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
And not to mention, but from what people in this very thread have told me, if a candidate manages to keep the lead for about 30 days after the conventions, then there's a pretty darn good chance they'll win the election. We aren't quite there yet, but by the end of the month, this may well be the case with Hilary.
Trends aside, Trump shows no sign of stopping any of his blatantly self-destructive behavior. In fact, it seems to get worse as his polls dip. He barely managed to feign sanity for a little while, and then Clinton got her post-DNC bump and he just dove head-first into the deep end.
edited 13th Aug '16 9:37:02 PM by Discar
Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.If the reports are to be believed about Trump "grumbling about how he was better off following his own instincts during the primaries and suggesting he should not have heeded their calls for change,"
I would not be surprised if Trump is shortsighted enough to genuinely believe that his poll numbers went down because of that short time where he stayed as close to "on message" as he can get, rather than because of all the shit he said before that point. And now he's back to his "winning" strategy, and things aren't getting any better. So he's lashing out at others, from asserting that the elections are already rigged, to claiming that the news media is "the lowest form of life."
Because he can't acknowledge any fault in himself.
And from speaking to the couple republicans that I know, that shit just does not fly. They really, really don't like being told that only reason they think he's awful human being is because of "the media," and not because of what he spouts on a daily basis.
edited 13th Aug '16 10:30:36 PM by Eschaton
Yeah, I'm having trouble understanding why everyone is so pissed at Captain. I realize Tv Tropes is a pretty idealistic community, but that doesn't mean we can ostracize someone for bringing up very legitimate concerns. Are we really so convinced that Hillary won't renege on her conveniently-timed Heel–Face Turn on the TPP, especially since she and Bill have been so strongly pro-free trade until now?
If we have some historical facts to back up the optimism, I'd love to hear them. But until then, I'm pretty sure we're being bamboozled as usual. People like Captain aren't being negative just for fun, you know.
How dare you disrupt the sanctity of my soliloquy?"I would gladly move to a nation where immigration is illegal"
edited 14th Aug '16 1:45:35 AM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34Because we've had the discussion before, about a half dozen times. At this point it's just rehashing old ground and repeating the exact same arguments with nobody bringing anything new. It drowns out other more fresh discussions and is just kinda dull.
That's just the "Captain's pessimistic world view discussion", we get that he thinks politics inherently corrupts and that no politican is honest or a good person, that we're all doomed anyway due to global warming, that everything should be considered with a 50-60 year view even if everyone else is talking about a 2-5 year view, he's said it plenty.
I'd ask you to put forward an argument as to why she would. Why would she alienate a voter group she needs for the midterms, reelection and after? Why anger the youth vote so much? Why risk Bernie (or his successor) pushing a primary challenge? She could possible pull an Obama and try and pass it when she's on her way out in 2024, but that's outside my crystal ball range.
edited 14th Aug '16 2:43:49 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.” ~ CyranFree trade is a big business policy and Clinton is very pro big business, that's a pretty good reason. While this exact election is important for a variety of factors being a one-term president would be fine legacy wise if she gets to put TPP into place, elect several supreme court justices and finish ISIS. There's also historical factors to take into account. American generally doesn't let a party sit in the whitehouse for four terms, if she's playing strategically she knows this so it'll be a mad dash to get as much as she wants put into place and just pray that they make trump the nominee again in 2020.
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?I doubt Trump will run again in four years. For one, he'd be trying to become president at age sevety-four, which is pretty much impracticable. Also, the GOP will be prepared for him this time and will not allow him to hijack their primaries again. Finally, there's no guarantee that Trump's rhetoric will resonate as much in four years, when ISIS will most likely have been destroyed and the terror situation will most likely not be quite as dire.
What's more likely is that the GOP will groom someone who incorporates some of Trump's ideas in a more broadly acceptable way, and use that someone to unseat Hillary.
Besides the Big Business argument, there's the argument of Hillary due to her being the Listening candidate, that she'd be listening to a lot of people in the Beltway bubble. And that to a large number of lobbyists and politicians she'd listen to, the TPP and TIPP sound like good business, and they'd be of the opinion merely need to reframe and properly re-explain it to the public.
And the guys in the Beltway are notoriously obtuse for doing things based on the framework of well. Richer people's logic.
Maybe she does realize it's just not worth it, but there's a lot of businesses who invested years into this. Hillary's also shown she's likely to listen to business and banking interests' views on matters. And that they would argue to her to try and get it passed in some fashion after the election.
If you want to avoid corruption angles, the argument is Hillary would think the TPP is awesome because as a political insider (and listener), she'd think the TPP is awesome because all of her colleagues she talks to think it's the best thing since sliced bread.
Free Trade is a big policy for Clinton but so is getting elected, why on earth would she after so long just accept being a one term president? Not to mention cost the Dems both the Senate but also any hope of taking back the House?
I don't deny that Clinton probably wants the TPP, I deny that she wants it more than reelection of is stupid enough to think she can have both.
edited 14th Aug '16 5:23:50 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

The Southern Strategy of some sort was an inevitability, because the old Dixiecrats were a huge voting bloc that wouldn't have endured being ignored for long (and ignored is just what they would have been if they stayed with the post-Civil Rights Party).