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
I try to give politicians the benefit of the doubt that they at least believe the things they say most of the time. The exception is when those statements are self-contradictory, like when Trump goes back and forth between not knowing who Putin is and praising him as his hero.
For instance, it's easy to understand why someone would come down against climate change if you accept the premise that the Democrats manufactured the concept to win votes - which many Republicans do. It's part of the party platform; it's something they hear all the time from Republican echo chambers like FOX News, and they've got their own anti-climate change scientists they toss around here and there as "proof" of the stance.
The Democrats tell each other that the Republicans only oppose climate change because they're all crooked bastards who are getting kickbacks from the coal and oil industry. The Republicans tell each other that the Democrats only support the theory of climate change because it's a fake controversy they made up to win votes. Everyone screams "Corruption!" at the other side's ideals, when a more plausible battle cry is "Human flaws!"
The oil industry isn't chatting up senators and going, "Hey, I'll pledge half a billion to your campaign if you'll help me spread my wicked toxins and destroy the Earth! Hail Hydra!"
They are, however, chatting up senators and going, "Do you believe these f*cking assholes? They're trying to push this climate change crap again. Didn't my highly-paid team of corporate-sponsored scientists already disprove that? Those crooked Democrats are still trying to destroy honest, hard-working men and women in the industry. Shame, that. By the way, you've been doing some good work, have half a billion dollars. You'll need it if we're going to defeat those greedy lobbyists in November."
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.![]()
As long as Trump remains somewhat competitive, I have a bad feeling that might not matter. Wikileaks almost certainly is sitting on more stolen emails from the DCC and Clinton Foundation hacks and planning to release them right before the election, and regardless of whether anything legitimately incriminating is found that ties back to Clinton, that might very well do enough damage to tip the election in Trump's favor.
edited 1st Aug '16 12:16:25 PM by CaptainCapsase
With GOP politicians stopping Trump, there's a few reasons why they don't as often as they do. It has to do largely with party loyalty. General consensus is that you don't be too hard on other members of your party, especially presidential candidates. Trump is a guy who may very well become president, is notoriously petty, and as a GOP politician considers himself entitled to your support. You do not want him to view you as a traitor.
Alternatively, if you criticize Trump and Hillary wins, you'll still lose a lot of your party's trust and will probably be seen as partially responsible for whatever Hillary does as president. And it's not like Hillary will suddenly have your back just because you pulled Enemy Mine once. If she wins, you go back to being opponents.
So, either way, you're pretty screwed.
Leviticus 19:34Republicans like McCain are banking on Trump losing, giving them a "reasonable" Democratic President that they can hope to compromise with at best and obstruct at worst, giving them another shot at the White House in 2020.
edited 1st Aug '16 12:19:25 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Ted Cruz too. His entire game plan at this point is for Trump to get reamed so hard by Hillary in the general that he can run in 2020 and/or 2024 on the "Take back the soul of our party!" platform.
Which would be great if he wasn't part of the problem, but as God's Righteous Soldier, he doesn't quite see that.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.![]()
Y'know, an argument I've wanted to use but haven't yet is "In four years, would you rather be stuck voting again for Trump, or vote against Hillary?"
edited 1st Aug '16 12:23:30 PM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34Mc Cain immediately ruined it when he said that he believes in the party of Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Eisenhower...and Reagan. If anything, it's Reagan who certified the Republicans as the far-right wingers of America.
Also watched a discussion on Fox Business this morning concerning the Pope's recent statement, which basically says, "lack of monetary oppurtunity causes terrorism." The guy sitting down for the discussion was former SEAL Carl Higbie, who proceeded to first criticize the Pope's belief that America should build bridges instead of walls, trying to paint him as a hypocrite because the Vatican also has walls.
Beyond that, he showed just how disgustingly conservative America's armed forces are with his further statements-America's military should kill bad guys instead of helping to build schools, Saddam Hussein was doing it just right, and it's okay to kill civilians under ISIS because they're either terrorists themselves or not doing anything to stop ISIS and are therefore part of the problem.
"Somehow the hated have to walk a tightrope, while those who hate do not."
