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
Utah has declared pornography as a public health crisis
.
Time to name the pathogen in Plague Inc. "Porn" again, I think.
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotOf all the things to unite different religions with... fucking prudes, bloody typical. Typical "freedom of religion to oppress others with religion".
Oh for the love of... they're in the comments. I think I'm gonna throw up.
edited 16th Mar '16 6:30:34 AM by Luminosity
@Luminosity: Historically, the American public is known for having an extremely short memory regarding a candidate's history, and you see a tremendous amount of single issue voters relative to other countries.
My fear isn't that Sanders' supporters will vote for Trump out of spite, it's that he'll put on a completely different act for the general election and will run left of Clinton on issues she's not allowed to (healthcare reform and campaign finance reform), and people who previously supported Sanders will forget about the awful things he's said and end up voting for him on those issues.
edited 16th Mar '16 6:20:06 AM by CaptainCapsase
I hope you're right, but after everything Trump has gotten away with, I feel as if you might be seriously overestimating the general American public. Voter turnouts and the overall level of political engagement is already abysmal in the United States.
I can't imagine he'd be selling himself as a leftist, but I could absolutely see him getting away with adding on some left leaning policies onto his platform once the nomination is assured, ie socialized healthcare and free public college because he's such a great businessman that he can make that work.
The whole reason the right wing in America is able to get away with insisting fascism was a left wing ideology is because, to a certain extent, fascists did adopt left wing rhetoric and enact left wing policy when it suited them; the lack of a consistent ideology, ad-hoc policymaking, and appeals to the lowest common denominator is very much consistent with historical fascism.
edited 16th Mar '16 6:36:08 AM by CaptainCapsase
That'd be a laughably ironic sight, but I don't think he'll actually do it. His strategy is too one-note random racism and "we just win ok", it'll far more likely he'll just keep repeating himself. You're giving him too much brain credit.
As for turnout... low turnout is a real possibility, and that's more on Hillary, than on Trump. If her campaign laments about Bernie voters not showing up, maybe demeaning, antagonizing, and stereotyping them for the entirety of the primaries, then claiming voting for Hilary is an obligation for them, wasn't such a good idea now, was it?
Yeah, it's not time for Sanders to drop, and he should probably stay in, although people donating now should be wary of burning too much, and the "inevitability" aura may start kicking in for Clinton and suppressing on-the-fence voters like me (although in my case, i was going to vote Clinton if it was still close, and may vote Bernie now just to send a message. I'd rather have Clinton as the candidate but i prefer Bernie on the economic issues).
Boehner backs Paul Ryan for president
"If we don't have a nominee who can win on the first ballot, I'm for none of the above," Boehner said at the Futures Industry Association conference here. "They all had a chance to win. None of them won. So I'm for none of the above. I'm for Paul Ryan to be our nominee."
Wading into the GOP nominating battle for the first time since leaving office last fall, Boehner said that "anybody can be nominated" at the convention in Cleveland this summer.
Newsweek has an opinion piece on what would potentially happen if Trump wins.
TL;DR: He ends up being a lame duck president.
Obama is rumored to be nominating Garland to the supreme court.
@speedyboris: While they're probably right about Trump not being able to accomplish very much in spite of his bluster, I can't say I agree with them about him not being much to worry about.
They said it themselves in fact; while President Trump would not able to declare war on his own, Presidents can and have gotten America involved in armed conflicts on their own initiative for centuries, and I can't imagine his corrosive attitude would improve American foreign relations at all.
There's also the matter of him potentially being able to appoint 3 supreme court justices, 4 if the GOP actually makes good on their promise to stonewall Obama's attempt to appoint a replacement for Scalia. That's a legacy that could haunt America for many decades to come.
edited 16th Mar '16 7:54:42 AM by CaptainCapsase
There are a few issues where Trump legitimately is to the left of Clinton. Notably, he could take a cue from Sanders and criticise Clinton for her vote in favour of the Iraq war, since he's already been pretty open about criticising Bush for starting it. That said, this criticism would carry less weight coming from Trump than Sanders, since even though Trump says he was always against it, there's no record of him speaking negatively of it until after it was already a massively unpopular war.

Considering how weak and worthless her attempts to deny her Wall Street accusations have been so far, I highly doubt she will pull that approach off or even consider attempting it. She, at the very least, is still more favorable towards them than Obama. Which is a bad thing. Very bad.
Besides, unless she becomes a single-payer supporter overnight or denounces her entire history of warhawkery(neither of which is even remotely possible), I, for one, won't ever consider her an alternative to Sanders. And that's ignoring all the corruption and just going by views she officially hasn't changed on.
edited 16th Mar '16 5:09:14 AM by Luminosity