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
@Fighteer: It isn't "working" if (as is increasingly unlikely Dem-side, and increasingly likely Rep-side) the candidates who have the support of the people are not the ultimate candidates because they didn't fit in with the system. The whole point of the Sanders and Trump candidacies is that people are voting against Washington.
A "guided democratic oligarchy" isn't serving the needs of the people who want the banks broken up. (I'll be fair, it's also not serving the needs of the people who want Mexico to pay for the wall we're building. But I have to address this: Fighteer, if we the citizens of the United States, taken as a whole, do not want to allow immigration, we have a right to refuse to allow or tolerate new immigrants.)
edited 20th Apr '16 8:29:01 AM by Ramidel
![]()
Ultimate authority derives from the consent of the governed. To be sure, if we collectively decide not to let people immigrate, then it is the duty of our elected leaders to enact such legislation, so long as it's not in violation of the Constitution. However, I challenge your idea that opposition to immigration represents a majority view within our voting population.
While media bias no doubt exists, it doesn't help that he hasn't presented any credible path to get his ideas enacted.
Change of subject: Charges have been announced related to the Flint, Michigan lead poisoning crisis.
edited 20th Apr '16 8:33:41 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
One word: Trump. He's going to be a downticket disaster for the GOP if they can't stop him, and it's not inconceivable for the democrats to end up with a supermajority in congress if things go especially well for them. If the democrats at that point refuse to enact legislation like single payer healthcare which is favored by a majority of Americans and an overwhelming majority of their base...
edited 20th Apr '16 8:38:47 AM by CaptainCapsase
So Sanders' only path to a supermajority whereby he can get his policy ideas pushed into law is for the GOP to collapse under a radical populist candidate? I can't figure out if this is Dramatic Irony or Black Comedy. However, I suspect that Clinton would also be quite happy to work with such a supermajority.
Also, it is really improbable for Democrats to win the House of Representatives this election.
edited 20th Apr '16 8:40:29 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
What I'm saying is that this cycle could have been the perfect storm for Sanders to accomplish his agenda; that it wouldn't be possible in an ordinary election cycle is irrelevant; opportunism and politics go hand in hand.
As far as the house goes, it's really improbable with anyone other than Trump, but there are some polls, particularly recent ones, which have him losing to the democratic nominee (whomever it may be) in all 50 states and by a 70-30 margin in terms of electoral delegates. He's as much of a once in a lifetime candidate as much as Clinton or Sanders, perhaps even moreso.
As for Clinton, we'll have to agree to disagree about what I think she'd do with a supermajority; I'd expect from her slightly less than what Obama got done with a democratic house and senate. A fair amount of good, but nothing to address the growth of the plutocratic class.
edited 20th Apr '16 8:51:50 AM by CaptainCapsase
My descriptor is "wishful thinking". It's fairly clear that Trump has a demographic to appeal to, and it's a sizable one. And if he bombs in the election, his scaring-away effect will disappear come the next election.
Also, Hoyer: 'Amazing' that Republicans still win elections
and Kasich takes Manhattan
.
![]()
![]()
It does seem to represent a majority viewpoint of one of the two political parties in America, and it is the one with control over both the House and the Senate. How else would you explain Trump's utter success in the Republican Primaries?
Maddowblog: Why Republicans are eager to intervene in the Democratic race
Specifically, they believe that, despite Bernie's current polling as more electable than Hillary, he has yet to face the full assault of the Republican propaganda machine, whereas Hillary is battle-tested and resilient to their attacks. They are promoting him as a candidate because they think they'd be able to tear him apart in a general election.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
Thing is should the Republicans beliefs be taken seriously? I mean it's the Republican establishment, they don't exactly have a good track record when it comes to knowing what's best for getting themselves the White House.
edited 20th Apr '16 9:08:39 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.” ~ CyranI do think it needs to be taken seriously. There are a lot of people who fall for their tall tales, as we see from the Republicans' way unrealistic midterm election promises.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
The midterm election comeback for the GOP is more a matter of people becoming extremely apathetic, and not turning out in large numbers. Low turnout is usually more of a problem for the democrats than the Republicans, which is personally why I suspect Sanders polls better against Trump than Clinton; both of them have abysmal unfavorable ratings among the general population, and while Trump does a great deal to suppress the voter turnout of the GOP base, the same is true of Clinton.
