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
It probably won't, but it never hurts to look towards future cycles, and if either party achieved their goal of meeting the federal funding threshold, they'd be in a very good position to pull that off if eight years down the line the GOP implodes after attempting to impeach Clinton for the 15th time and the Berneicrats who seem poised to end up in congress are ready for political revolution 2: Electric Boogaloo.
Which creates a sort of mutually assured spoilage scenario in this particular political climate where one of the parties looks to be in danger of collapsing; if one of the minor parties is poised to get the coveted federal funding, the other rather desperately needs it as well.
edited 12th Jul '16 3:33:36 PM by CaptainCapsase
Given that Clinton did choose to vote to start a war, I'd say the chances of her doing so again are fairly high. 40-60% range. Trump's a little higher, the other Republican presidential candidates would be a lot higher.
The difference is that Hillary would have some kind of policy rationale, even if it was a bad one. Wheras I can see Trump bombing a country just because their leader insulted him, or some other crazy stupid thing; he's a guy with a massive ego and virtually no experience of his actions having consequences.
Odds are she'd merely continue carrying out the undeclared war the Obama administration is currently fighting in Syria via drones, special forces, and local proxies. The political will for a proper war effort simply doesn't exist at this time, and probably won't for the foreseeable future.
edited 12th Jul '16 3:37:10 PM by CaptainCapsase
![]()
...That's terrible reasoning. Voting (along with most other people) for one war does not somehow mean she's going to jump at the chance to start another one. I feel that should be obvious. Context and circumstances matter when talking about these things. And your arbitrary percentages didn't help your point, either.
edited 12th Jul '16 3:34:52 PM by LSBK
Remember, 90% of statistics used in online debates are entirely made up.
People think that the Republicans are nearing collapse, but they are not. A collapse of a major party means a collapse of said party all the way down, not just at the presidential level. Currently, the Republicans hold a majority of the House and Senate as well as the majority of governorships and state legislatures. Until Democrats can actually get out to vote in mid-term elections like Republicans do that won't change at all.
edited 12th Jul '16 4:10:22 PM by GameGuruGG
Wizard Needs Food Badly![]()
Indeed. Had the evidence against Saddam been factual, as had been assumed at the time of her vote, voting against it would have been gross negligence. That it wasn't true wasn't her fault, it was the White House's. Holding it against her isn't for reasons of the actual vote, but some misguided notion that she betrayed some sort of naive pacifist dogma that she never even claimed to buy in to.
edited 12th Jul '16 4:12:47 PM by FFShinra
I agree, the evidence was crap. Hillary either supported the Iraq war despite knowing it was crap, or she has colossally poor judgement.
Yes, my percentages were meaningless, I'll cop to that. But voting for the biggest US foreign policy disaster since the Vietnam War is no small thing, and it does make me distrust her on foreign policy.
edited 12th Jul '16 4:50:51 PM by Galadriel
No, we're remembering. We're remembering the fear, and the campaigns, and the successively tightening UN directives, and the UN inspections, and their conclusions, and the UN as a whole being against that. We're remembering the "Axis of Evil", and that terror, "Who's next?"
edited 12th Jul '16 4:55:19 PM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.The Donald's thin skin strikes again, as he wants Ruth Bader Ginsburg to apologize and/or resign following some very clear anti Trump sentiment.
Amusingly, when writing Ginsburg's name, my phone's auto correct tried to change the middle name to Vader
edited 12th Jul '16 5:01:42 PM by sgamer82
![]()
And you expect Hillary Clinton to actively conduct such a disinformation campaign? Really?
I expect her to hype up the Designated Enemy's sins and demonize them, even though there will be worse tyrants and monsters around, some of whom will be supported by the US. I expect her to strike said Enemy, with wide acceptance if possible, but without if necessary. The US MIC thirst for blood, they need their fox hunts, and she will give them those.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.@Ambar: Sanders using a crowdfunding-esque fundraising scheme for his campaign in a manner that was capable of competing with the Clinton model of fundraising in a primary is almost certainly going to be a major takeaway from his campaign; that's not something that's ever been done before, and if he has no other impact, demonstrating a different path for campaign fundraising (one that doesn't require nearly as many ties to big business) is still something huge, and if other politicians cannot replicate that feat, it begs a rather important question as to why that's the case.
Indeed, Doctor Hopkins agreed that there very well might be something to that which would make Sanders campaign historic.
edited 12th Jul '16 5:25:29 PM by CaptainCapsase

@Lennik: Actually we did have a third party candidate win once, namely Abraham Lincoln in the clusterfuck that was the Presidential election of 1860. He's not called that because his party (the GOP) went on to become one of the majors. Now that said, something like that is very unlikely to happen in this election unless the GOP dumps Trump and half of the party goes rogue alongside him, at which point third parties are completely safe, and could conceivably win.
edited 12th Jul '16 3:18:51 PM by CaptainCapsase