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
Just to add onto the whole term limits thing, over here in Australia we have no term limits either. John Howard was the last PM to serve for a long time, little over a decade, and we have a history of several P Ms who lasted quite a long time, with the current record being held by Robert Menzies at 18 years.
Of course, more recently we've had the opposite problem, as we haven't had a single PM in the last 5 or so years who has successfully survived a full term before being booted, and there's a good chance with the current state of the Coalition government that poor Malcom Turnbull might get the boot as well thanks to the delcons who still hold a grudge because he knifed their golden boy, Tony Abbot, despite the fact that Turnbull, despite his crappy performance as PM, still saved the government from an outright slaughter at the election which would've happened under Abbot, and barely pulled over the line to gain government. The Labor party, meanwhile, changed its leadership rules during Kevin Rudd's second (brief) stint to make sure that a sitting leader can't be removed without a sizable majority vote against them (at least 60%), with the leadership only up for full grabs in the event of an election loss (Bill Shorten's leadership is safe, though, since he basically almost destroyed a one-term government).
edited 23rd Jul '16 11:30:46 PM by Cronosonic
Also, the argument against superdelegates was never that Sanders had more pledged delegates, but that they declared their preference before anyone had voted and the media always included them in the delegate count. This made it appear as if Clinton had an insurmountable lead at any time, which likely has depressed voter turn-out for Sanders. So who knows what would have happened if superdelegates didn't exist.
edited 24th Jul '16 1:57:29 AM by Perian
Given they're aligned with Jill Stein-esque policies, and have shown dislike for the mainstream left favouring a more radical platform, the more correct term may be "National Socialist Combat Movement" followers, possibly with a "neo" tacked on there somewhere.
Basically, historically they were Nazis who hewed left on several issues, liked the idea of merging communism with nationalism, and other odd ideas.
Essentially, still the same anti-semite bastards, but a breakaway and weird left leaning faction the other Nazis did not and continue to not like despite their abundant similarities
edited 24th Jul '16 2:03:17 AM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.Because he wasn't elected but appointed and I said "high elected office", I'm awere that he has been high profile, but there's a difference between that and being election tested.
As for other possibility, you can assume all you like, but the Democratic Party does have a massive shortage of up and coming talent so I don't find the idea that Clinton would have trouble finding left of party, election tested, younge, experienced, competent, candidate.
edited 24th Jul '16 2:35:04 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
![]()
Also, they used (((echoes)), which is commonly used by online anti-semites and neo-Nazis to identify Jews/people they suspect of being a Jew* . They outed some Jews living in Iraq in the past, and there's these interesting comments from Assange himself
.
edited 24th Jul '16 2:47:33 AM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotOhio lawyer arrested for wearing BLM pin in court
.
Well, I can certify from personal experience that Antisemitism and/or the belief of Jews in powerful places having an undesirable common agenda, is its own thing, and doesn't have to be linked with nationalism, socialism, national-socialism, or any other ideology.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.All that mud slinging, the over the top characters...it's perfect.
edited 24th Jul '16 4:58:54 AM by TerminusEst
Si Vis Pacem, Para PerkeleTrump: The EU was formed to beat the US at making money.
Because of course.
edited 24th Jul '16 6:22:07 AM by CaptainCapsase
Michael Moore thinks Trump is going to win.
And before you dismiss that, consider that there is a growing trend of him beating Hillary in the polls.
![]()
538's predictions have actually just improved slightly for Clinton, I made a post I belive yesterday that they had her winning 279 to 259, but they now have her winning Ohio and Florida again, meaning she'd win 326 to 212.
I suspect she's working on the assumption that she's won over Sanders voters by getting Sanders to endorse her, right now she needs to first do no harm (so not loose any voters), groom a possible heir, not cost the Dems a senate seat and then try and win over a few extra voters.
The VP choice isn't about winning over voters she doesn't have, it's about doing a bunch of things while not driving away voters she already has.
edited 24th Jul '16 6:47:47 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
This is 538
, they're a noteworthy political site that does statistical projections of the election. Right now, it's 58:42 in favor of Clinton.
Also worth noting is that they've cautioned against assuming Trump's current gains (and lead in recent polls) is due to a convention bump, since the "convention bump" effect is going to be remarkably difficult to study this year for a number reasons, chief among them being the fact that the polls were on the move in favor of Trump going into the RNC, which isn't typically the case.
edited 24th Jul '16 6:54:09 AM by CaptainCapsase
Yeah it's gonna be close, it's a strange situation, I honestly belive that Clinton should win this one and that there's no need to panic, but I also realise that the best way to ensure a Clinton victory is for people to panic because that's how you drive up turnout.
Nate Silver got 2012 perfectly, I think he called every electoral vote and every senate seat exactly.
edited 24th Jul '16 6:55:42 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
Extremely good; they had a bit of a gaffe projecting Trump at 2% in the primaries, but that was because they got arrogant and eschewed the statistical model suggesting a Trump landslide in favor of punditry, because they couldn't believe their eyes at first. Once the primaries got near and Trump failed to implode ala Herman Cain and other right wing lunatics who got early leads in polling, they dropped the punditry and started giving much more accurate projections. It also should be noted that a 2% chance of victory is not the same thing as 0%; even if that projection was accurate, were you to run the Republican primaries 50 times, Donald Trump would be expected to win once.
IIRC, the one big hiccup as far as the primaries went (after they were in swing) was Michigan where Sanders won in a landslide against >99% odds of losing, which he suspects was due to the polls for the primary being out of date.
@Silas: I agree this is going to be close, but during the GOP primaries Trump utterly dismantled the by-the-book campaigns run by Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, and so on one after the other. Considering "the book" on modern campaigning was more or less written by the Clintons, I'm worried Clinton will find herself unable to adapt to what clearly seems to be a fairly hard counter to the strategies she and Bill pioneered.
edited 24th Jul '16 7:08:22 AM by CaptainCapsase
but that they declared their preference before anyone had voted and the media always included them in the delegate count. This made it appear as if Clinton had an insurmountable lead at any time, which likely has depressed voter turn-out for Sanders. So who knows what would have happened if superdelegates didn't exist.
We know what would have happened because the same thing happened in 2008. Spoiler alert: Obama won anyway.
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's PlayIncidentally, as a non-American pondering the worldwide consequences of a Trump victory, I have to consider that if he wins I might very well join movements for my country to exit NATO — not just out of a desire not to get bundled up in some pointless was against, say, Iran, but because I think a NATO with a Trump-led America at the helm is fundamentally unreliable in a time of crisis. If a foreign power decided to go all ork and try to gobble up European countries, I do not believe we'd be able to count on Trump's America to honor its obligations and come to our aid, given his remarks — at least, not without him Moving the Goalposts and only agreeing to help in exchange for all our money and resources.
In the wake of a Trump presidency, Northern and Eastern Europe should seriously consider forming some new, different defence pact without America in it.

On Wikileaks;
Given they're aligned with Jill Stein-esque policies, and have shown dislike for the mainstream left favouring a more radical platform, the more correct term may be "National Socialist Combat Movement" followers, possibly with a "neo" tacked on there somewhere.
Basically, historically they were Nazis who hewed left on several issues, liked the idea of merging communism with nationalism, and other odd ideas.
Essentially, still the same anti-semite bastards, but a breakaway and weird left leaning faction the other Nazis did not and continue to not like despite their abundant similarities
Also, a division of Trump's supporters I can only liken to the SA had a party.
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/21/12238048/rnc-party-milo
edited 23rd Jul '16 11:26:47 PM by NickTheSwing