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
@ Capasese:
The Viscount Palmerston said it first in 1848:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bernie-sanders-campaign-last-days-224041
We didn't just dodge a bullet.
We dodged a fucking nuclear warhead.
New Survey coming this weekend!I've had a conversation with my deeply conservative journeyman about Iran, and while I can say that he's not a neo-con, he definitely wasn't/isn't too keen on the idea of Iran evolving into America's partner in the middle east. Guy softened on the idea a bit after I explained (framed for his perspective) the possible necessity if the "inevitable collapse of the Saudi welfare state" were to occur, but he's still carrying a grudge from the sixties and seventies.
edited 7th Jun '16 10:15:41 PM by Artificius
"I have no fear, for fear is the little death that kills me over and over. Without fear, I die but once."Iran is an awful state, but they aren't worse than Saudi Arabia. Actually given that they allow at least a modicum of participation from the public they're a damn sight better than Saudi Arabia.
I don't normally buy into the notion that the USA can make countries more democratic by being friendly to them (though I certainly concur they can be made less democratic by being attacked), but with Iran I think there's a genuine shot.
Don't worry-out of the chaos that ensues, I will be elected president. I have never lied on national television. No well-known political speaker has ever argued that I shouldn't be president. That's because there is no debate that I'm the right choice.
Leviticus 19:34@smokeycut
You can't be blamed for supporting the guy back when he was acting like a genuinely decent person. It might be hard to tell from my debates with Captain Caspase here, but I liked the guy at first. I had no clue just how poorly vetted he'd been, or for that matter, to what degree his attacks on Clinton were turning ugly.
The higher you put them on the pedestal, the more crushing your disappointment will be. Sanders, Hillary, Trump, Cruz, Kasich; they are politicians, not saints.
Non Indicative UsernameI think the real issue with Sanders, more than anything else, is that he's spent most of the campaign building the pedestal, and that's a problem. There's nothing wrong with stoking your public image per se, but when all you have is public image, there's a deeper problem with your campaign.
Moreover, when you position yourself as the candidate of conscience, it behooves you even more than others, to act like it.
I still feel like the HRC made a HUGE mistake in letting him get this far. Granted, I know he was down by double digit points behind, back in the day, but even still, hindsight or no hindsight, literally ALL of the signs were there saying that he was going to be an insurgent candidate that would be a thorn in her side, eventually.
She should've buried him in June/July.
New Survey coming this weekend!You know, whenever I see HRC I thought Human Rights Campaign.
edited 7th Jun '16 10:43:56 PM by flameboy21th
Non Indicative UsernameTactical, you keep saying something should be done about people without giving us any idea what should have been done. She debated him, she campaigned, she has for all intents and purposes won quite soundly. She did exactly what she was supposed to. And meanwhile, he did want he was supposed to as the challenging contender. She didn't "let" him get this far, it's just the electoral process, and a whole lot of people decided they liked him. What should she have done that wouldn't have made her look like a terrible candidate?
Plus the way you phrase things makes it sound like you want the Democrats to get really, really violently militant. This kind of concerns me.
edited 7th Jun '16 10:45:23 PM by AceofSpades
I mean, as much as I dislike Sanders, he does have every right to run. Any old loser can run for president, as evidenced by Trump.
Leviticus 19:34![]()
Uh...not treat him with kids gloves? Not letting him get away with getting a free pass from the media? Be more blunt about him essentially being a one-issue candidate instead of trying to pass it off with euphemisms, or maybe the occasional on-point shade?
NOWHERE did I imply I want the Dems to be violent. That's nonsense. I'm saying that the DNC and HRC were far too cowardly in calling out Bernie's bullshit. They let an infection fester instead of stomping it out the moment there was a sign it was a problem. Sure, it didn't matter in the end, but here's the issue I take with it: It didn't have to be a problem in the first place had they grew a pair. Democrats almost always create more problems than necessary.
My politics is always cutting right through the bullshit and calling everything as it is, and a spade a spade.
edited 7th Jun '16 10:52:40 PM by TacticalFox88
New Survey coming this weekend!You're joking right? Tell me you aren't serious. If Clinton wanted too, Sanders would've never even gotten 10% of the vote, had she gone nuclear on him in the beginning.
edited 7th Jun '16 10:55:26 PM by Jasaiga
Well, when referring to something as an infection and saying people should remove a threat that doesn't actually exist as a practical matter isn't militant, then what is it? You're making mountains out of molehills, not cutting through bullshit.
And again, just because Clinton could have gone nuclear doesn't mean she should have. All things considered, it was mostly in the Democrat's favor to be as unlike the Republican primary as far as I'm concerned. In order, to you know, not look like terrible candidates in the general. You in no way addressed that last issue there.
It feels like you're giving Clinton more power than she as regarding the primary, and indeed more than she should have. Other than more debates, I'm not sure how she could have shut the guy down, and I don't think more debates would have changed many people's minds.
edited 7th Jun '16 11:08:30 PM by AceofSpades

Sure, Cassandra.
Non Indicative Username