edited 20th Apr '16 9:14:17 AM by CaptainCapsase
![]()
![]()
![]()
It's not exactly an unreasonable assessment though. I see it on Fox News when my dad has it on. They push the narrative of Bernie being the secret breakout candidate on the democratic side as it helps their narrative that "the Democrats are really radical communist guys and here is the "socialist" saying it himself"!
That being said I really don't think that's as big a deal this cycle, what with the Republican party imploding regardless of who gets the nomination at this point.
edited 20th Apr '16 9:19:03 AM by Mio
Captain Capsase: I find it amusing that Rachel Maddow is considered part of the "Democratic propaganda machine"; she is almost ruthlessly fair in my experience and a major advocate of progressive causes. If that's your line of attack whenever someone says something negative about Bernie, it's no wonder people dismiss it.
edited 20th Apr '16 9:22:39 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Thouse two phrases do not belong in a sentence together.
I still stand that the Republicans who are saying this have generally given and advise. Karl Rove is saying they could beet Sanders, didn't Karl Rove play a big part in the Republican loses in 2012?
edited 20th Apr '16 9:29:21 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.” ~ CyranWell, yes, one has to consider the source. Those folks have a spectacular track record of being paid a lot of money to be wrong about everything. Still, it is useful to understand the angle of their strategic thinking.
Yep, which is what the Maddowblog entry was documenting, as a responsible news source should.
edited 20th Apr '16 9:43:38 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The point I was trying to make was with the Fox News statement was that I was observing how they were trying to make Bernie out to be the breakout candidate on the democratic side and that Hillary was in decline.
It is false, but I was trying to point that out as a demonstration of how the right-wing propaganda machine was working in the way Maddow speculated.
@Fighteer: Maddow is fair compared to say, CNN, but all of the televised News Networks are aligned with one of the political parties in the United States, and its disingenuous to call the Republican party's capture of certain media outlets a propaganda machine without at the same time conceding that the democratic party does much of the same.
Okay, but then how does MSNBC being a "propaganda machine" — a point I could contest — have anything to do with whether Maddow's treatment of Sanders is fair enough for you?
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Even Fox News has a few reporters who actually try to do their jobs properly, but there's a limit on what they're allowed to say without being fired. It's probably better to say I disagree with Maddow's assessment of the situation. They're probably right about Sanders being "easier" to beat than Clinton, but when Trump is either going to be their nominee or a spoiler, that's effectively meaningless, and I don't think that's why they're trying to paint Sanders as the breakaway candidate at this point. I'd say what the GOP wants is for Sanders base to call for a third party run, and for him to go for it, which would presumably result in nobody getting the majority, allowing the Republican establishment dominated house to pick the President of their choice.
edited 20th Apr '16 10:03:11 AM by CaptainCapsase
Well, if you believe their overt propaganda, they want Sanders either to win the nomination and thus be "easier to defeat" (hypothetically) in the general, or to so poison Hillary's candidacy that she loses enough support for a Republican candidate to potentially win.
Also, the House only decides direct electoral ties. Winning the Presidency requires only a plurality of votes, not a majority.
edited 20th Apr '16 10:04:08 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"When talking about the House selecting the president, please remember that such a vote runs on a per-state basis
not per-representative basis. And that such a third party run by Sanders would increase Democrat turnout above that of an one-candidate run, which could seriously harm the GOP in the Senate and House elections.

The form of oligarchy I'm describing isn't necessarily plutocratic in nature, but the way I see it forming, at least in the United States's case, would be the power of economic elites in American politics continuing to grow, and becoming concentrated into increasingly smaller and smaller subsets of the population until it reaches a point where the outcome of elections are solely determined by the preferences of this plutocratic class.
edited 20th Apr '16 8:32:25 AM by CaptainCapsase