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
Consolation, perhaps? At a time when the GOP candidate is such a terrible human being, it might be a comforting narrative to say that, "Well, at least the Democrats got screwed every bit as hard as we did this year!" even if it's the furthest thing from the truth.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.On the subject of any other Republican winning against Clinton, it's because:
- 54% of Clinton voters say they are going to vote for her because her opponent is Trump.
- Her approval rate is nearly as low as Trump's, and historically low for any presidential nominee.
- She regularly lost with a large margin to other Republicans such as Kasich
and Rubio
during primary polling.
- Even Donald Trump somehow manages to get close to her in recent polls.
Also, primary voters are a very small part of the US population.
edited 1st Aug '16 8:27:52 AM by Perian
In more positive news, some USPS reform legislation finally made it out of committee
that's aimed at drastically-reducing the red ink that stems from previous legislation requiring massive prefunding of retirement benefits.
EDIT: More on Stein and the anti-vaxxers
.
Says the guy trying to use the New York Times, a single paper, in order to prove that Trump gets worse coverage.
And you know that they'd vote for a different Republican on the basis of...?
Her approval rating is low, but nowhere near as low as Trump's.
Sure we can. The press regularly let things slide with Trump that they'd never let slide with Clinton. Example given—there was a New York Times article that discussed Trump's admitted habit (as in, admitted in one of his books) of lying during business deals. They called it "being creative with the truth." Other papers described it the same way. Can you imagine if Clinton had said something similar? There'd have been headline after headline about how she admits to being a liar.
Every time Clinton makes even a minor misstep, the papers crucify her, something you yourself admitted to being in favour of in your previous post. Trump's minor missteps, conversely, are ignored. The papers either wait for the next big misstep from him, or try to find something positive to say about him so that they won't be accused of liberal bias, an accusation they've been running scared from since at least the 1990s. The end net result is that minor mistakes from Clinton end up being given the same weight as the major policy blunders and anti-democratic rhetoric coming from Trump.
edited 1st Aug '16 9:08:52 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Thing is, I've seen the same study (though damned if I can find it) saying that 56% of prospective Clinton voters are doing so to deny Trump the Presidency, and 52% of Trump's prospective voters are doing so to deny Clinton it. I can't recall there ever being a larger Lesser of Two Evils election than this one, save for the memetic "Vote for the Lizard, not the Wizard!" campaign between scandal-ridden Edwin Edwards and former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke in Louisiana.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"edited 1st Aug '16 9:48:06 AM by Perian
![]()
![]()
Duke is indeed running for US Senator from Louisiana
. He is running as a Republican, though I feel I should mention that Louisiana's "jungle primary" system means at least eight other Republicans will also be on the ballot, plus seven Democrats, two Libertarians, and six Independents (at last count of declared candidates according to Wiki).
edited 1st Aug '16 9:36:15 AM by megarockman
The damned queen and the relentless knight.And if people want to refute the author's point, they should try using actual evidence, and not today's headlines in a single paper.
The hell I am. You said, in response to the article I'd posted, that you didn't want the papers to "sugarcoat" anything Clinton does. Unfortunately, the article doesn't advocate for "sugarcoating" her positions. It asks that the papers either a) stop automatically assuming the worst possible motivations of her, and ascribing ill intent to every statement of hers that they can or b) treat Trump the same way. It's a plea for fairness—a plea that you rejected in favour of the papers continuing to operate as they are now. Ergo, you are/were in favour of the papers continuing to paint Clinton in as bad a light as possible, regardless of accuracy.
PS—Before you tell me that the above isn't what you meant, that's fine and I'm willing to drop this line of discussion, but it is what you said.
Being "creative with the truth" suggests there is truth in the statement, and that the speaker is exaggerating, but not outright lying. In reporting that way they're giving Trump a courtesy they rarely if ever give Clinton.
No they haven't. The fascism thing is comparatively recent, and most papers are not calling him that. Do you actually look around the Internet at all the headlines? Or do you just read the New York Times and Washington Post and assume that every paper in the USA is following their lead? There are thousands of papers in America, and most of them are still trying to treat Trump like a normal candidate, rather than the anti-democratic nut that he is.
edited 1st Aug '16 9:53:54 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar
http://www.vfw.org/News-and-Events/Articles/2016-Articles/VFW-Supports-Gold-Star-Families/
So Trump manage to get the biggest veteran group mad at him. Considering that military voters consist of 30 million, that could have an effect on the election. Also can someone please explain to me how 46% of voters voting for Bernie is consider rigging? I just can't warp my head around this.
A couple of days ago I was thinking that nobody would ever dare to insult a Gold Star Mother for anything she did in the public sphere (this was in relation to the flap where you could play as the Taliban in Medal of Honor (2010), the removal of that and the game's subsequent banning from Post Exchanges).
And then Trump and his base did just that.
