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 DNC wants him out of the way so they can proceed to flat out ignore the platform recommendations and do what they actually want, which is to move right in an attempt to entice the corporate interests backing them away from the GOP, which would be a killing blow to the party.
edited 29th Jun '16 8:46:10 PM by CaptainCapsase
![]()
Think back towards history; under no circumstances have positive economic reforms ever been achieved when populations simply sat down and did as they were told by the ruling class; in fact, when the population is quiet you see quite the opposite; the gradual and systematic dismantling of economic reforms, regulatory institutions, increased centralization of wealth and power, and rampant military adventurism and imperialism.
I don't believe a socialist society is currently implementable with current technological and societal development, so for all intents and purposes I'm a social democrat.
edited 29th Jun '16 8:58:18 PM by CaptainCapsase
x5 Nearly all-I'm one of the only Republicans here. Semantically speaking, I'm unsure if I'm technically conservative in that my political ideology isn't really rooted in traditionalism per say and is more concerned with the future and progress. However, policy-wise I tend to agree with a lot of conservative ideas and policies, just for different reasons.
edited 29th Jun '16 9:01:02 PM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34![]()
![]()
![]()
How many times must I say that I do not want a violent revolution. Believe it or not, after the Russian revolution and Chinese revolutions collapsed into depotism, pretty much all leftists gave up on that avenue.
@Garcon: The ruling class in the modern first world isn't as rigid as in most historical societies, though that's quickly changing for the worse, but by far the most dangerous sector of the ruling class at this point is the economic elite, which is generally thought to comprise the top 0.01% of society in terms of wealth.
edited 29th Jun '16 9:03:55 PM by CaptainCapsase
![]()
Sorry if I sound like a broken record, but the news is fairly slow right now with both parties in a holding pattern, and given there's seemingly no Trump supporters here, there's not much to debate in that regard; something about him gets reported, everyone agrees he's a horrible person, and that's that.
edited 29th Jun '16 9:07:32 PM by CaptainCapsase
I'd also like to add that, particularly in the present day, I'm not arguing both parties are the same; I am arguing that the agendas of the nominal leadership of the parties aren't nearly dissimilar as people would like to think, but in the GOP's case, their so-called leaders have lost control of the party, so that's no longer the case in practice. The US political system is contingent on an extremely narrow Overton window; if the two major parties don't have significant ideological overlap, nothing gets done. Now, in past periods of American political history, both of the parties had significant liberal and conservative wings; the democrats had the Dixiecrats and the GOP had Lincoln and the other ex-whigs who formed the party's nucleus. That's something that gradually vanished over the course of the 20th century, and now we're at a point where it's completely paralyzed the system, and there is very little hope of recovery without us going through a political crisis where one or both of the parties collapses and is replaced or undergoes a drastic ideological shift.
edited 29th Jun '16 9:16:22 PM by CaptainCapsase
@Jovian: One thing about Option 3 is that we're seeing a lot of Republicans who aren't completely bugfuck nuts supporting Hillary. It's not entirely inconceivable that we might soon see a new generation of Blue Dog Democrats - conservatives like Protagonist who support the Democratic Party because the Republicans have been taken over by the fascists.
Also, a lot depends on the Dixiecrats actually dying off without replenishing their numbers. If they can draw in more angry young white guys to replace the angry old white guys who are dying off, the Republican Party will remain strong enough to force the Democrats to hold together out of sheer self-preservation/desire to not split the vote and let a Trump in.
edited 29th Jun '16 9:19:52 PM by Ramidel
I mean, the reason why I don't see a GOP collapse is that, while the leaders of the GOP are losing their popularity, many Republican values are not-that is to say, there's still a market. Most likely, if the Republican party collapses, the Democrats will move rightwards to scoop up the new voters.
Leviticus 19:34i'm politically agnostic but will describe myself as moderately libertarian if pressed with varrying degrees of accuracy (government has its place, it should be limited to where it can do the most good and least harm). The modern radicalization and evangelical bent of the GOP makes them incompatible with me.
i used to be vocal in arguing certain conservative economic points but these days it's not a hill I'd chose to die on. If you want to get me riled up, it's more likely to be on a civil liberties topic.
If classical conservative means "actually believes in smaller government rather than makes noise about it while expanding the government' then that's probably closer.
edited 29th Jun '16 9:52:37 PM by Elle
We're unlikely to have a reverse Bull Moose situation where the Trump types splinter off into a party that siphons the ultra crazies from the GOP, allowing the remaining not-so-nuts ones to form a pseudo-alliance in an attempt to steer the party back into the electable center-right. But it would probably be the best for the party.
Speaking as someone who generally leans towards liberal/civil libertarian depending on the issue, but prefers not to pigeonhole myself into any particular ideology, I think classical conservatives (in the sense Fighteer mentioned, as opposed to regressive reactionaries) have some value to offer to the political discourse, at least to challenge the liberals to refine their policies and arguments to soundness, even if I don't always see eye-to-eye with them. It would be unfair for them to lose their voice because the latter group keeps dragging them down.
edited 29th Jun '16 9:44:59 PM by AlleyOop
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/us/politics/bernie-sanders.html?_r=0
Remember when this thread questioned why I despised this guy? Prime examples of why.
New Survey coming this weekend!Well, they're certainly desperate to frame him as a loser. Lots of very subjective little snipes. I'm assuming you're speaking about his opposition to the current bill on Puerto rico? They're indeed framing it as "Sanders doesn't want to help Puerto Rico even though everyone agrees the bill is good! What a pain he is!"
Well, what does his website have to say on the topic?
“I strongly believe Puerto Rico should be afforded the same bankruptcy protections that exist for municipalities across the United States. We need to do everything we can to allow Puerto Rico to restructure its debt in a rational way that does not harm its people, ordinary investors or pension funds in the United States. Chapter 9 protections would be a good first step. But we also should recognize that the reason Puerto Rico has such unsustainable debt has everything to do with the policies of austerity and the greed of large financial institutions. Puerto Rico has been in a severe recession for almost a decade. Today, more than 45 percent of the people in Puerto Rico are living in poverty, the childhood poverty rate is greater than 56 percent and real unemployment is much too high.”
From what was discussed on the Senate floor, this bill is a piece of colonialist shit.
Certainly, I see here no grounds for contempt.
edited 30th Jun '16 1:03:16 AM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Also just because someone self-identifies as a Republican doesn't mean they will vote Republican 100% of the time, and same on the Democratic side. Otherwise we couldn't have cases where states that consistently go blue in Presidential elections occasionally end up with Republican governors.