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
While waiting for the primaries to finish, Trump got bored, wandered off, and started making racist comments about a judge in California. I don't think he has it in him to refrain from being offensive.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.People where also talking about the 'Obama revolution' 8 years ago. Were these people also inciting violence? It's just a buzz-word, and there is no evidence of at all of Sanders's supporters being particularly violent.
Maybe because it's true? Don't you think that Clinton's million dollar contributions of organizations that she claims to oppose are a little worrying?
Regarding Sanders supporters writing in his name come November, I'd be surprised if it's much more than sour grapes. Some (possibly many) of us are angry, but most of us aren't stupid.
edited 10th Jun '16 11:30:42 AM by Artificius
"I have no fear, for fear is the little death that kills me over and over. Without fear, I die but once."So on a different note, if Donald loses in November, what do you guys think his future's going to look like?
Status Quo Is God at the least. I'm more concerned on how November will affect legal immigration.
edited 10th Jun '16 11:37:29 AM by HallowHawk
![]()
![]()
Not really, considering that evidence suggests that no, she's not been particularly influenced as far as her policies go, and that such donations have been exaggerated. She was senator of New York, it's not like she could avoid dealing with Wall Street in some fashion. It doesn't pan out that this has made her corrupt in any fashion.
I'm talking about current Super PAC contributions. For instance, she has received $6.9 million from the fossil fuel industry, do you honestly think anything meaningful is going to be done about climate change with contributions like that?
edited 10th Jun '16 11:52:50 AM by Perian
"Maybe because it's true? Don't you think that Clinton's million dollar contributions of organizations that she claims to oppose are a little worrying?"
At this point, I don't give a fuck. Too much is at stake to bother with what the angry proles think about Hillary.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."Again, Perian, there's nothing to suggest that such donations has seriously affected her policies on such things. I have no respect for Super PA Cs, but I seriously don't think that Clinton's suddenly been corrupted by such a donation.
And the fact that anyone would vote for Trump out of spite shows they have no idea about reality; any thing they think Clinton would do badly on Trump would outshine her in that department ten times over. Like CZ said, there's too much at stake for such spite voting.
There's not much the president can do when it comes to alternative fuel sources either way. That's mostly up to manufacturers and the states.
What Hillary can do is...
-get us a $15 minimum wage
-expand protections for minorities
-not completely destroy our relationships with other countries, like Sanders and Trump would likely do
-continue Obama's work to give people affordable healthcare
Among other things. And, the cherry on top, she's not Trump. I don't want to live in a country run by that monster, but apparently a bunch of Bernie supporters don't care enough to help out his opponent.
Eh. I don't agree with her fighting for a $15 Minimum Wage. Even $12 from Hillary is pushing it.
That's too much in too little time.
Now, if the bill were to come across her desk, I'd say she should sign it in a heartbeat, but I'm not sure if the economic consequences would be worth it, unless it's like California where they're eased into the $15 (in this case, 2022).
Though for California, I'd say that even $15 is ridiculously low now, let alone by 2022.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
So they give this money to her just because they like her so much? Come on.
And just to be clear: I agree that Trump should be prevented to become president at any cost, and that people living in swing states should vote for Clinton. However, if you live in a very blue state like California or a very red state like Texas, I think it would be a very bad idea to vote for her if you want to get money out of politics.
![]()
Um...their employers do, yeah.
And considering that there isn't a single Senate vote in the Senate that puts Hillary on the side of Corporate America, we can either conclude that A) The accusation is unfounded and most of them donate because they like her or B) They keep trying to influence her, but it mostly falls on deaf ears.
She's been a public servant for 40 years and wasn't even "rich" until the turn of the millennium.
edited 10th Jun '16 12:20:29 PM by Jasaiga
![]()
The Clinton campaign didn't need to take this massive contributions, as the Sanders campaign shows. Also, they have never been so high due to Citizen United, so politicians in the past could clearly do without them.
I was talking about Super Pac money. The money of their employers is only a small fraction of that.
edited 10th Jun '16 12:23:40 PM by Perian
Do candidates actually have any control over who gives money to their Super PA Cs? I thought the whole point of them was that they're independent from the candidates' campaign and can't actually collaborate with them?
@Perian
Love how that nonsense Sanders claim is still floating around. When you say she got donations from the fossil fuel industry it makes it sound so bad when it's not. Here's the reality—she's gotten donations from people who work in fossil fuels, not from the fossil fuel companies. And it's nowhere near 6.9 million dollars, a number which I can only assume you pulled out of the air.
Politifact
looked into the claims nonetheless. She's received 308 000 dollars from people who work in fossil fuels. That's out of the 160 000 000 dollars that her campaign had raised. In short, fossil fuel donations amount to 0.2 percent of the money she's received.
In an interesting contrast, while Sanders received less money total from fossil fuel employees, the amount he got amounted to a higher percentage of his total fundraising at 0.4 percent.
So if getting 0.2 percent of her money from the "fossil fuel industry" means Clinton can't do anything about climate change, what would getting 0.4 percent of his money from them have meant for Sanders? That he'd have been encouraging them to create more climate change? Because under your logic he'd have been twice as beholden to them.
edited 10th Jun '16 1:09:44 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

He's probably not smart enough to do the latter.
Leviticus 19:34