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
Trump might just flat out refuse to debate her except in debates hosted by right wing media because liberal media bias or something. Accusations of cowardice would be met with a No, You response, of course.
edited 2nd Jun '16 7:56:04 PM by CaptainCapsase
15% of Sander supporters would go to Trump, so it's a minority.
And holy fuck, someone going after the Iran deal? I still want DWS gone from her position, but I don't want her loosing her seat.
Any concern for credible threats that might emerge against people outside the US that the US could help people deal with? That military threats or other kinds by the way.
That's a very big just. Also he's not pro-Israel, he's pro the current right wing Israeli government that favours the Republicans. Israel is more then just its shitty government.
edited 2nd Jun '16 8:01:10 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Plenty of liberals are also like that unfortunately; they assume that all the nasty things they hear about Israel's current government are just Anti-Semetic propaganda, and that unless we support Israel unconditionally there'll be a second holocaust. Which isn't helped by Israel's enemies producing a ton of stuff that is just that.
Ultimately, it comes down to whether you prefer someone with one deeply flawed position that he is completely incapable of implementing by virtue of the rest of his party telling him to shut the fuck up, or someone whose every position is pretty deeply flawed, and who is very much capable of acting on that.
Moreover, Clinton and DWS, while they supported the deal, did so in the same way Lindsey Grahm endorsed Ted Cruz; very, very grudgingly. I have my suspicions they'd very much like to have a crack at re-attempting the aborted Bush era attempt to flip every regime in the middle east to "US-friendly", and there'd be no better pretext to invade Iran than them developing nuclear weapons.
edited 2nd Jun '16 8:20:15 PM by CaptainCapsase
Right. Clinton wants to invade Iran and cause a massive war that would ruin her presidency and set back American policy in the era by about a million years. And you suspect this, not based on anything she's actually done, but because of what, a gut feeling? Because they did not seem sufficiently enthused about it?
And the Lindsay Graham comparison is pretty overblown given that he once all but said he'd like to see Cruz dead. I don't think Clinton or DWS have said anything to that effect about Obama's policy.
I'm not an American, but I heard Donald Trump was running for President a while ago and decided to look in.
Two things.
1) The Republican debates were hilarious.
2) Is Trump a genius or just lucky? He's said some of the stupidest things, but he's getting so much support. His ideas on American policy are at worst destructive and at best non-existant. He dominates all conversations without saying anything. No one thought he'd have a chance, and yet he won the Republican nomination.
edited 3rd Jun '16 3:57:42 AM by 940131
Genius and lucky at the same time. Genius for picking up all the various resentments the GOP voter base has and exploiting them. Lucky, because the GOP field was full of morons anyway and the party elites had been busy the last few years discrediting themselves.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanAs Septimus said, Genius and Luck.
Genius:
- Trump managed to cover a 33~35% group of the Republican Primary Voter base who aren't new voters but typically types that sit out until the General. They're basically pro Social Security and Medicare, and Anti-Immigration and Trade Deals. (And yes, Racists)
- Trump also masterfully manipulated the Cable News networks to minimize criticism, maximize airtime and controversy.
- Trump managed to position himself as a political outside against the vast majority of the "Deep Bench" being highly experience Republicans.
- Trump also started saying what everyone meant instead of what they were implying, which excited Republican voters.
Luck:
- The Deep Bench. 10+ highly eager career politicians with financial sugardaddies backing them, were all splitting the votes in such a way that you had Cruz the Religious Conservative take that bunch's votes, and the remaining number of votes were split among everyone else.
- The Party's heavily discredited itself over the last 6 years by swearing up and down that Obama will vanish in a puff of smoke and they'll be able to repeal Obamacare, eject all illegal immigrants, build a wall, etc. And none of that happened. So massive dissatisfaction.
- Both parties have solid anti-establishment wings that are solidly united this election, in their respective parties.
Because of the Deep Bench, unlike Sanders, Trump was able to luckily acquire a major of votes needed for the Convention, due to his enemies fighting each other, and him using the news networks as his own puppets.
Dude saw an opportunity and rode it for all it's worth and got rewarded for it.
Protests after Trump rally
You know I'm kind of getting sick of some of these people. Christ their making me sympathize with Trump and his supporters. You have any idea how hard that is to do. I'll still vote against the fucker though don't get me wrong.
@Septimus
Some reticence does not equal joking about killing a man, which is the comparison Captain Caspase was making. Nor does it equal being part of a plot to invade Iran and enforce regime change, which Caspase also suggested she's part of.
Also, what "cherry picking"? Whether she liked the deal or not, she endorsed it. Her opponent does not, and insists that anyone who does like it must have been duped. That's a reality.
The cherry picking is that the article is not discussing DWS's own stance at all. I've notice this lately with some of the articles you cite about Sanders. Many of them appear to quote things selectively, mentioning one thing and ignoring a pertinent other. I am very dubious about these articles.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanThe latest jobs numbers are horrible
Please please don't let their be another recession.
San Jose protests: Let's face it, Trump has been all but explicitly calling for violence against those opposed to him. It doesn't justify what happened at all, but someone was bound to throw a punch at someone willing to fight back with the way his campaign has been run.
Well, it's more fodder for the Facebook meme page fuckwits (in other words, reactionaries). I saw one claiming that Tank Man was "how you are supposed to protest" instead of holding up traffic. You could smell the Internet Tough Guy through the screen. I wonder how the author of that would feel about someone protesting with a LAW launch* .
Talk of a "violent left" is probably inevitable at this point. But then again, the US never had something like the Red Army Faction, did they?
edited 3rd Jun '16 8:15:39 AM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotJack: couple of mitigating factors re jobs - winter was mild so some of the hiring was shifted earlier (meaning now the drop-off comes about) and the Verizon strike (they don't count as employed because it lasted so long).
Krieger: not to the influence of the RAF, no. Closest I can think of is maybe the Weather Underground.
The damned queen and the relentless knight.@Septimus
Except that it does talk about her own stance. She currently supports the treaty. Period, end of sentence. That she may have had issues with it before doesn't change the current reality. Otherwise no politician currently in Congress or the Senate would get any credit for supporting gay marriage, since most previously opposed it or expressed doubts. She had concerns about the treaty. She got over them. When the article states she supports the deal, it's not cherry picking anything.
You are free to feel as dubious as you want about anything I link, but that doesn't change the reality in this case. She's currently in favour of the Iran deal. Her primary opponent is not.
edited 3rd Jun '16 8:35:01 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Man, did that plan backfire.
Any group who acts like morons ironically will eventually find itself swamped by morons who think themselves to be in good company.@940131: Trump managed to succeed as much as he has, IMO, primarily due to Refuge in Audacity and No Such Thing as Bad Publicity. He drew so much attention to himself that even if you didn't like him, you were at least talking about him. In addition, Americans dislike politicians. Trump is an outsider, and on a superficial level, he acts very different than a stereotypical politician. His rudeness causes his style to sound like someone telling blunt truths (since it's assumed a liar will always try to sugar-coat things and sound pilot). Also, many Americans (particularly WAS Ps, and especially those on the right) are annoyed with Political Correctness Gone Mad, to the point that someone so un-PC sounds quite appealing.
edited 3rd Jun '16 8:51:43 AM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34Maddow
takes a look at Clinton's anti-Trump foreign policy speech.

I'm looking forward to the debates. I could see Trump having a full on breakdown if Hillary hits him hard enough. It'd be a sight to behold if Trump starts freaking out at her onstage for pointing out his flaws.