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
I suppose it's possible I happen to be listening to the most moderate people claiming to support the Tea Party (they support gay marriage and disapprove of flying the Confederate flag. I would still call them very aggressively conservative, though)
Does the Tea Party allow approval of gay marriage? I mean I could just about get some Republcians supporting Gay Marrige, but Tea Partiers? Isn't that going against the entire concept of the Tea Party, which is grass roots bigotry that demands no compromise and no rights for any kind of minority.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranIn other news, NBC is claiming that, while Hillary is ahead, she's not leading by the currently-touted "3 million"
and would the mass media kindly stop blathering about the inaccuracy. Emphasis mine.
In a recent article posted to the New York Daily News, by activist and writer Shaun King made an interesting point that could change the way we view the entire Democratic primary race. What King revealed in his groundbreaking article is that the 3 million vote advantage Clinton holds is a lie.
According to King, primary races don’t just include voters going out and casting a ballot. Instead, many states hold caucuses in which a group of representatives vouch for their candidate. The candidate with the most representatives in the room wins in that district, and the candidate who wins the most districts is the winner of the state.
What happens in these cases is that individual votes are not gathered, therefore no votes go to the winning candidate.
Bernie Sanders has tended to win most caucusing states. Though Sanders may take more than 70 percent of the caucus vote, these numbers don’t translate to individual votes — they add nothing to the overall count. So, states with millions of Sanders supporters are not counted among the millions in competition with Clinton’s big numbers as a result of this system.
Let’s agree that this is not about Bernie or Hillary or who’s side I’m on. Let’s agree that this is about simple facts and the truth. We don’t need to get into who would make the better president or who’s more qualified; who should step down because they’re losing or are in the middle of an email scandal or because you simply don’t like them. Let’s worry more about being lied to – or at the very least misled – by a party that’s supposed to be representing us, the voter. The truth is it’s just a small portion of the population making up the demographic.
To be clear, Clinton is still leading and has a significant advantage. But, as King points out, this race will more than likely come down to the Superdelegate vote. For that vote to be based on an incorrect score of national voters would be ignoring the reality of the Democratic demographic. Superdelegates need to weigh their decisions carefully, and we need to begin to see this race for what it is.
As King writes:
Hillary Clinton needs 615 pledged delegates to cross the threshold she needs. That’s a bit more than 65% of the delegates, and she is not predicted to win even one of the remaining states by that margin. In other words, after the final primaries are held in June, Hillary Clinton will not have won enough delegates to be the nominee.
In that case the Superdelegates will have to decide.
King goes on:
… we really don’t know the vote difference between Clinton and Sanders.
The Clinton campaign knows this. Their friends in the media know this, but they continue to allow the campaign to tout that 3 million number even though they know full well that it’s not accurate. The Democratic primaries and caucuses simply don’t have accurate popular vote totals.
Hillary supporters like to flaunt that she’s earned the delegates because she won certain states or won the popular vote. King calls that “a farce.”
In closing, here’s what King says, and this is a bit disturbing. And it should disturb you whether you support Clinton, Sanders, or even Trump. It should trouble you that this is happening in a democracy:
Right now, in spite of the shocking success of Bernie’s campaign, 93% of superdelegates who have made their votes clear are backing Clinton. Again, the hype about them supporting Clinton because of the popular vote is a lie.
If 93% of them were supporting Bernie right now, in addition to those already in his camp, Bernie would have 2,019 delegates and Hillary would have 1,807.
![]()
I think I'll be a little wary of statistics that go against every other piece of information out there.
EDIT: Actually the 538 article I linked above actually addresses some of those claims. Reposting here
. King's basing his assumptions on the notion that in states where Sanders won the caucuses, the rest of the population would follow suit. They don't, as evidenced by what happens when those same states then hold primaries.
Essentially King said "only a few people vote in caucuses and Sanders has won in states with caucuses. Ergo, if those states held primaries Sanders would be leading." In reality, statistics demonstrate that while Sanders does well in caucuses, he does much more poorly in primaries; if they didn't hold caucuses he'd quite likely lose votes. King is assuming that caucus goers are representative of all potential primary voters in an area, and that's a huge leap to make, one that most other research doesn't bear out.
edited 5th Jun '16 9:09:27 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
@Ambar: While I do think power inherently corrupts and that anyone wielding power on a global scale must become a monster in order to attain and hold their position, political nihilism is not a constructive attitude. Moreover, while I As bleak as the world is, and as vile as humans typically are, I would in fact agree with the notion that the arc history can and generally has bent towards justice; human society is not immutable, and while society has frequently regressed or stagnated, I do genuinely believe it's possible for the world to be made a better place.
![]()
![]()
By the standards we claimed to hold ourselves to for the better part of 40 years (the precedents established at the Nuremberg trials) before Bill Clinton decided to drop the pretenses of the United States being accountable to its peers, every single United States President in the 20th century was a mass murderer and war criminal, along with a good chunk of their cabinet and pretty much any high ranking military official.
edited 5th Jun '16 9:16:51 PM by CaptainCapsase
These mass murderers would of course include Jimmy Carter, who made human rights the centre of his administration (and ended up losing office because of it), cut almost all American funding to groups like Augusto Pinochet and National Reorganization Process, and tried to put the US on a better course only for Reagan to blow it up later. Nice to know he gets no credit and is just another "mass murderer" to you.
