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
Eh, I've met Republicans who would never ever vote for him (indeed, they'd vote Trump before him, which is another reason I'm happy to see Clinton take the lead), but they otherwise like him personally.
"Wouldn't vote for him, but I might have a beer with him".
Besides, Sanders has gone before conservative audiences before and come out okay.
Rachel Maddow was on Fallon the other night and she brought up something interesting.
Any possibility of this? 'Cause I would love it if the GOP just flat out said, "No, we're not going to nominate you, Trump, no matter how much support you have."
Well Romney and Mitch McConnell have been talking about that rather extensively.
It would mean the immediate destruction of the Republican party and Trump likely going independent but I do think it would be the best thing in the long run if we cut Trump and his supporters out of politics entirely.
edited 4th Mar '16 8:40:30 AM by LeGarcon
Oh really when?The problem is that those people have votes, and they represent a very influential and very vocal bloc. Without them, the GOP would have died long before now.
edited 4th Mar '16 8:43:38 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
Do you mean removing their right to vote?
Does that include racists who are also in a minority group?
edited 4th Mar '16 8:45:24 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling OnI think the big takeaway conclusion is this: racists are easy to pander to. They are also electoral poison, and overall not worth the trouble.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.But if you don't pander to them, they join whichever party will. It's kind of a lose-lose.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
Would be interesting for international relations.
![]()
![]()
It's a Prisoner's Dilemma, but the best thing is to leave them stew in their own party. BNP, FN, Swedish Democrats... let them do their own thing, and let the grownups talk together.
I haven't looked it up, but I very much doubt it. Who would decide that anyway? That defeats the whole point of democracy. If people think someone is dangerous to the country then they wouldn't vote for them. And if the majority of states disagree, well, sucks to be the country. It's not like the President really has all that much power anyway though, as I'm sure Obama would lament.
As for the parties themselves, the primaries aren't technically part of the election. They're just the party deciding among itself who to push for (using rules it made up on the spot), thereby creating a united front that actually stands a chance of winning a general election. Technically any of these candidates could decide to run for president on their own, they just wouldn't have the support of a major party and it's considered common wisdom that third party candidates never stand a chance. And it's not like the parties are established by law either, they just formed naturally due to politicking.
edited 4th Mar '16 9:20:27 AM by Clarste
I have a question about that - in Canada the parties are legal entity, your party need to be registered to Election Canada, etc... While there's no law saying "There shall be X parties" there's laws governing what a party is and how it forms and how it's recognized.
Don't the USA have that?
I don't know if there is any kind of registration requirement to form a political party. There are formal rules for ballot entry in each state, but other than that it's pretty much a free game.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I think the idea is that it would be covered by the Constitutional limitations on the President's power.
I'm intrigued by this. You guys have such a convoluted yet freeform system. o_O
Each state creates its own voting laws for the general election, through their state legislature. The party creates its own voting rules for the primaries though, because as I mentioned the primaries aren't really an official election at all.
edited 4th Mar '16 9:58:07 AM by Clarste

I hope there's some sort of bulletproof enclosure he can speak from.