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
Let's can gossip about banned users. It's not productive.
As for the nomination process vs. the general election, it's not as straightforward as "Clinton wins the nom, she wins the general." The Venn diagram of Republicans who vote in the primaries, Democrats who vote in the primaries, Republicans who vote in the general, Democrats who vote in the general, and swing voters is extremely complex, especially when you have to break it down by state. This is why we have agencies whose sole job is to crunch those numbers and deliver cogent data to the press and to the campaigns.
Re: Hillary hatred on the right — we've had a lot of Republicans come out over the past few weeks and say that, if Trump and Clinton get the nominations, they'll vote for Clinton because at least she's a devil they know and respect. That cannot be underestimated as a force, and may even offset the disillusionment of Sanders supporters who won't vote for Clinton because she's a "corporate shill".
Meanwhile, Sanders remains untested at the national level. He hasn't had the entire GOP propaganda apparatus aimed at him and firing with all barrels. Clinton has been enduring that kind of scrutiny since 1992! She's battle-tested in a way that Sanders is not, and so whatever her numbers may look like now, when voters take a hard look at the choice between her and Trump, it's in a known space. All the past scandals help her in a way by being past: everyone is tired of them.
edited 18th Mar '16 11:30:59 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Oddly, one concern I've heard from a customer (pushing 80, former Marine) is that, because Hillary's a woman, certain nations wouldn't show her the same level of respect a male President would receive. I've tried pointing out that she had to deal with those same countries while Secretary of State, but he's still ambivalent on the matter - so that's a possible hurdle she might have to overcome for some voters.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"Lol, according to this editorial
, the Republicans could stop Trump and Clinton alike... by cheating.
So in other words, blatantly go against the wishes of the people. Yeah, that'll be real popular among both Clinton and Trump supporters.
![]()
There've been plenty of female heads of state around the world, and they haven't faced that problem. So it's a rather blatant case of America-myopia. Which is not to say that it's not an issue that may have an impact in the election, but I would remind anyone with those sentiments that the same issues were not raised vis-a-vis Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, or Carly Fiorina.
It's not "cheating", but a third-party run by the GOP establishment would effectively split the party's voters and guarantee a Democratic win.
edited 18th Mar '16 11:31:42 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Bachmann and Fiorina were never thought to have a chance, or someone probably would have. Hell, I would have wrt Fiorina simply because she seemed to "overcompensate" for her gender at times and act too aggressive to be president.
As for Palin, plenty of people have pointed out issues both real and imaginary about that woman.
You know, back in high school I once had a classmate tell me a woman shouldn't be President, since they would start wars because their feelings were hurt or something (nevermind that the President can't just declare war whenever they want).
Said classmate was also female. Internalized misogyny, much?
Oh God! Natural light!![]()
![]()
On the left, sure. But on the right, there exists a sort of bubble of worship around Palin that nevertheless hypocritically attacks Clinton for things they ignore in their idol.
![]()
Said candidate could probably not obtain enough votes to matter, especially without the full weight of the party's election apparatus behind them. If that is their objective, their best bet is to hold an internal coup during the convention, declare their preferred candidate the nominee, and dare Trump to run as an independent.
edited 18th Mar '16 11:36:53 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"If anything, I think having a female world leader in a position as influential as the President of the United States might put some pressure on those countries regarding their struggling women's rights. If a woman can be the President of the U.S., how can one continue to justify treating them as an inferior people?
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.![]()
Well, Megyn Kelly got told off by Trump for having her period, so misogyny is alive and well in the Republican Party. I find it amusing that the Palin worship extends so far as to give her a pass on her daughter having two (or is it three, now) children out of wedlock.
edited 18th Mar '16 11:45:07 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
I wouldn't say that's accurate per say, since very many Republicans didn't approve of Trump doing that.
In fairness, Fox News did back Kelly on that one, leading to Trump's famous feud with them. Still, it doesn't change the baseline truth of the GOP "war on women".
edited 18th Mar '16 11:48:42 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Letter with granular matter sent to Trump's son in New York
The letter was addressed to the Manhattan home of Eric Trump, 32, who has appeared frequently on the campaign trail with his father, the Republican front-runner for the White House in 2016.
"There was a substance inside that is being tested, it's not lethal," the official said.
The letter, which contained threats over Trump continuing his campaign, was being examined by law enforcement experts, the official said. No suspects have been identified.
Police were called to Trump Parc East, a luxury apartment building in mid-Manhattan, at 7:15 p.m. EDT (2315 EDT) on Thursday with a report of a suspicious letter received by a tenant.
No injuries were reported.
edited 18th Mar '16 12:18:03 PM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling OnUgh. As much as I may detest everything Trump is and does, fake assassination threats are hardly the way to defeat him in a democracy, especially when they are targeted at his family.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Who said it's fake? The granular substance might not be meant to imitate anthrax. It could just be some of the cocaine that whoever sent this must have been snorting to come up with a plan this idiotic.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Not the first time this year this has happened, remember.
(Even if everyone here who wasn't me ignored it.)
It was noted but lost in the clamor. I don't know why anyone would bother sending "white powder" to Rubio; he was never going to win the nomination
![]()
*chortle* *snort* *guffaw* *collapses*
*wheeze* *pant*... Man, that was good. Oh, wait, you were serious?
edited 18th Mar '16 12:31:23 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
Only half-way. Rubio was the guy I was going to vote for (I like most conservative policies, but think that Cruz is too aggressively conservative, and Trump is Trump). He wasn't quite the Only Sane Man, though. Also, it would require the person sending the letter to be a Card-Carrying Villain, which is unlikely.
edited 18th Mar '16 12:45:46 PM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34

Sorry I'm late to answer, but Bill has, as a matter of fact, specificially denied it: