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
I see that you are awfully confident in Trump's defeat. It's good, and I hope you are not mistaken; Because I can think of another disaster
that was far behind a few months before the vote.
![]()
Stein's stated objective in this race is to get (IIRC) 15% of the vote to get the Green Party Federal funding, and that's something I intend to hold her to as a condition for supporting the Greens; if she manages to reach that benchmark and doesn't tell voters in states contested by the major candidates to stand down and vote for Clinton (call for supporters to vote for Clinton in dangerous states), I'm not voting for the Greens. If they do the right thing when faced with a repeat of Nader though, that's something that would earn my support.
There was much greater uncertainty regarding Brexit, much closer polling margins, and a much more effective campaign for leaving. Trump's campaign thus far is a disaster in terms of his infrastructure, and unless that shakes up his chances of a win are virtually zero (under that assumption, it's about 20%
). If it stops being a disaster and starts looking competitive, I would cease to support a third party candidate if they did not drop out of the race or at least ask their voters to go for Clinton in contested states.
edited 12th Jul '16 2:28:35 PM by CaptainCapsase
I don't want them to get federal funding. Look, the Greens have some nice ideas but politically they're utter blockheads. Instead of using this increased funding to try and win local and state races they're probably going to repeatedly try for a presidential victory which is just going to lead to Republican victories.
Perhaps your right, but the character of a third party is much more malleable than that of a party like the democrats or Republicans. They're also quite a bit more approachable, in that it's not particularly difficult to get a conversation with the would be party brass.
edited 12th Jul '16 2:43:19 PM by CaptainCapsase
Third parties tend also to lack political intelligence. No, the White House is a very tall barrier. Try to work Congress and state level systems first before going for the too high prizes.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Approachable in the sense that it's much easier for their would be constituents to influence them than it is for sitting federal officials; you don't have to be a full time lobbyist backed by a major corporation or spend two hours a day on the phone for a year to get a 5 minute conversation.
edited 12th Jul '16 2:50:44 PM by CaptainCapsase
@I Love Dogs, we all knew Warren was a long shot. Two women on the ticket might be seen as too risky, and Warren is in a state with a Republican governor.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Every time someone says "I'm tired of being threatened into voting for the lesser evil, so I'm not doing it this time," I have to roll my eyes. I understand feelings are hurt, but there is a mathematical reality to votes in elections, and Trump has a united conservative base behind him. This is not about feelings. This is very simple cause and effect. Liberals don't vote, Trump wins. It's really that simple.
That's right, boys. Mondo cool.Well, Bernie managed to get a $15 minimum wage and abolishing the death penalty into the Democratic platform. Even though Congress has power over those things, so they're unlikely to happen, it's something to have a committment.
He was clearly going to endorse Hillary eventually, given the alternative. It's good that he managed to move the Democratic Party a bit leftward in the process.
I still don't like Hillary - she's far too hawkish and too beholden to major doners, and too much in favour of the security state - but she's better than Trump by a long ways. And a hundred years after getting the vote, it's about time there was a woman president.
If I was American, I'd be voting for her, but with major reservations and the uncomfortable feeling that I'd bear moral responsibility for the next war the US started.
(As a Canadian, I want a ranked ballot so that I can never be badgered about strategic voting again. I could vote NDP first, Green second, Liberal third - or, depending on the riding, Marxist first, Green second, NDP third, Liberal fourth - and never again have to hear someone say disingenuously "a vote for the NDP is a vote for the Conservatives". That statement doesn't even make now, given the riding system, because there have been plenty of ridings where the NDP are stronger than the Liberals, but Libs say it anyway. NDP are Canada's social democrats, by the way.)
edited 12th Jul '16 3:11:50 PM by Galadriel
Voting for someone doesn't somehow magically make you responsible for their decisions or actions. And you're also just assuming that she'd start another war.
And this might be a semantic note, but I always hate statements like "it's about time we had a black/female,non-Christian" president or whatever. It's about time the barriers that kept non-Christian, non-white males, from having a chance at the position (or any other position of power) but a person's demographic should (almost) never be a deciding factor in whether you think someone is qualified for a position.
It often seems to me that people don't make the distinction, and I think it's an important one.
edited 12th Jul '16 3:09:36 PM by LSBK
![]()
![]()
The two women issue might be behind it. That and maybe Clinton thinks that Sanders and Warren (plus fear of Trump) don't need to be on the ticket to rally the base. Therefore, a more moderate running mate is more useful to grab moderates/Republicans who can't stomach Trump.
edited 12th Jul '16 3:08:43 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.She might take a harder line on Iran, but if Tehran goes back on its deal than the US is basically required to take punitive measures.
And people forget that Bill's interventions were to prop up failing states (Somalia) or to stop genocide (ex-Yugoslavia). There's nothing in the Clinton admin that compares to Iraq.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.![]()
I've wondered that too. It seems like people expect her to declare war on the first nation that looks at us funny. Is this just people being mad about Iraq? I've never gotten that feeling from her. She'd probably be sooner to declare war than Bernie or Obama but I don't think she'd do it without good reason.
edited 12th Jul '16 3:13:05 PM by Kostya
In my view, yes, you're responsible for the actions of the party or person you vote for. That's what democracy means. If you voted for a party, you helped put them in power, and their actions are on you.
And just to be clear, I wouldn't vote for a woman candidate who I utterly disagreed with, or who I considered unable to do the job competently (e.g. Palin). I just find some consolation in the fact that if Hillary wins, the next female presidential candidate won't need to go through all this "is the US ready for a female president?" nonsense and will be, to a greater degree, evaluated on her own merits (though of course continually compared with Hillary, just as any subsequent black presidential candidates will be compared with Obama).
edited 12th Jul '16 3:20:53 PM by Galadriel

edited 12th Jul '16 1:59:03 PM by CaptainCapsase