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
I'll say that Sanders' line about the "conservative States" was misguided, but he could make an argument that part of Hillary's early successes stemmed primarily from her being far better known than he was.
And to address some of the issues raised on the previous page or two, part of why I'm hoping Sanders wins is because, while I doubt he'd get any of his stated goals accomplished, I'm also reasonably sure he'd push the Overton Window further to the left, which is kind of needed at this point. My mother, by contrast, is hoping for Kasich to get the nod out of the brokered convention because he'd have the best chance at getting Congress out of its inaction - my counterpoint is that the ones causing said inaction would take away the wrong lesson, and feel vindicated for "standing on principle" rather than being drummed out of office because they aren't doing their jobs to begin with.
Hillary is far better known for it recently - as others pointed out, Sanders was on the front lines of the Civil Rights Movement in the '60s, and I'm reasonably sure his overall position hasn't changed. It's more because his preferred drum to beat is economic inequality, rather than racial, and he likely sees the former as an intrinsic part of the latter.
edited 16th Apr '16 7:21:26 AM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"See, my impression was that Hillary's win in South Carolina and other southern states was mainly because there African Americans are a dominant part of the Democratic party (if not the Democratic party full stop - if memory serves, in some parts of the South like Missisippi party affiliations split fairly closely along racial lines) and these tend to vote for Hillary because she and her husband have a solid record at race relations and improving their lives and Obama is sort of endorsing her while Sanders is a novice for the most part in these aspects.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Name recognition is the biggest way to get people to just line up right behind you, yeah. Unfortunately, our politicians are looking more and more like Russia's oligarchs.
Trump not only doesn't know the Bible, he can't even be bothered
to do his fucking research.
And good ol' Bill is the only one who could take Sander's point about one of Hillary's biggest fuck-ups ever and call it "LIBERAL LIES!"
.
I am not sure what the research failure is there...?
Because, while "eye for an eye" is detailed in Exodus 21:24, Christ himself decries it in Matthew 5:38-39, stating that people should instead "turn the other cheek". The former isn't exactly "Christian" if you're trying to actually BE Christian. That's part of why I don't buy any arguments about America being a "Christian nation", as no nation on Earth could be considered a "Christian nation" by virtue of needing self-defense at minimum.
That said, it's very much in-line with Trump's expressed viewpoints, where he won't let any slight (real or perceived) go without trying to enact retribution for it.
edited 16th Apr '16 8:48:16 AM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"Aha. I think I know why it confused me — when I hear "Bible", I think "Tanakh"
, not a Christian Bible.
There is an interesting little detail about the "eye for an eye" thing that is kind of relevant nowadays. When it was introduced in the Code of Hammurabi, it was the earliest known set of laws that acknowledged that the poor and working class should have some protections too. It was brutal and horrible, but if a rich person directly caused a poor person to lose an eye, the rich person had to lose theirs too. Granted, the rich nobility would dodge it whenever they could, but if the ancient Sumerian equivalent to the courts found out...welp, there goes your eye!
edited 16th Apr '16 8:40:28 AM by Zendervai
I don't think Jesus was decrying the concept of "an eye for an eye". Keep in mind that, in another verse, Christ claims that he doesn't want to abolish Mosaic law, but to fulfill it.
In the case of turn the other cheek, I think he was referring to how you shouldn't escalate a situation if you can avoid it and to use unexpected kindness as a way of gathering attention. Trump easily fails at that, though.
Leviticus 19:34It's worth mentioning that the "eye for an eye" thing was a limit, not a minimum. The point is that if someone makes you lose an eye, you're not allowed to kill them over it, the most you can do to them is take their eye in return. It wasn't saying that if someone makes you lose an eye, you have to take their eye regardless of what you think of the situation.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
X4 Yeah it's a weird thing with some US Protestants, they tend to focus not on the teachings of Jesus but instead on the Old Testament rules that were made for Jews. They seem to want to be Jews but with a few changes.
edited 16th Apr '16 9:15:12 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThey focus on those rules because it gives them an excuse to be assholes to groups they don't like. Slavery, homophobia, sexism, all of it had some basis in the Bible and they used that to their advantage.
That implies these idiots actually care what the Bible says.
edited 16th Apr '16 9:24:27 AM by Kostya
@Jove: Yeah, I totally agree with an eye for an eye. It's simply the proportionality of punishment, which is a fundamental principle of modern secular law as far as I'm concerned.
And yeah, it certainly doesn't mean more peaceful options should be ignored.
I would say the abusive notion of justice common to conservatives (but also popular with Democrats) is a violation of that.
A MIC DROP! A FREAKING MIC DROP! THIS RACE IS BASED!
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.It's not inaccurate to say that the closer a state's demographics are to the demographics of the Democratic party on the national level, the better Clinton does. If a state has a larger minority population than the Democrats nationally, she does even better. Sanders has only won in states that are significantly whiter than Democrats as a whole are.
And there's no projections in that article. It only compares established census records with states that have already completed their primary.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.At the same time, Clinton seems to be the one winning older voters and Sanders younger voters. Which can thus be interpreted, along with where she's winning:
Hillary's winning the past and present, Sanders is winning a significant amount of the future.
Meanwhile, with regards to bellyaching that Sanders isn't backing state parties:
Hillary Clinton's committee raised 33 million, but only 2 million of that when to the states
Saying "but Clinton only has support from old people!" is another "real America" jab, where apparently older voters don't count because you disagree with the way they're voting.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Clinton is winning the current regular voters of the Democratic Party, Sanders is winning the people who will be voting for the next 40-50 years. It's not an invalidation of her worth but she's winning basically Boomers/Boomer Kids, Sanders is winning their kids.
Sanders tends to win younger voters. The younger voters are more liberal than the past generation.
So of COURSE Hillary is winning people representative of the Democratic Party, she's winning the 'current' version of the party. Sanders is winning the party's potential future voting base.
edited 16th Apr '16 1:10:44 PM by PotatoesRock

Clinton is winning the states that look like the Democratic Party.
Contrary to the narrative that Clinton only wins "Republican" or "conservative" states, her voters most closely match the Democratic electorate.
Schild und Schwert der Partei