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
This is about as accurate and scientific as that octopus that can "predict" who'll win the World Cup.
Not even joking, there was an octopus that allegedly could do that. His name was Paul.
Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?Sir, if you insult the noble animal that was Paul we will need pistols at dawn.
"You can reply to this Message!"At this point, I'm not sure whether Ted Cruz or Donald Trump would be more likely to lose the general. They're both widely hated.
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's PlayTrump... is more widely hated. Cruz is less of an obvious celebrity(so he's not as well known to be as widely hated), and theocracy is sadly denounced less often(and is viewed more favorable in comparison) than Trump's brand of showoff racism, even though those two things are just as bad as each other. The inverse is also apparent, Trump supporters are far more devoted to Trump than Cruz supporters are to Cruz.
I can stomach "lesser evil" arguments on Clinton, as sick as they make me feel, but when those arguments are thrown Cruz's way... fuck no oh fuck no.
Tell the truth, I'm not sure. In my more naive days, I used to think having the Executive and Legislative branches controlled by different parties was a good thing in some ways, since it kept the more extreme elements at bay and prevented rubber stamp legislature. The Republicans being how they've been, though, I'm inclined to think seeing congress switch hands would be beneficial.
![]()
If a Democrat-controlled congress made her support single-payer and tone down her warhawkery - yes, she'd be good. I have a lot of gripes with her, but those two are personal.
I'd be even happier with a meaningful move against Wall Street, instead of toothless lip service displayed so far. Though by now, even I'm not sure what would offset her tainted history.
edited 20th Mar '16 11:53:06 AM by Luminosity
![]()
If you don't mind me asking, when did she say no single-payer ever. Because I can image her going "right now, that's not an option" but you've said she come out and said "it's never going to happen, ever" and that just doesn't sound right.
Also,
That's sort of weird of you to say. Besides that guy who got banned you were going on about her "tainted history" more than anyone.
edited 20th Mar '16 12:01:42 PM by LSBK
Here's proof of her statement on single-payer.
As for her tainted history - we have clearly different definitions of "tainted history". Her voting record on corporations is mixed - my link in OnTheIssues
shows that. And I consider just the act of taking donations from Wall Street, Comcast, and other evil sacks of shit tainting enough, without all that conspiracy-like bullshit.
edited 20th Mar '16 12:30:26 PM by Luminosity
Without a greater scope that just seemed like her attacking Sanders' plan, specifically, no the idea of universal healthcare or single-payer, in general.
Which, as I think was the point of video, is a bit hypocritical of her. But at the same time, they are political opponents so...
And my point about her "tainted history" is that you seem to consider everything about her tainted so I found your statement a bit strange. "Even I'm no sure" doesn't mean considering who we're talking about and your very vocal opinion about her. Which I'm not even necessarily disagreeing with, at least, entirely. So maybe I'm just messing with semantics or word play when I shouldn't.
edited 20th Mar '16 12:18:50 PM by LSBK
It seems like more the news themselves framing it within Sanders plan. Of course she primarily means Sanders, but the statement attacks "some theoretical idea that will never ever come to pass" and is used in contrast with her own "realistic" plan to expand Obamacare.
She frames advancement of single-payer and Obamacare as mutually exclusive, in a characteristically dishonest way. Sanders actually was involved in creation of Obamacare
, and although it is very complicated to determine just how much credit he deserves, trying to frame him as someone who'll just sit on his ass waiting for Congress to pass Medicare-for-all is... the "d" word again, yes.
Ah, sorry. Language derp on my part. "I'm not even sure" should have been used instead.
edited 20th Mar '16 12:43:56 PM by Luminosity

Any fool can plug in numbers and fit a model to past data. What takes wisdom is realizing when you don't have enough data to justify the model.
You could just as easily say something silly like: My model shows that women have a 0% chance of being elected president. It's never been wrong before!
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play