I don't consider Trump especially right-wing (more like "Dixiecrat"), and I don't think Reagan would be approving of some of the things Trump is wanting to do. I mean, even Cheney thinks Trump's a loonatic.
edited 1st Aug '16 12:31:02 PM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34Trump is the demographic that Reagan was appealing to with his anti-welfare, anti-black speeches. It was just that, in his era, you had to be more subtle about it, but the racism was there at the root of his politics from the get-go. Reagan was the first modern "dog whistle" President, setting the stage for Trump to follow.
The party's attempts to do that sort of thing go way back, of course, with Barry Goldwater as the standard-bearer and Nixon as the executor, but Reagan figured out how to sell racism as "common sense" conservatism.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Saw this on a family member's Facebook feed and it made me wonder if Jill Stein and/or anti-vaxxers will jump on it
Lead Developer Of HPV Vaccines Comes Clean, Warns Parents & Young Girls It’s All A Giant Deadly Scam
Sorry, figured the headline covered it. The main developer for a cervical cancer vaccine had come out and said the vaccine had no appreciable effect on the cancer while also having dangerous side effects.
edited 1st Aug '16 12:43:36 PM by sgamer82
Could you at least summarize the article for people who don't want to give those click-bait sites extra views?
![]()
Anti-vaxxers creatively reading a statement by a Doctor questioning whether the cost-benefit of the HPV vaccine is as positive as previously claimed. As an expert in training, I actually tend to agree with the notion that vaccinating everyone for HPV is of slightly dubious benefit to society, insofar as the chance of recipients receiving adverse reactions to the vaccine aren't that much higher (if they even are) than the probability of the vaccine actually preventing a case of cervical cancer. A statement which has naturally been twisted to imply that the vaccine is extremely dangerous as opposed to probably unnecessary except for certain demographics or people with a family history of cervical cancer.
edited 1st Aug '16 12:56:35 PM by CaptainCapsase
![]()
There is a legitimate line of inquiry as to the cost/benefit of the HPV vaccine (as there is with any medical treatment), and there is at least superficial merit to the idea that its manufacturer might overstate its benefits to make sales (it's not like it hasn't happened before), but it's a far cry from that to calling it actively harmful, especially as that feeds into the desperate ignorance of the core anti-vaxxer crowd.
I know little about Diggler, but his rhetoric in that article is sound. I'm not sure I can stand by one of his primary assumptions, however, which is that the hardcore Trump crowd and the hardcore Bernie Bros crowd are the same people. [citation needed]
edited 1st Aug '16 12:51:24 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
Carl Diggler is satire (and not a real person), although it's less clear with this piece. His sheer hatred of 'Bernie Bros' is a running joke.
Oh. The joke doesn't work as well if it has to be explained.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!""Parabiosis" — I didn't know it had an official name; very interesting — is hardly a new idea; it was proposed by such folks as Robert A. Heinlein back in the heyday of science fiction, and apparently has some interesting scientific evidence behind it. The problem, of course, is getting the blood, which is part of why it's strictly a rich person's anti-aging treatment at present. In the fictional universe, medical science learned how to clone human blood. We can't do that yet.
I see no reason to vilify Thiel over it. He may be odious in other ways, but the interest of the very wealthy in longevity treatments is as old as civilization itself — if it becomes popular enough, it'll spur all kinds of R&D investment that, like all such things, will eventually trickle down to the masses.
Of course, if we (hypothetically) double human lifespans through parabiosis, it'll cause major sociological issues across the globe. For an example of how terrifying such a scenario might become, read Methuselah's Children.
edited 1st Aug '16 1:54:38 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"We are entering a very crucial time regarding polls predicting the actual results of the election. Apparently in every single election since 1972, the candidate ahead in the polls 30 days after the conventions ended won the popular vote on election day. Obviously there is always a chance of a repeat of 2000 (about an 8% chance according to 538 to be precise) or the pattern simply breaking. But if Clinton can maintain her lead for another few weeks, it becomes a much safer bet to say she's going to win.
Of course, that's omitting the possibility of an October Surprise for either candidate.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"

The true extent of the Convention bounce and the Khan incident probably aren't showing up in the polls just yet. This week or the next should demonstrate that.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.