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
On the issue of economic inequality, the facts on how exactly harmful it is are beginning to get through to people, I think.
I think equality is important to both the left and right, they just focus on different things and so talk past each other.
Take equality of opportunity. Pretty much everyone agrees with that on some level or another.
You have the right railing against people who deny the fact of natural inequality while studiously pretending the massive nepotism in this country is somehow meritocratic and "survival of the fittest" rather than a race to the bottom. On the left, you see them rail against the right's tendency to ignore the fact that inequity aversion is a natural part of human nature and how harmful massive wealth accumulation and poverty are, while studiously pretending that in the absence of privilege, everyone would be equal in ability.
The truth is, the left and right are like yin and yang. For real understanding you have to see them together rather apart.
He could get Warren as his VP. I don't think she'd turn him down if he asked.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"She's not that young either is she?
Meh I still say go for Ron Regan, he's a Sander's supporter after all.
Seriosuly though, they need someone young, someone who can also be gotten ready to take over in 4-8 years (if the stress is to much we could end up with a one term president).
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Clinton and Trump are both around 5 years younger than Sanders. Also as TV Tropes has in their article on William Henry Harrison...
Also Ronald Reagan was older than him when he took office. Bernie Sanders will be fine since as President, he will have the best health care money can by... Because he would be President.
edited 7th Mar '16 12:29:16 PM by GameGuruGG
Wizard Needs Food BadlyStop laughing, Democrats! As the GOP goes down in flames, your post-Bernie civil war is almost here
Since the rich people who bought the Democratic Party from Hillary Clinton’s husband have all but destroyed it, and long ago severed it from any semblance of class-based politics and any coherent ideology beyond “not as mean as the other guys,” the field is wide open. Millions of people of all ages were energized by an oddball candidate who started talking about things no one in American politics has talked about seriously for at least 50 years. “Socialism” suddenly isn’t a bad word anymore, and that’s amazing. But now what? Can those people do what activists on the right did over a period of several decades, electing school board members and county committee members and state legislators on the way toward the Reagan revolution and the Tea Party insurgency? Because those true believers on the right dug in and worked hard and changed political reality.
Party insiders and “activists,” if any can still be found in that demoralized institution, can’t and won’t make any of that possible. It will take a rebel incursion, an invading force of newcomers from outside the Democratic Party and outside politics, to inject the necessary vitality.
edited 7th Mar '16 12:45:09 PM by BonsaiForest
![]()
You'd better not be editing with that thing on or Fighter is gonna kill you.
![]()
![]()
Awww, look at the sweet little cult of centerism, Salon are full of it, the Dems aren't about to have a civil war. Now they should stop laughing for other reasons (people like Trump as a joke, but apparently that can get him votes in the US, he needs to be made serious and not a joke).
edited 7th Mar '16 12:47:48 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranIt was Trump's grandfather whose changed his name from Drumpf to Trump, as that was common for German immigrants at the time. Donald Trump was always Donald Trump.
Wizard Needs Food Badly

Personally, I believe the parties are realigning... Both of them, and the major focus is going to be on fighting social inequality. Social inequality naturally includes racial inequality, gender inequality and ethnic inequality, but also includes the economic inequality that Sanders and Trump rail against. I think that this perfectly explains why the establishment Republicans are failing so badly... They want social inequality in all of its forms, which is no longer acceptable to the majority of America, and since the Republicans won't denounce racial, gender, and ethnic inequality, they are being forced to denounce economic inequality via Trump's success with voters. This also explains why Clinton is more stable against Sanders. The Democrats already denounce racial, gender, and ethnic inequality, with Clinton only having an issue in regard to economic inequality.
Wizard Needs Food Badly