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
@Potatoes Rock- I think people should generally not be jerks, but to be honest, I think the subset of Sanders voters who mirror Captain Capsase's opinion and have a high antipathy to Clinton (and Obama) and threaten to stay home or vote Trump is a small and heavily white one.
Certainly, I'd assume any Sanders voter thinking of voting for Trump has to be white, or else, seriously lacking in judgment/self-preservation.
edited 6th Jun '16 8:19:37 PM by Hodor2
Also I've been meaning to bring this up about people concerned about Sanders being too focused on the economics end of the solution...
I can see why he's been focused on it, but it might not of been his intention:
One of the benefits of economic redistribution / improvement of one's economic lot is it gives you the time and money to involve yourself in activism, to sue in court, to litigate and give access to legislation.
I have no hard data to support it but it strikes me as logical that the LGBT movement gaining meaningful enough amount of capital / money / lifestyle quality has helped them afford the ability to have laws changed to their favor.
There's a third option for the Sanders to Trump Voter: They want to see the current government hierarchies and allegiances and webs of the current post Reagan elite burn. By any means necessary.
edited 6th Jun '16 8:22:37 PM by PotatoesRock
![]()
Firstly: I'm not staying home, and while I will continue to voice my antipathy for Clinton until the very end, I'll vote for her (rather than third party, probably Green) if poll projections give Trump anything greater than a <1% chance of winning my state, and will encourage those I know to do the same, even though Trump's basically already won if New York is going Republican. In fact, if New York is going Republican come November, it's because Clinton's in prison, Sanders has been assassinated, Biden's had a heart attack, and black shirts are roaming the streets beating up anyone headed towards the polls who isn't a member of the "Aryan" race. With 2016 demographics, that's a "come the apocalypse" scenario if there ever was one.
Secondly: I'm mixed race, and visibly so, though since I wouldn't vote for Trump over anything short of the literal Antichrist (who I don't believe in), I'm not part of that statistic anyway, and honestly, even a white person who isn't a millionaire shouldn't be voting for Trump, or any Republican for that manner.
edited 6th Jun '16 8:33:47 PM by CaptainCapsase
I know you're mixed race. Since you'd already said you wouldn't vote for Trump, regardless of how offended you are, I at least wasn't including you in the aforementioned discussion of white Sanders voters.
@Hodor 2
I think some Cuban-Americans are in line behind Trump which is where his limited Latino support is coming from though don't quote me on that. They're usually pretty reliably Republican, so it wouldn't surprise me anyway.
edited 6th Jun '16 8:26:09 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Let me dispel something right now: birtherism did not originate in the Clinton camp. It came out of the right-wing.
I've also been an advocate for treating Sanders supporters with respect and dignity, but damned if I am not sick of this emotional blackmail of "be real nice or we'll burn it all down!" when no small part of nastiness has come out of the Sanders' supporters. I have suffered a great deal of abuse for the crime of supporting Clinton with 'shill' constantly attached to me. I am tired of this "Sanders fan can say whatever they want, but get mildly perturbed and they'll vote Trump!" Roundly sick of it.
edited 6th Jun '16 9:32:04 PM by Lightysnake
It didn't come from Clinton's campaign, but according to factcheck.org, the birther rumor appears to have originated among Clinton's supporters, though it was quickly taken up by right-wing groups as the '08 switfboating attempt.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/was-hillary-clinton-the-original-birther/
That's where it originated. Little Green Footballs also linked to a rather good piece on Birtherism's origins
Huh. Well, one of Clinton's backers was the first person to file a lawsuit over it, and as your article mentions, there was an '07 posting on a democratic blog that claimed he was born in Kenya, which seemingly built on an even earlier newspaper that actually came out of Kenya and was seemingly honestly mistaken about Obama's background.
edited 6th Jun '16 9:43:41 PM by CaptainCapsase
From what I've seen, the best candidate is Bernie IMO. I was reading a Forbes article defending Trumps business record. Everyone seems to bring up his 4 bankruptcies now that hes running. It's not surprising, slandering political rivals is pretty standard during elections. Trump comes across as a bigot to me. He has few plans for what he's going to do if he wins. Most of the few ideas he has would be disastrous and he has fascist tendencies. I'm not a Fan, but I have to assume that anyone that could Profit selling real estate in a place like manhattan has to be a good business man. If he's as incompetent as they say, I imagine he'd have lost the bulk of his fortune over the last half a century. I've seen lottery winners lose theirs in less time.
Why is making antagonistic statements against entire demographics not considered hostile? I've been ghosting this thread for weeks, and the idea that meeting a certain racial/gender/age criteria means your vote doesn't matter and no one wants or needs it is just toxic. I haven't made any posts because I was honestly afraid to with how people were being treated if they didn't denounce Bernie a while ago and finally had to because the frustration was echoing in my mind even while trying to concentrate on other things. Yes, I'm aware that's not healthy. I have mental illnesses and divergences, which makes the idea of someone like Trump who believes he was just born superior to others being president terrifying, but no one seems to care about that. Apparently I would be fine if he won according to the criteria of "Bernie Bro" stereotypes and my opinion and feelings are therefore worthless. The notice above says this is a friendly, civil forum, but sweeping, cruel statements against people who disagree with you on the best Democratic candidate (often mixed in with insults based on unchosen characteristics) are not any better than insulting individuals on this forum.
That doesn't justify making vicious, sweeping statements against anyone who refuses to fall in line and denounce him. Personal emotional issues aside, all the behavior of many Clinton supporters in this topic has done is convince me that some members of Clinton's base are at least as bad as the "Bernie Bros" they're railing against.
All of one or two people were making "vicious" comments and have already been called out as being stupid. While most here do agree that Hillary is the best choice, I'd hardly say we're attacking Sanders supporters, considering a lot of people here voted for him in the primary.
Seriously, though, vicious? Have you seen the rest of the internet? This forum comes down pretty hard on people being mean for the sake of it.
edited 7th Jun '16 1:35:24 AM by AceofSpades
Incidentally, my impression is that the amount of Sanders supporters who would vote Trump is at best one quarter. And the number of Sanders voters who would not back Hillary less than 40% if that.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman![]()
![]()
![]()
I've seen the rest of the internet, and I'm hurt a lot less by open aggression than by condescending statements about how my demographic is worthless and wouldn't have voted anyway, or veiled threats that you are one of "them" ("Bernie Bros", which already annoys me since it's a gendered insult) if you disagree too much, especially when they're on a board that is so strict about personal attacks. Like I said, I have been holding this in for weeks, it might be months now.
edited 7th Jun '16 1:48:49 AM by SNESMaster5

While I don't fully agree with the sentiments I do think Sanders is becoming a problem. His continued presence in the election is biasing his supporters against Clinton. I don't think it's enough for a Trump presidency yet but it is worrying. If he doesn't drop out and fully endorse Clinton then he's a far bigger enemy of progress then she could ever possibly be.