Republican party is already alienating a lot of people who might otherwise align with their conservative views on society with their xenophobic rhetoric. I've spoken to a number of minority americans over the years (mexicans and middle-easterns, mostly) who refuse to support the GOP on principle because of this.