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
Harriet Tubman to replace Alexander Hamilton on the $20 bill.
Fixing my mistakes.
edited 20th Apr '16 10:48:51 AM by tclittle
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."![]()
![]()
Okay.
So regarding that election fraud accusation a while back, there's apparently a huge discrepancy in the exit polling numbers and the actual results of the election, triple the margin of error of the exit polls in fact, I've heard one claim that there's about a 1 in 236,000 chance of the exit polls being so far off the mark.
I've heard some speculate that this may be due to the fact that affidavit ballots haven't been counted yet (and may not ever be counted)
edited 20th Apr '16 11:01:30 AM by CaptainCapsase
"The clusterfuck that would result from a third party Sanders COULD result in a democrat dominated senate and house, but if the democrats don't manage to take both, the Republicans in congress get their pick. Even with Trump (and probably Jesse Ventura and maybe even Rand Paul) in the race, it's almost guranteed that one of the top three candidates will be a Republican."
What? It would result in a Republican plurality, owing to the hemorrhaging of left-wing votes, and because of a Republican-controlled Congress, a Republican win.
Honestly, this is why I distrust Bernie. He's a Johnny-come-lately to the Democratic Party, and his supporters are deranged, loose cannons who would rather see Trump be president than Hillary be nominated. And even with a Bernie presidency and a Democratic Congress, they would likely be feuding all the time because Bernie has never really followed the party line. He and his faction are basically a fifth column in the Democratic fold.
edited 20th Apr '16 11:02:50 AM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
This is why I detest the First Past the Post voting (and the two party system which is a natural consequence of FPTP) so much.
You should also realize that it's never been established whether the new house or the old house gets to elect the President if there isn't a majority, and that third party runs after failed primaries tend to result in higher voter turnout, albeit not enough to make up for the votes that would have otherwise gone to one of the major party candidates. That's how a third party candidacy could result in a freakish outcome for the general election, though it's far too big of a risk for me to condone.
edited 20th Apr '16 11:07:23 AM by CaptainCapsase
Ok, I don't think its fair to brand Sanders' entire support base, or even a majority of it, as being too bitter to vote for Clinton/closet ring-wing racists who only like Sanders for the socialism/accelerationist lunatics out to trigger a revolution.
The minority that would reject Clinton (whatever the reason) enough to not vote against the GOP is a bit worrying, but its still a minority.
edited 20th Apr '16 11:09:03 AM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.There is some argument that Sanders supporters who are rejecting Clinton entirely would not have voted even if she ran effectively unopposed, so it's not necessarily a total loss, but it's still discouraging that there exists such polarization within the Democratic Party.
The good news, I suppose, is that if Trump wins on the GOP side, a lot of center-leaning Republicans will vote for Clinton just to deny him the White House.
edited 20th Apr '16 11:10:30 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!""Harriet Tubman to replace Alexander Hamilton on the $20 bill."
You mean replace Andrew Jackson. Hamilton is on the $10. The original plan was to put him and a woman on the $10, but this was protested because the original movement to change the currency specifically wanted Jackson replaced because of his notoriety and the visibility of the $20. A lot of the supporters of the change were actually very much opposed to changing the $10 because Hamilton is a much more respected figure and they felt having two people on one bill was disrespectful to both of them.
Hamilton was also a figure of integrity who built the US's financial system. The initial call to replace him on the 10 was probably borne out of a cultural obsession with the Presidents than out of a genuine desire to see deserving figures depicted in our currency. That's really the only logical expectation for the initial overlooking of Jackson. I'm glad the Treasury is making the right choice, though.
Why wouldn't he? He was the one who publicly advocated that Obama should face a primary challenger in 2012. He's a fair weather Democrat, and will drop them if it suits him.
edited 20th Apr '16 11:19:26 AM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."![]()
![]()
There's empirical evidence to suggest that's the case (virtually every general election poll done to date) with Trump. The assumption that Sanders is unelectable, especially when compared to Cruz or Trump, has no basis in this cycle.
@Fighteer: You have to love the way the two party system forces libertarians and evangelists into the same party if they want to be at all viable, don't you?
edited 20th Apr '16 11:21:11 AM by CaptainCapsase
Sanders admittedly polls highly against Trump and Cruz, but if he can't win enough Democratic primary contests to secure the nomination, who the fuck cares?
edited 20th Apr '16 11:20:35 AM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
How about transcripts of speeches where she makes a "47%" gaffe, or something of the like? It's not likely, but it's not impossible, and in the event that something like that were to happen, it's important for the democrats to have a backup plan, especially if the Republicans manage to field a viable candidate.
edited 20th Apr '16 11:28:19 AM by CaptainCapsase
It could happen, but whom would it alienate on the Democratic side that hasn't already decided she's criminal scum? Only an actual criminal indictment would sabotage her run at this point, and if that happens between now and July, Sanders would probably step in. If it happens after the nominating convention? I'm not sure we have a precedent.
edited 20th Apr '16 11:32:11 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"~Crimson Zephyr: No such thing as you say will happen, because a presidential candidacy split does not propagate downballot.
Putting this in bold because it's a very important note - even if a party splits on the presidential level between two candidates, downballot a split is very unlikely to occur as such splits are usually limited to the presidential candidacy. This is incidentally why such splits were always temporary - without congressional representation they don't have staying power.
Or more plainly, a Sanders third party run may split the Democratic vote in the presidential election, but both sides will almost certainly vote for the same congresscritters.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Which in this case, would be the Republican nominee.
The clusterfuck that would result from a third party Sanders COULD result in a democrat dominated senate and house, but if the democrats don't manage to take both, the Republicans in congress get their pick. Even with Trump (and probably Jesse Ventura and maybe even Rand Paul) in the race, it's almost guranteed that one of the top three candidates will be a Republican.
edited 20th Apr '16 10:33:04 AM by CaptainCapsase