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 massive economic anxiety the country is experiencing won't be going away any time soon, and there's quite a few bubbles waiting to burst. China being chief among them. Moreover, if it doesn't burst, the US is going to be facing a serious prospect of being eclipsed by China; the factors that make China a global economic crisis waiting to happen won't go away unless the state manages to resolve the massive internal issues that will most likely prevent it from becoming a superpower.
edited 24th Jul '16 11:03:49 AM by CaptainCapsase
If they weren't supposed to switch if Sanders won, that would have been even worse. But they actually have a history of switching to the winning candidate - see the 2008 primary, in which they switched en masse from Clinton to Obama (Obama wouldn't have won if these superdelegates had voted for Clinton).
@131971
: ... That Wall of Text is painful to even look at. Mind giving a bulleted-list version?
edited 24th Jul '16 11:10:35 AM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
How is that even worse? They're not supposed to be beholden to public opinion.
And one election does not make a history. Show them consistently doing that and you might have a point. But even then, not really, because there was nothing that said they had to do that. Well, until now that is, which just defeats the purpose of having them.
edited 24th Jul '16 11:18:20 AM by LSBK
That said, the level of the Democratic party's malfeasance and the level of the Republic's is in no way even remotely close. The DNC tried to push their preferred candidate in the party primary. Not a good thing, but not terrible. The Republican party platform, on the other hand, is terrifyingly regressive and openly racist.
The Democrats need to address their bullshit, certainly, but you've also got to have a sense of priorities. I'd rather see the Democrats win the election without addressing their issues than see the Democrats address their issues but lose the election. Keeping Trump out of the White House is priority number one right now, and getting their house in order is rightly taking a backseat for the Democrats at the moment. It would be different if their internal problems were more severe, but the fact is that they're not.
On the flip side, I'd say that the problems with the Republican party are worth losing an election over. If I was a Republican, I'd be absolutely willing to throw this election to the Democrats if it meant making a strong statement that the party is not going to put up with Trump's bullshit. Four (or god forbid, eight) years of Trump would do more damage to the party (and the country) in the long term than four (or eight) years of Clinton would. Again: priorities.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Realy? Because the unprovoked constant stream of comments to the effect of "the level of the Democratic party's malfeasance and the level of the Republic's is in no way even remotely close" sure seems like that.
Nobody has suggested the the Dems and Republicans are the same yet the responce to allegations of issues with the Dems is "stop saying the Dems are as bad as the Republicans (even though you never actually said that)".
This entire thing has become a giant strawman of cult of centrism, which nobody involved in this discussion subscribes to. Propel are instantly assuming bad faith fo anyone who raises an issue with the DNC's practices.
The concern is that we won't get either of thosue, instead we will get the Dems loose the election because they didn't address their issues. Instead of winning because they addressed their issues.
edited 24th Jul '16 11:37:02 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![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
They have only existed for four primaries yet (and I think they were never as numerous).
And yes, this is what they are created for, but I was arguing that it was a very undemocratic system and that their influence should definitely be reduced (which it has for now, fortunately).
edited 24th Jul '16 11:41:43 AM by Perian
Bingo. Also apparently Hillary did not even do what the DNC recommended, probably due to it being too dirty of a move.
That's not how party systems work. They actually are supposed to be checks on Trump-like situations.
The popular candidate may be a dangerous one. -_- It's a fundamental flaw in democracy that party screening is partially there to try and prevent.
Like it or not, popular demagogues are as dangerous as an unaccountable elite.
edited 24th Jul '16 11:56:14 AM by Euodiachloris
The DNC has no power in actually selecting candidates, their only role is to set the Democratic platform and organize party activities, but nothing in it says members of the committee can not provide some advice to one candidate or another on how to win.
Also all the info is pretty much a moot point because the Hillary campaign should have done all the research anyway and should have already known that attack plan but chose to not do it.
Try watching something like The West Wing their last two seasons goes into great detail on getting and not getting help from the party committee.
edited 24th Jul '16 12:07:01 PM by Memers
What we don't like is the "see, the Democrats are corrupt too! They're just as bad as the Republicans!" attitude, because it conflates a real-but-relatively-minor concern with the DNC's behavior with the far more serious issues regarding the Republican party (eg, basically everything about them at this point).
tldr; DNC not good, but Republicans VERY VERY VERY EXTREMELY BAD. Both need improvements, but drawing equivalence between the two because neither is perfect is insane.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.The problem with Debbie is that she's associated with being too partisan, apparently making all manners of bad financial decisions and allegedly not supporting challengers to some Republican colleagues and being far too pro-Hillary and pulling a lot of questionable (and ultimately unnecessary) moves to the point of receiving a Stop Helping Me reaction.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanMy hope is that the DNC moves rightwards to catch people who are Republicans that are unwilling to vote for Trump (such as myself). I was hoping for the government to shift a bit rightwards, and I think the exodus of Republican voters to the Democratic party might just be the thing that does it.
Leviticus 19:34

edited 24th Jul '16 11:02:15 AM by Kostya