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
@Pseudopartition: I do not support Trump, but I don't think it was the rich who've been screwing America over. In fact, I don't think there's one group in particular who's been screwing America over recently. This is a major factor in my dislike of Trump as well, since his entire MO has been finding individuals to blame for screwing America, and demanding revenge.
edited 24th Jul '16 7:57:29 PM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34Except Hillary just hired her for her campaign, which I'd say still reflects poorly on her. We can argue all day about whether these leaks are important, but when a chairperson resigns over what looks at least cosmetically to a ton of voters like textbook corruption, you don't immediately hire that person into another area of political influence. It looks like she's being kicked upstairs, and given how unpopular she is right now, that's not a good look.
That's right, boys. Mondo cool.I'm still not sure what the actually scandalous part is supposed to be. There was no insinuation that the DNC tried rigging primary votes or doing anything untoward, just that they tried (or maybe just considered) making Bernie look bad in the media so that Clinton would win the nomination, which . . . I mean, isn't that a pretty standard campaign tactic?
Even if the tactics revealed in the leaks were innocent, it doesn't really matter. A lot of people are going to perceive it as corruption, which is why if you want to win those peoples' votes, you don't immediately hire one of the people at the center of it all as soon as she resigns.
Re: Sanders not being a Democrat:
It doesn't matter. He ran as a Democrat. Hence the DNC should avoid having the appearance of plotting against him.
Even if they didn't end up doing it, even entertaining the tactic of using atheism to discredit a political opponent as an acceptable thing to do reeks of dishonesty. At the very least, I really don't see how we can fault somebody for thinking it looks really fucking shady.
edited 24th Jul '16 8:55:41 PM by Lennik
That's right, boys. Mondo cool.![]()
![]()
No? Why have the primaries if the leadership is going to just pick a candidate. I'm pretty sure it's also against the rules to favor one candidate over another.
![]()
How so? It seems pretty clear what's going on.
So the existence of Trump means we should just let the party leadership do whatever they want?
edited 24th Jul '16 8:57:05 PM by Kostya
It is what they are for in the general election. They're meant to be the organizational base of the whole party. The supposed purpose of primaries is to give people a voice in choosing a candidate rather than just have them put forward a nomination by fiat (which IIRC is what used to happen). Putting fingers on the scale for a favored primary candidate goes against that.
Also, I suspect the RNC got what they got in spite of their system. If they had fingers on the scale (and I wouldn't be surprised if they did) it failed them utterly this time.
edited 24th Jul '16 9:05:09 PM by Elle
![]()
![]()
![]()
If they're just using it as an excuse to not vote for Hilary or legitimately don't understand that she (most likely) wasn't involved, then that's on them.
And, frankly, I don't think something like this should be a big deal even if they did end up going through with it.
edited 24th Jul '16 9:06:45 PM by LSBK
Can we not be condescending? I plan to vote for Hillary, but I think most of us can agree that Trump supporters can sour us on Trump, so it should be no stretch that Clinton's supporters in the DNC might sour someone on Clinton. If one is reasonable, so is the other.
I do think this is a big deal. Not that they went through with anything, because it's not clear they did, but because DWS lied about the DNC's intentions over and over again.
edited 24th Jul '16 9:10:32 PM by Lennik
That's right, boys. Mondo cool.Condescending about what? If I think something that should be nothing is being turned into something I'm not just going to nod along. I just disagree about how a big a deal should constitute. Well, I also disagree with some other things some people who think this should be a big deal say, but I probably won't address that now.
edited 24th Jul '16 9:12:01 PM by LSBK
I swear there was a consensus on this thread prior to this that DWS was cheating on behalf of Hillary despite the issue that Hillary didn't want, need or welcome such help. So what? We knew this already. If the people supporting Sanders expressing this sort of sentiment are the actual future of the Democrats, then they have to grow up. Since from the looks of things, these are the same brand of morons who don't join a party, sit out every election or write in some no-hoper because "hurr durr both sides are bad horseshoe theory", just younger. The Democrats will be made up of... everyone they're made up of now.
Also, surprise, surprise, Wikileaks is being disingenuous with how they're presenting the leaks
.
edited 24th Jul '16 9:11:48 PM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotNot surprising the DNC went to bat for the candidate with by far the best chance of winning and with way deeper connections to the Dems. Still, the religion thing is unconscionable – imagine if Bernie was Muslim and they decided to "play it up for Southern Baptists".
The fact that Clintonites are telling Bernie supporters and indeed anyone to the left of them that there's nothing to be concerned about and they need to shut up and stop rocking the boat probably isn't winning Hillary many votes among that crowd, even considering the ones who decided to not vote for Hill based on the leaks.

Okay, thanks folks. Yeah, I guess intellectually I understand how Trump has such a huge fanbase; but everything they stand for is just so antithetical to my beliefs and opinions as a person that I don't understand it on an emotional level. That's part of the problem though. Even if Trump loses, his supporters aren't just going to go away.
I probably shouldn't even be here... ah well.
edited 24th Jul '16 7:54:37 PM by Pseudopartition