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
Lost in Space
Now I see where you're dislike for Sanders is coming from; good to see the red scare is alive and well more than twenty years after the breakup of the Soviet Union, because Sanders (and most of his supporters) is a socialist in the same way an apple is an orange.
More seriously, I'm curious whether or not you even consider the way campaign financing works in the United States to be a problem? Because I can't see someone whose benefitted from the current system to the tune of around a billion dollars doing anything to change that; if anything the opposite seems far more likely.
edited 20th Apr '16 5:07:32 AM by CaptainCapsase
![]()
Oh, cut out the hysteria. I was speaking hyperbolically. Sanders' push to have more people involved in politics is admirable, but he's accomplishing that via empowering the same kind of ignorant anger as Trump. I can appreciate the principle but not the results.
The current campaign finance system is broken, but I want it replaced with a system whereby elections are funded from general revenue. I want all donations, large and small, out of the system.
edited 20th Apr '16 5:10:05 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Also the revolution requires the highly trained types to get screwed over by the system to get momentum. Doctors, Pharmacists, Pencil Pushers, Middle Management etc. Comfortably paying but not super high paying jobs.
If memory serves, the current recession didn't hit that pay bracket hard enough to give revolution its sea legs, as it were.
Basically you need to get middle management types screwed enough to side with the floor workers/labor unions. Ties into the whole pattern revolt tends to come from a highly trained middle man with a university/college education, or rich yuppie.
edited 20th Apr '16 5:17:07 AM by PotatoesRock
![]()
Hysteria? That's essentially the amount that the Clinton's have raised over their career for their political campaigns. The money they've raised for their personal fortune is much smaller, but still more than anyone here will see in their lifetime more likely than not.
I'm sorry, but I can't see why someone who has benefited so much from the current campaign finance system, both in the political world and personally would do anything to address the flaws.
Edit: I should also add that one of the reasons I think this cycle is particularly important is because I suspect both of the parties are likely to shut the door on anti-establishment candidates in future primaries assuming one of them doesn't end up winning the presidency; in that case only the loosing party would do that.
edited 20th Apr '16 5:24:40 AM by CaptainCapsase
Wait really? Even if there was some genuine election fraud, I doubt it'll be tied back to Clinton; nothing every is, but if that were to happen, well it depends on when it happens. Were it to happen before the convention, it might go to Sanders, or the democrats might just decide to nominate someone who isn't running like they did with McGovern, and tank the inevitable repeat of the DNC riots. As much as that'd harm the image of the party and suppress voter turnout, if Trump or Cruz with a Trump spoiler is what the democrats are facing in November, there's almost no way they can lose.
edited 20th Apr '16 5:41:05 AM by CaptainCapsase
There has been a lot of hubub for sometime of people being removed from voter roles and finding out they are not actually registered when they go to vote. It's happened in several states in this contest and honestly it's not an uncommon occurrence in elections past.
That being said, I wonder how much of this is just of new or infrequent voters not understanding what the rules are.
Which is kind of funny because it does not appear that the "peasantry" finds Sanders to be all that appealing.
Or at least a certain segment of it.
Sanders' "revolution" is very much a social media phenomenon, and so it tends to be concentrated among the core demographics for social media: non-poor, white, young, and at least somewhat educated. This culture has adopted many of the trappings of hipsterism, where it is considered cool to dis anything that is too "mainstream".
edited 20th Apr '16 6:23:03 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The New York primary was a mess, but there is no proof that the mess helped Hillary.
The simple fact is that every poll showed Clinton leading Sanders in New York. So either every pollster is a Hillary shill, or Sanders just wasn't going to win this state.
The fact that this was a closed primary (unlike Michigan) also dashed any hope of a surprise victory.
You can tell he wishes he had run.
edited 20th Apr '16 6:27:30 AM by Demonic_Braeburn
Any group who acts like morons ironically will eventually find itself swamped by morons who think themselves to be in good company.Biden has a sharp political mind and a wealth of experience in many areas of government. We could do a lot worse for a President, but I firmly believe he fell into the general feeling in the Democratic Party that it was time to unite around Hillary in an effort to focus the party's efforts on retaining control of the White House without any potentially damaging primary fights. Sanders, as we know, didn't get that memo.
I still believe that a good primary battle is fundamentally healthy for any party, but we're starting to get to the point in this race where it's becoming less substantive and more acrimonious. All that's going to do is turn voters off from whichever candidate wins.
edited 20th Apr '16 6:40:40 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"In fairness I doubt Sanders was expecting to do this well, he was probably expecting to just stick around for the early period to keep Clinton honest and avoid the entire thing becoming a coronation. I'm still not convinced by the theories that Sanders is going to force a contested convention no matter what, even if he does stick in it for all the states, he may simply hold dropping out until the final state is done and Clinton has her pledged delegate lead totalled up.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
If that's true, his continued perseverance in this race is looking somewhat Quixotic. I see my Facebook feed filled with friends who are lamenting the death of American democracy and the descent into oligarchy and how they'll never support Clinton in a million years because she's a tool of a corrupt system and yadda yadda.
So, tell me again how Sanders' candidacy has improved the health of the party.
Neither candidate has named a potential veep, but Biden may not want the job for another eight years.
edited 20th Apr '16 6:47:24 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
