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
"In Honor of Nancy Reagan"? Didn't she endorse Hil though?
edited 10th Mar '16 7:17:29 AM by FFShinra
What's ironic with voting is that there's a reverse Clap Your Hands If You Believe. The more people who don't vote because they believe that their vote doesn't count, the more value each individual vote has.
Leviticus 19:34Anyone watch the Democratic debate last night? It was the best yet!
Clinton's attacks against Sanders went so far to the Left that she began to accuse him of being a Republican: she implied he supports Mexican-killing vigilantes, President Bush, and is friends with the Koch Brothers.
Didn't work. Sanders received a standing ovation from the debate audience at the end while Clinton only nervously laughed. It looked like she wanted to respond, but as the cheers grew she decided against and laughed instead.
Plus Jorge Ramos asked if she'd drop out if indicted. She refused to answer.
edited 10th Mar '16 9:16:22 AM by SolipsistOwl
Clinton and Sanders fought over a bill that Bush ultimately ended up using to finance the automobile industry which flunked, so the purpose of the Bill was not known for either. Sanders ended up supporting it too. Sanders also supported the "mexican killing things" in a way: he was horribly misinformed about that bill, and the only people who accused that bill of being a "mexican murderer" thing was the national council of La Raza, who I honestly know nothing about but given how all of the militias are really pissed at them the ygotta be doing something right
Also, Sanders' track with the Veteran health was called out by Clinton and Sanders' track on that is not as good as he claims.
Furthermore, clinton DID call out Wall Street before its collapse but people apparently want a politician that goes with an iron glove, instead of the more diplomatic way Clinton went on about it. Sanders blatantly exagerated the health of Cuba as an example, and the lack of availability of prescription medicines.
All in all, it is more of the same. Clinton did good, Sanders did good, honestly they should both just kiss and make up already and go Sanders/Clinton or Clinton/Sanders idc
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesJust because Clinton *says* she "called out" Wall Street doesn't mean she did. The Sanders campaign posted footage from said meeting: Clinton walked in and immediately called the attendees her "wonderful donors."
Also, Sanders did not exaggerate one bit about Cuba. Everything he said about Cuban advances due to Castro's revolution was 100% factual.
edited 10th Mar '16 9:29:58 AM by SolipsistOwl
Sanders did the exact same thing about cutting Clinton to make her look bad.
Again, she did not go the populist Iron Glove way people want but am ore diplomatic way
She said the brewing economic troubles weren’t mainly the fault of banks, “not by a long shot,” but added they needed to shoulder responsibility for their role. While there was plenty of blame to go around for the spate of reckless lending, and while Wall Street may not have created the foreclosure crisis, it “certainly had a hand in making it worse” and “needs to help us solve it.”
As you can see in Propublica
I said he exagerated Cuba's HEALTH service, not about its revolution.
edited 10th Mar '16 9:31:37 AM by Aszur
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes![]()
Re-read my comment. Sanders comments about Cuba's *advances* due to the revolution—including healthcare—are 100% factual.
Cuba has one of the most well-respected healthcare industries in the world with a much higher life expectancy rate compared to the surrounding region.
edited 10th Mar '16 9:35:06 AM by SolipsistOwl
Yeah again, people want an iron fisted approach to something that cannot be approached with an iron fist. Clinton definitely tried and warned though, just not in a way that would make the average person go "WOW YOU REALLY SHOWED THEM THERE MISSUS MAY I CLEAN THE BLOOD FROM YOUR HANDS?"
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesYou know, the more that I see some of the Sanders supporters in this thread try to paint Clinton as the anti-Christ and their man as the one guy who can save America, the more I hope he loses. Seriously, the hero worship is getting disturbing. While Sanders himself seems like a decent guy, and would probably make a decent enough president, the rabidity of his supporters, and their unwillingness to see less radical Democrats as anything less than The Enemy (not even rivals but The Enemy) has convinced me that his winning the nomination would be disastrous for the Democratic Party, and potentially American politics as a whole.
I mean, I watched the last debate. Clinton's comments bear next to no resemblance to the brutal political hatchet job that Solipist Owl is describing. She criticized some of his positions, and his supporters here are trying to paint it as a vicious ad hominem attack. When love of a candidate causes people to lose touch with reality and start inventing their own facts, it's time to get rid of that candidate. It's happened with most of the Republican candidates. It seems to be happening to some of the Sanders fans as well.
Clinton very much did suggest that Sanders was more supportive of President Bush than Presidents Clinton and Obama.
She very much did suggest that the Koch Brothers have sided with Sanders.
She very much did say that he voted to support anti-Mexican "vigilantes."
It's not a biased perception to see that Clinton was just spinning more rhetoric and obfuscations, which Sanders thankfully called out very early.
edited 10th Mar '16 9:38:52 AM by SolipsistOwl
No, dude. Take it from someone much more closer, and much more attentive of medical healthcare services worldwide since my country competes directly with Cuba for Medical Tourism.
Cuba is decent at training doctors
but real fucking awful at making that service available to its population
, especially in rural areas.
If Sanders is about universal healthcare, Cuba is not a good example by far.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesFrom your own linked article, Cuba doesn't seem that "high risk" at all.
Although the organization did not give explanations for individual countries it defined "high risk'' nations more generally. Emergency services that are only inconsistently available in remote areas, limited access to quality prescription drugs as well as the threat of serious infectious diseases are among the characteristics of risky travel destinations, according to the organization. Hence, visiting Cuba might be safe if you restrict your travels to major cities, but trips to rural areas could be much more dangerous than one would expect.
Cuba isn't perfect, but that should not be reason to disregard their advances. Do people not praise China for their rapid economic growth and industrialization despite their far worse human rights violations?
The facts speak for themselves—Cuba has a higher life expectancy rate than surrounding Latin American nations:
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN/countries/CU-XJ-XT?display=graph
edited 10th Mar '16 9:44:54 AM by SolipsistOwl

I am still bummed about what I found out yesterday lol. I thought the U.S actually gave a crap about its politics but like, half of the population dont vote. I would have even accepted 30ish percent but wow. Just half is way too much!
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes