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
What evidence is there that a significant number of Bernie supporters do? Most of my friends fall into that category and I've never met a single one. The only place I've heard about these people is Reddit.
edit: I go to a fairly big college. Outside of fraternity assholes admitting you're a Trump supporter will make you a pariah to most of the students. Given how most of said students are Bernie supporters I'm not seeing how there's any overlap.
edited 28th Apr '16 6:17:02 AM by Kostya
@Handle- Yeah no. Israel is responsible for its own actions. Her merely continuing the status quo, while not great, it's not as bad as this idea that not doing anything in the world remotely violent at all is somehow gonna solve everything. There is a such thing as priorities and Israel isn't one and hasn't been since Carter.
Not that the Presidential election really matters. Congress holds most of the real powers, and neither candidate is going to seriously rock the boat in terms of their use of the powers the President does have. Not a reason to skip voting, since there's an outside chance you might live in one of the few congressional districts where the outcome isn't set in stone through gerrymandering (pretty much the entire House) or the state being unflinchingly blue or red (for the senate).
edited 28th Apr '16 6:41:56 AM by CaptainCapsase
It matters an awful lot. Not only does the President set the overall tone of the country's political environment, have the ability to issue executive orders, have the ability to issue regulations, influence how law enforcement conducts itself, have the power to engage our military, have the power to negotiate treaties, and so on; but the President can also veto legislation passed by a hostile Congress.
If a Republican wins and that party also retains control of Congress, every single stupid Republican idea will start to get passed into law. Obamacare? Kiss it goodbye. Dodd-Frank? Gone. Immigration reform? Poof. Environmental regulation? Zap. Minimum wages? Bye. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
In the very worst case, with a GOP House and Senate and a Democratic President, the office can be used to stall out the insanity from the right.
edited 28th Apr '16 6:44:16 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Same net result as a Republican supermajority in congress, which isn't entirely implausible if the hypothetical third party Trump candidacy results in a major boost to GOP turnout, and Hillary Clinton's rather poor reputation among independents and the "far" left results in depressed turnout among democrats.
edited 28th Apr '16 6:48:17 AM by CaptainCapsase
You really think that Trump will motivate more people to vote in downticket races than he'll turn off from them? I don't think so. These ideas that Hillary is vastly unpopular with the middle and will send people home are pretty misguided.
What will most likely happen with Clinton vs. Trump is increased turnout from the nutball right, reduced turnout from the populist left, and a large swing of middle/independent leaning voters from the GOP to the Democrats, more than enough to offset the other losses. Polling backs this up.
edited 28th Apr '16 6:50:24 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"A Trump third party candidacy cannot create a veto proof majority, period.
One, not enough Senate seats the Republicans could gain. Two, "packing" means there is little room for Republicans to expand in the House.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman![]()
Yes,you're probably right, but do understand that the status quo (the democratic establishment) doesn't work for everyone. Just because the alternative is unthinkable for anyone not looking to spark a revolution, doesn't mean we should be thrilled about voting for it.
edited 28th Apr '16 6:53:30 AM by CaptainCapsase
At this point, given the control that the far right holds over state government and House representation, there is little better we can hope for, unless we're willing to have that revolution.
![]()
I'd say it's pretty much inevitable at this point; climate change is going to bring about some damn near apocalyptic famines in the western world in the latter half of the 21st century, and that's going to mean massive unrest. Suffice to say, I seriously doubt the human race will survive the 22nd century; it must be in intelligent life's nature to destroy itself, otherwise the entirety of our galaxy should already have been colonized by some advanced alien civilization.
![]()
I'm actually being somewhat serious; that advanced civilizations inevitably self-destruct is probably the most plausible explanation for the Fermi Paradox, and it's already possible to see how that might apply to humans.
It's not even hyperbole; we're already past the point of no return for climate change doing irreparable damage to the biosphere, and unless the developing world stops polluting overnight, anything the developed world does to address climate change is going to accomplish basically nothing. Current trends see agriculture outputs plummeting in the 2070s or so, and potentially billions of deaths from famine in the late 21st and 22nd century. There's a reason Obama called Climate Change the greatest threat to the United States's national security, and that's because it represents a very real and relatively imminent existential threat to human civilization.
edited 28th Apr '16 7:05:10 AM by CaptainCapsase
Climate change is an existential threat that something like half of the population of the United States denies is even happening. So if we're going to rely on democracy to fix this problem, we might as well pack our sunscreen and pre-purchase timeshares in cold places.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
![]()
The Paris accords should help limit the damage. In addition if their is a famine the worst effects will not be felt by the first world. The US has good country for agriculture and is rich as hell. If the worse happens we hoard it all for domestic consumption. Hell, just developing large climate controlled greenhouses, which the US is rich and advanced enough to do, would do much to alleviate a famine. Right now we don't have the motivation to do this, but we would if the other option was mass starvation and social disorder in the country. No the place that will be absolutely fucked will be Africa, as usual.
edited 28th Apr '16 7:22:27 AM by JackOLantern1337
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.

@120371:
...*bangs head against steel wall repeatedly*
I don't suppose D.C. gets a vote?
i'm tired, my friend