EDIT: On right wing YouTube personalities, the lies they peddle and who's funding them:
edited 1st Aug '16 10:04:28 AM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot
The apparent working theory on that here is that these die-hards fell in love with an idealized Sanders rather than the man himself.
The Houston Chronicle, typically a pro-Republican paper, has endorsed Clinton because they say Trump is a "threat to the Republic."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/01/politics/houston-chronicle-hillary-clinton-endorsement/index.html
And a Jeb Bush advisor has left the GOP over Trump, and says she'll vote for Clinton if her state (Florida) is close.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/01/politics/sally-bradshaw-jeb-bush-donald-trump-florida/index.html
edited 1st Aug '16 10:36:46 AM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.John McCain calls out Trump
over his bashing of the Khan family:
"I wear a bracelet bearing the name of a fallen hero, Matthew Stanley, which his mother, Lynn, gave me in 2007, at a town hall meeting in Wolfeboro, New Hampshire. His memory and the memory of our great leaders deserve better from me.
"In recent days, Donald Trump disparaged a fallen soldier's parents. He has suggested that the likes of their son should not be allowed in the United States — to say nothing of entering its service. I cannot emphasize enough how deeply I disagree with Mr. Trump's statement. I hope Americans understand that the remarks do not represent the views of our Republican Party, its officers, or candidates.
"Make no mistake: I do not valorize our military out of some unfamiliar instinct. I grew up in a military family, and have my own record of service, and have stayed closely engaged with our armed forces throughout my public career. In the American system, the military has value only inasmuch as it protects and defends the liberties of the people.
"My father was a career naval officer, as was his father. For hundreds of years, every generation of Mc Cains has served the United States in uniform.
"My sons serve today, and I'm proud of them. My youngest served in the war that claimed Captain Khan's life as well as in Afghanistan. I want them to be proud of me. I want to do the right thing by them and their comrades.
"Humayun Khan did exactly that — and he did it for all the right reasons. This accomplished young man was not driven to service as a United States Army officer because he was compelled to by any material need. He was inspired as a young man by his reading of Thomas Jefferson — and he wanted to give back to the country that had taken him and his parents in as immigrants when he was only two years old.
"Captain Khan's death in Iraq, on June 8th, 2004, was a shining example of the valor and bravery inculcated into our military. When a suicide bomber accelerated his vehicle toward a facility with hundreds of American soldiers, Captain Khan ordered his subordinates away from the danger. "Then he ran toward it.
"The suicide bomber, striking prematurely, claimed the life of Captain Khan — and Captain Khan, through his selfless action and sacrifice, saved the lives of hundreds of his brothers and sisters. "Scripture tells us that 'Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.'
"Captain Humayun Khan of the United States Army showed in his final moments that he was filled and motivated by this love. His name will live forever in American memory, as an example of true American greatness.
"In the end, I am morally bound to speak only to the things that command my allegiance, and to which I have dedicated my life's work: the Republican Party, and more importantly, the United States of America. I will not refrain from doing my utmost by those lights simply because it may benefit others with whom I disagree.
"I claim no moral superiority over Donald Trump. I have a long and well-known public and private record for which I will have to answer at the Final Judgment, and I repose my hope in the promise of mercy and the moderation of age. I challenge the nominee to set the example for what our country can and should represent.
"Arizona is watching. It is time for Donald Trump to set the example for our country and the future of the Republican Party. While our Party has bestowed upon him the nomination, it is not accompanied by unfettered license to defame those who are the best among us.
"Lastly, I'd like to say to Mr. and Mrs. Khan: thank you for immigrating to America. We're a better country because of you. And you are certainly right; your son was the best of America, and the memory of his sacrifice will make us a better nation — and he will never be forgotten."
edited 1st Aug '16 10:38:42 AM by Parable
@Kostya: Honestly, I can't imagine Clinton being a 2 term President under any plausible circumstances. There's almost inevitably going to be a recession in the next President's term, and it's probably going to be bad since there's no way any meaningful reforms are going through congress in its current state. In all likelihood they'll spend the entirety of her presidency attempting to impeach her and blocking any and all legislature from passing. To add to that, whether or not it has anything to do with it, the TPP is going to be blamed for the economic woes of the country which will in turn be blamed on the democrats; Despite Clinton's stated opposition to the deal, it's very likely it'll end up being passed by Obama during the lame duck session of congress, so as to sidestep the issue of Clinton having to go back on her word. given practically the entirety of corporate America is lobbying for this, it's more or less a question of when not if the deal gets passed.
edited 1st Aug '16 11:02:36 AM by CaptainCapsase

So in other Khizr Khan related news, Sen. Jeff Sessions defended Trump against Khan's comments, as well as his ideas regarding a Muslim immigration ban
.
"Millions of Americans are in favor of that policy,” the senator said.
Well, Mr. Sessions, millions of Americans also favor stricter gun control laws, but I don't see you in a hurry to adopt them.
But the real asshole comment came from Roger Stone, who posited that Mr. Khan is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and is just seeking to destabilize the US
.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"