@LSBK
I know, right? According to King no matter who you voted for you should be upset Sanders isn't doing better.
edited 5th Jun '16 9:18:09 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Carter funneled weapons to Indonesia to help it along with its mass killings (genocide even) in East Timor. Yes, his predecessor started it, but it was in his power to stop it and he didn't, despite the CIA knowing full well what was being done with the weapons. Still a mass murderer guilty of what would be an unspeakable crime against humanity were it committed by a non-US friendly regime. Which is a big part of why I have such a dim view of those with global power; even the best and most principled of them are guilty of what would, in a just world be condemned as monstrous, unforgivable crimes.
edited 5th Jun '16 9:32:43 PM by CaptainCapsase
I think you'll fit right in in Meretz,
mate.
@Silasw: In theory, the Tea Party is neutral on social conservatism - it's just that in practice, the only ones who showed up were social conservatives.
Protagonist's friends sound like those weirdo honest libertarians who pop up from time to time - the guys who actually believe it when they say that the government should butt out of people's private lives.
@Captain Caspase
For you to assume that because the CIA knew, Carter knew, is a heck of a stretch I'm sorry to say. There were a number of periods during the Cold War when the CIA was an entity unto itself, and the immediate aftermath of the Nixon/Ford years were among the very worst. Carter himself has stated that he was, in retrospect, not getting good information about what was going on there, and I tend to believe him.
And when you measure it against cutting support to Somoza, cutting support to Pinochet, cutting support the The Process, scaling back covert operations throughout Latin America...in the end the Carter administration was a net positive for human rights and democracy world wide. But sure, he's a monster too. Gotcha. They're all monsters. Gotcha.
Like it or not, all presidents struggle against the presence of non-democratic institutions who have their own long-standing agendas. The military is one of those institutions, however much it might like to remain neutral. The CIA is another, and throughout the Cold War it was both at the height of its power and its paranoia. Some presidents, like Nixon, were complicit in helping the CIA to reach that position. Others, like Carter, simply made the mistake of trusting the monster, unaware of how out of control it had gotten. There's a genuine difference.
edited 5th Jun '16 10:13:02 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Carter is definitely the least aggressive of all US presidents, I won't dispute that; but even he had his fair share of atrocities; and yes, considering the Australian Parliament sent the Carter administration a letter claiming the Indonesian government was carrying out atrocities in East Timor, the reply to which was a massive increase in weapon shipments, we can be fairly sure the CIA knew exactly what was going on, and in theory, Carter should've as well.
Except I didn't deny the CIA knew what was going on, so your statement that "we can be fairly sure the CIA knew exactly what was going on" is meaningless. Of course they knew what was going on.
For you to extrapolate from that to "Carter knew what was going on" is a stretch, given that, as previously stated above, you cannot know that, because the CIA during the Cold War had a proud tradition of playing its cards close to its chest, and telling presidents whatever it thought they needed to know and nothing else.
Anything else I could type here would just be a repeat of my above post. And nothing you say
refutes anything in my previous post. So I'm going to end this comment here.
edited 5th Jun '16 10:23:57 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
News flash: in a world full of wolves, you too must have something of the wolf in you, lest you be eaten. Dogmatic moralism is just as bad as nihilism.
On empty crossroads, seek the eclipse -- for when Sol and Lua align, the lost shall find their way home.@Ramdiel: The group I'm reffering to is PJTV (who I watched a lot when I was younger) I wouldn't call them Libertarians-they certainly support the war on drugs and military interventionism. One of them has actually ranted against libertarianism several times. However, nearly all of them support gay marriage. To quote one Bill Whittle in a video he made about his hypothetical utopia: "Here in the Republic of Bill, you can marry anyone you want to. You can marry a lawnchair if you want to. Some people say that this damages the sanctity of marriage, but we believe that sanctity comes from within."
They're pretty aggressively conservative, but I will give them credit for changing my mind about the topic of gay marriage (I used to be against it, until I started watching them).
edited 5th Jun '16 10:45:14 PM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34![]()
And that's not my own personal philosophy. My view is, rather than "the ends justify the means", "the ends necessitate the means". It may seem like a small difference, but I'd say its quite significant. I'm willing to support the Necessary Evil when it comes down to it, but I won't pretend its in any way just or fair, and will mourn the tragedy of circumstances and personal failures that lead to the particular situation.
edited 5th Jun '16 10:50:48 PM by CaptainCapsase
You know, we did spent the better half of the thread complaining about Trump. Now it's complaining about Sanders. Is there something here to discuss that isn't just bitching about the presidential election?
Rubio Senate rumors undercut GOP campaigns in Florida
- seems like the Republican establishment is headed for some trouble in Florida's Senate election.

One thing I'll add here—anybody who genuinely thinks that politics is innately evil and that it automatically corrupts you into a monster, I've got to ask—why are you in this thread? What do you hope to accomplish? If the world is under control of monsters and always is, no matter which party is in power, why not run for the hills? Why not go hide out in the woods with the survivalists? Why bother even to vote, if your candidate will inevitably warp into some twisted mockery of themselves?
EDIT: Can't remember if this
was posted here before. If it wasn't it's worth a look at. Does a better job of establishing nothing was rigged against Sanders than I'll ever be able to do.
edited 5th Jun '16 8:38:21 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar