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
![]()
The innards and functions of government are incomprehensible to most people. Charisma, they can understand.
The Daily Show did a whole bit on Clinton's likability as well.
Though "you don't have to like your [racist] boss" is what many Republicans are going through right now.
edited 10th Jun '16 10:53:23 PM by Eschaton
Why do you have to cast everything I say in the worst possible light? I was talking about the content of the article: it's difficult to interpret the number of young Sanders supporters not showing up to vote in California since the media had already announced that Clinton had won.
Well, as I said, Bernie Sanders clearly did not; if I can trust the content of the Greenpeace article, Obama did not take such large amounts of lobby money either, and many politicians in the past also have not. I blame every politician who takes such contributions.
As I said, I obviously consider Trump to be far worse than Clinton. But not wanting to vote for Clinton is not the same as wanting to get Trump elected, especially if you do not live in a swing state. There are many reasons why people do not want to vote for Clinton, her ties to big money being a major one, and maybe it's a good idea that the Clinton camp tries to reach out to the Sanders camp and talk about their concerns, instead of being condescending to them and demonizing them (I am talking in general here, not at all about you).
Then what would you suggest instead? Limits on donations and the removal of anonymity on donations? Government funding of Parties and Election Campaigns, right down to Town level?
edited 11th Jun '16 12:50:30 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling On![]()
![]()
That's a very good question, and I don't have a definite answer to it myself. The former solution would help a great deal, but might not really solve the problem. The latter is the way it's done in the country I live in, and it has its own share of problems - for instance, many consider this funding to be unnecessary high, and I think it would be hard to sell to many Americans to pay tax money for the campaigns of political parties. Regardless, I think a national debate on the issue is pressing (as Tactical Fox 88 also points out), considering that it affects policy on so many levels.
Charisma is a tool to get things done. A chief of state is a salesperson for their country and their party, so they have to be able to present a compelling case for their national and governmental policies. Having charisma, the ability to sway people, is really important for that. Political chops are useful, but slightly more relevant to the team of backroom advisors who get their 'face' pointed in the right direction.
What's precedent ever done for us?Trump fends off criticism: 'In fact, I am the least racist person'
. Yes, and I am a winged lizard with three eyes on stalks.
That's a swerve to the right.
It's not a swerve if you're saying the exact same thing you've been saying.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.RE: Sanders not being owned
Sanders got elected in Vermont by the gun lobby. So under this particular brand of logic he was in the pocket of the NRA instead of the banks or fossil fuels. Such an improvement.
Also if taking Super PAC money instantly makes you crooked, well Sanders took Super PAC money during his last bid for reelection to the Senate. The Super PAC in question? Clinton's. Does that mean he's owned by her? Or her donors?
Hell, given that Sanders' largest contributor to this campaign was Alphabet Inc I guess that means he's owned by the Internet? Watch as he continues to support Google in their willingness to help China repress the people.
EDIT: Romney continues to oppose Trump
.
edited 11th Jun '16 6:57:44 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar
The RNC did not respond to a request for comment.
![]()
Can you please give sources for your claims. With regards to the gun lobby claim, I can only find that they urged people to vote for Sanders, not that he actually accepted money from them. I've googled for Super PA Cs, but I only found that there are some unaffiliated Super PA Cs backing him (see the Politi Fact page on that), which is hardly comparable.
Also, again, you assume that my goal is to vilify Clinton, which I have repeatedly said not to be the case. It is not about the person to me, I am simply stating some of the concerns that people have with her. I would be much more willing to accept an alternative world version of Clinton who did not have such ties.
edited 11th Jun '16 7:42:03 AM by Perian
I am sure Trump's enterprises have economic activity in all major US states. As for campaigning in New York, it's his home state but Hillary has a strong presence there as well. Dunno what he hopes to accomplish in California, sure 55 electors are a huge boon but he's way behind in all polls I know of.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanIt's also not going to help other republicans in the state, they took a serious beating in the primary and Trump pushing in Cali right now is like trying to lift a 10 ton rock without any counterweight, it isn't going to do crap.
Especially when they aren't even on the Ballot for the Senate seat...
Hell it might even hurt people like Mc Carthy the immigration issue is split almost a 50/50 split. You should see his ads lol, he is already running You Tube ads.
edited 11th Jun '16 8:31:20 AM by Memers
Sure about that? California's 23th district seems rather heavily Republican to me. Overcoming a 49.6% margin may be a though climb for a Democrat even with Trump on the ballot.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanConsidering his ads are pretty much all about farming and keeping things running, he seems to think so. If Trump goes through with his whatever there will be a massive labor shortage and riled up farm workers union so it is a big issue.
We are 35% Latino and even the white guys around here hate Trump with a passion, especially the religious ones.
edited 11th Jun '16 8:44:28 AM by Memers

No matter who is elected, there will be riots. Once you get the ignorant masses riled, there's no calming them again.
"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."