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
Ask them why they don't trust Bernie.
Also remember, third party votes in safe states still hurt the party you support, as they will come the next election take money from purple states and spend it in safe states to sure up support. The reverse works for them not taking money from purple states if you're in hostile territory. Then there's the fact that the popular vote helps build a strong mandate, the fact that for your groups be cared about you need to be seen as part of the team, ect...
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran"Well, they're better than these guys I don't like" is not a good response to "these are the tactical reasons why you shouldn't do this particular thing."
Also the current make up of the Libertarians is basically the Republicans but with even less government, so that statement is actually wrong on one count.
edited 22nd Aug '16 6:24:50 PM by AceofSpades
Eh, I can see why one might find the Libertarians a better choice than the Republicans (as their social policies are similar to liberalism). Personally, I'm not overly fond of them, but then again I am a Republican. I don't like their social policies, their foreign policy, and even their economic policy is a bit too extreme IMO.
Leviticus 19:34North Carolina is Purple with a gerrymandered red state government.
edited 22nd Aug '16 6:29:53 PM by tclittle
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."![]()
![]()
Their social policies are liberal. What they are not is leftist, and while I'd very much prefer the latter, the former is better than the deeply reactionary policies of the GOP.
Like many things in New York (our former senator included), it's stepped in various shades of corruption. We have fusion voting, wherein you can vote for a candidate on different parties from the one they're running in, in theory as a mechanism to express support for platforms without spoiling them. Unfortunately it's not really used that way in practice.
edited 22nd Aug '16 7:12:33 PM by CaptainCapsase
![]()
In Canada we have a federal party known as the NDP. They tend to be a disaster when they're in charge on a provincial level, mostly because they bend over backwards for the unions and spend tons of money almost randomly. However, the make a very good opposition party, because their worst tendencies are reined in and they can rein in the worst of the majority party.
I don't know if it would happen, but maybe the Libertarians might work out like that? Their crazy elements wouldn't be able to do much, but maybe they might be able to stem the worst of the American right wing?
![]()
That's because they don't hold office, they kinda just nag democrats in order to get them to run on their tickets as well.
Greens would be much better for that scenario; imagine a world where all the social justice policy this country sorely needs is passed almost unanimously.
Though if Johnson defines the libertarian party, they would be tolerable. He apparently supports a carbon tax and basic income (in place of our current welfare system), and while that more or less flies in the face of the pseudo-Austrian economics that libertarians tend to run on, I'd take it over the GOP any day.
edited 22nd Aug '16 7:22:15 PM by CaptainCapsase
![]()
The NDP (as a rule, there are exceptions) are something that most Libertarians absolutely aren't, they are pragmatic. They have patience. They are willing to choose broad(er) support and electability over ideological purity.
If only the Greens added a dash of realism (especially in terms of foreign policy and defense) and kicked out all the quacks. Then they might be viable, if you brought in election reform first. Until then, they are far-left fanatics who would do a crapton of damage if they actually had something approaching a support base.
edited 22nd Aug '16 7:21:29 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
If they could gain power without having to compromise with the democrats sure. As things stand, if the GOP collapses, they're going to be replaced by the libertarians.
Which would leave me in an awkward dilemma of having to support the party wanting to go around invading everyone for asshole reasons, since the neoconservatives, and the military itself would probably flip to the democrats if the libertarians became he right.
edited 22nd Aug '16 7:26:11 PM by CaptainCapsase
I think you have to also consider that if the Libertarians did become the new mainstream party, their base would be significantly diluted. If they hew to the most extreme positions of party doctrine they may find it hard to gain broad support.
I also don't see the Libertarians absorbing the religious right. They tend to draw a rather high proportion of people who are openly atheist (though I guess Johnson is a Lutheran). That's a potential power vacumn that something would likely have to plug if they don't try just clinging to the wreckage of the GOP.
The issue is that it's really hard to get people motivated to vote for a candidate solely because "The other guy is so much worse." Doesn't matter how competent Clinton has proven in the past, the whole email scandal has done some serious damage to her credibility.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"Eeeeh, I think people got tired of it and made up their minds months ago. The thing got dragged on long enough to damage its effectiveness as a tool.
In any case, she's pushing her good points and slamming Trump on his bad ones. At this point I think we've reached a kind of stasis on personal opinions regarding both candidates. I don't think much will change until the first debate. And hoo boy, I don't know if I'm up for watching that. Even if I think Trump's gonna get reamed.
I still don't know, especially with how these debates will almost certainly be hyped up to unprecedented levels.
All Trump has to do is not act like a flailing lunatic and people will marvel at how far he's come. I wouldn't necessarily bet on it, but if there' one thing you can predict about Trump, it's his unpredictability.
Contrast Clinton, who needs to effectively counter every accusation thrown at her. And honestly, she should be able to by now, helped especially by the fact that the accuser so easily undermines himself by having nearly the exact same problems he accuses her of, but worse in every way.

Just came across this at Urbandictionary.com
The term "douchebag" generally refers to a male with a certain combination of obnoxious characteristics related to attitude, social ineptitude, public behavior, or outward presentation.
Though the common douchebag thinks he is accepted by the people around him, most of his peers dislike him. He has an inflated sense of self-worth, compounded by a lack of social grace and self-awareness. He behaves inappropriately in public, yet is completely ignorant to how pathetic he appears to others.
He often talks about how cool, successful, and popular he is, yet never catches on to the fact that he comes across as a total loser. Nevertheless, he firmly believes that he is the smartest, most desirable, and most charming person in the room... and will try to bad-rep anyone who would threaten to expose this facade.
He fancies himself a ladies' man, yet tends to be a joke to all but the most naive of women. He tries to portray himself as part of the in-crowd (a fashionista, an upwardly mobile professional, the life of the party, etc.) but only succeeds in his own mind.
To everyone else, he is an annoying and arrogant phony who comes across as a wannabe overcompensating for his insecurities. He tries to appear like the center of whatever group will tolerate him, but in reality, he is just a tag-along who mooches drinks, women, contacts, social standing, and other benefits from the group... while contributing nothing.
A-list ego; D-list status.
Remind you of anyone? (*cough*Trump*cough*)
This Space Intentionally Left Blank.