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
@Cassidy
Honestly, that depends whether or not he was aware of what Trump's really like. From what I hear, most of America weren't until Trump had actually run.
Besides, you can't judge someone just because they talked with an asshole. Just because I have a libertarian friend, doesn't mean I agree with any of his policies.
Eh, Owl seemed more the very extreme case.
And *shrug* Trump had money, I can see politicians from his state (wasn't HRC senator of NY at some point?note ) being acquainted with such a - for better or worse - prolific person of the voting area.
edited 18th Mar '16 9:07:40 AM by 3of4
"You can reply to this Message!"So Clinton is Go karting with Trump?
edited 18th Mar '16 9:09:17 AM by flameboy21th
Non Indicative Username@Septimus Heap- And he was like a leading Birther in the recent past (I'm really surprised no one mentions that). So yeah, I do kind of see the point. Where I have a problem is with the implication that Clinton and Trump share horrible views or conversely that Trump is pretending to be a racist nut so that Clinton is a shoe in (this is a popular conspiracy theory, especially by Cruz supporters). But it kind of seemed like Solipsist Owl was only angry about Trump's actions and comments to the extent that Clinton would be tied to them or Sanders opposed them.
edited 18th Mar '16 9:12:23 AM by Hodor2
Also, when you are a politician or a political figure, you get used to taking phone calls from and shaking hands with people whom you would cheerfully strangle under different circumstances.
It was never a Clinton circle-jerk. We have freely pointed out problems with her candidacy and I don't think anyone here (who is not a declared conservative, at least) has said that they hate Sanders. We have, however, extensively critiqued his ideas, which is, last I checked, what you are supposed to do in a campaign season.
edited 18th Mar '16 9:21:15 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
That's called being a civilized. The shaking hand without strangling thing.
edited 18th Mar '16 9:15:25 AM by flameboy21th
Non Indicative UsernameI hate to be that guy but two Sanders things from his interview last night on Rachel Maddow that rubbed me the wrong way:
First, despite previously criticizing the use/existence of the Superdelegates, if he doesn't win enough primaries/delegate votes, he plans to try to ask Clinton's superdelegates to vote for him
.
Also, in what doesn't really make sense, he said that while he would support Obama's pick of Garland for the Supreme Court, if he (Sanders) was elected President, he would then ask Obama to withdraw Garland so he could pick his own nominee
.
My reaction to this is pretty much while you can have too much loyalty to party as well as lacking in principles (see Debbie Wasserman Shultz), Sanders is evidencing the opposite extreme (see also the fact that he was an Independent until recently and the whole "threatening to run against Obama in 2012" thing).
edited 18th Mar '16 9:22:44 AM by Hodor2
Sanders said it himself: he's looking for a win in the nominating process. While he would prefer that win be by committed delegates (i.e., the outcome of the popular vote), should he achieve that win and yet still be losing because of the superdelegates, he would be foolish not to seek their support himself, even if he disapproves of the system that created them.
At a certain point in politics, taking too principled a stand means you lose.
On the SCOTUS nomination, it came across as Sanders strategically positioning himself. Garland is not his first choice, but given that it is Obama's choice,and Obama is still President, Sanders will support it until or unless he's in a position to make his own choice.
edited 18th Mar '16 9:24:57 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
First, no, he didn't say that.
That's what he said. It's evasive, sure, but it's not a confirmation of the strategy. See, this is what I worry about when I say "circle-jerk". This thread has a theme of randomly and unsubstantially accepting everything bad about Sanders.
As for Garland, from what I hear, he's nowhere near the best choice, so it's within Sanders's right to try pushing for a better one.
![]()
The problem is though that it's like on one hand, he and his surrogates have essentially been arguing that the people support him and sort of suggesting that Clinton's wins are because of gaming the system. But now he's saying that if he can't win through the democratic process... he's going to game the system.
He's basically arguing that since people should be voting for him, it's inconceivable that they wouldn't be and so if he doesn't get the most votes, there must be something wrong.
Also, how can he argue that he's the more electable candidate if he can't win the most primary votes?
Garland's arguably not the best choice, but it's ridiculous to say that you'll support a candidate but then add that if you are elected, you'll demand that the candidate (who by this point has potentially been through Congressional hearings) be withdrawn and the process starts all over.
edited 18th Mar '16 9:31:43 AM by Hodor2
Sanders has a point that the outcome is not decided: half the states have yet to vote, and those states have demographics that are more favorable to him than the ones who have. He intends to see this through to the convention, and if, at that time, he enjoys the support of a majority of the committed delegates, he will campaign for the support of the superdelegates on the basis that he has a better chance of defeating Donald Trump, who will presumably be the Republican nominee.
Re: Garland — Sanders will vote for him if the Senate permits a vote to happen. If a vote does not occur, and he is elected President, he will choose someone else. This is not hard to understand unless your political awareness consists of fifteen-second sound bites on the evening news.
edited 18th Mar '16 9:33:48 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"When people say electable, they mean electable in general election. Like it or not, Clinton is much weaker there. Her biggest primary victores are in states that consistently vote Republican, she can't command enthusiasm and support like Sanders can, and her campaign's insistent antagonizing and stereotyping of Bernie voters(despite needing them for the general) might make a good number of them stay home.
Mind you, I don't think even Clinton will actually lose to Trump, but she is weaker in that sense.
![]()
We have a dedicated topic for Israel vs. Palestine, and the conversation about it should be taken there. It is not permitted anywhere else.
Some of those Bernie supporters deserve the criticism, but most are responding to his basic, populist argument, which is fundamentally sound. It's just that his ideas for fixing the problems have an aura of unrealistic idealism around them, and the concrete plans he's presented don't add up.
There's that, too. If Clinton is forced out due to legal problems, the nomination may go to Sanders by default, however unlikely that may be.
edited 18th Mar '16 9:36:54 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I don't think that Sanders is more electable in the general election. I think it's important to note that when Clinton is having these big wins in what Sanders and his supporters are calling conservative states, it's not because she's winning Republican voters (although to the extent she is, it would actually be a good argument for electability), it's because she's winning minority voters and Sanders isn't.
And yes, Sanders is doing better in more liberal states (see Colorado for instance; also though Clinton did win Massachusetts), but those states are going to vote for whoever the Democratic candidate is. The sign of who is more electable in the general is who is winning the "swing states", which so far has been Clinton for the most part.
edited 18th Mar '16 9:40:08 AM by Hodor2
That's not a good argument at all. She wins Republican states, and Trump wins the same states, by a much higher margin. Those states in the general WILL go to Trump, so they're effectively worthless for Democrats no matter how well their candidate does in the primary.

Trump was always a clown, but the person he has become in this election cycle was not apparent previously.
The problem with the line of conversation that I had to shut down there is that it's using its conclusions as its premises. It starts from the premise that Clinton and the Democrats in general are irredeemably corrupt at best and explicitly criminal at worst, and then filters all evidence that it gathers through that premise to arrive at a foregone conclusion. Solipsist is far from the only person who displays that mentality.
edited 18th Mar '16 9:08:01 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"