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 think it's due to this site's focus on pop culture meaning that many of us probably know someone in some way who has thrown their lot in with the alt-right over "ethics* ". I know quite a few people I'd discuss games with who have completely bought into alt-right meme culture, complete with "you're just salty because Breitbart reports it as it is, you SJew(To quote hbomberguy, who does an excellent job of skewering these types.)Explanation !" In addition to the parachute sockpuppets who show up from time to time in failed attempts to prove that the alt-right isn't completely morally bankrupt.
Funny that Hillary didn't point out that Breitbart lied about ACORN, in addition to Manipulative Editing and getting the wrong Loretta Lynch. Or that their main claim to fame that isn't running the Trump campaign is facing accusations of embezzling an entire scholarship fund (as in, he took everything and didn't bother paying the other employees a cent).
![]()
My favorite part was the Internet Nazis openly admitting that they were going to purge him later anyway. Their inability to shut up often crosses into truly hilarious territory.
edited 25th Aug '16 9:19:05 PM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotBetter than that. He's a homophobic gay Nazi of Jewish descent who likes to opine about how awesome it is to have sex with black men (who are of course subhuman).
An article written by someone unfortunate enough to meet him
.
The best line from it:
edited 25th Aug '16 9:49:56 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
BBC Radio 4 did an episode of "The Briefing Room" on the alt-right. Milo was the advocate. Choice quote: "Black Lives Matter are worse than the KKK"
I'll give Milo credit - he was an excellent troll in that he dominated the discussion, attacked his opponent on a personal level rather than defend his points and when things got too uncomfortable for him he just said it was a joke and you shouldn't take it so seriously.
The mask did tellingly slip though toward the end. He basically stated that Western Civilisation was a product of White Men, ergo it should be for the benefit of White Men.
And, North Africa. KMT and Kush (Ancient Egypt and Nubia — and, parts of current Ethiopia) weren't just twiddling thumbs. They were rather active in the whole domestication and city-building thing.
No them, no Cathage. No Phoenician alphabet (which mostly derived from very simple, Egyptian cursive scripts for speed writing). No paper until Marco Polo. No cats. No sugar beet and other domesticated plants, including important grains and seeds we still rely on.
edited 26th Aug '16 5:04:09 AM by Euodiachloris
"The Upshot" of the New York Times (essentially their version of FiveThirtyEight) releases Senate race tracker. Initial estimates have Democrats with a 60% chance of gaining control of Senate.
Quoted for free article limit:
Josh Katz @jshkatz AUG. 24, 2016
The Upshot's new Senate election forecast gives Democrats a 60 percent chance of winning control of the chamber in November.
Included within this 60 percent is a 17 percent chance that the Senate ends up evenly split with a Democratic vice president providing the tiebreaking vote.
By our count, the Democrats need to win five seats among the 11 most competitive races. (The Democrats will need to win six if Donald J. Trump wins the presidential race; we put Mr. Trump's chances of winning at only 11 percent). Ten of these seats are held by Republicans, and one by a Democrat, Harry Reid of Nevada, who is retiring.
That the Democrats are favored in this election should not be surprising.
The 2016 Senate elections boded well for the Democrats without any consideration of a possible Trump effect on down-ballot races. In recent history, Democrats have done better in presidential election years than in midterm years, when turnout is lower. Most of the senators up for re-election last went before the voters in the Republican wave election of 2010 — when the G.O.P. made big and broad gains in an anti-Obama environment — leaving Republicans with several potentially vulnerable incumbents.
This year, the Democrats are defending only 10 seats while the Republicans have to preserve 24. On fundamentals alone — that is, historical voting patterns, the candidates’ political experience and fund-raising — the Democrats would have about a 50-50 shot to win the Senate. The latest Senate polling improves this figure to 60 percent.
The framework for our model is broadly similar to the approach we took in 2014, when our Election Day forecast correctly called 35 of 36 Senate races. That approach means starting with the fundamentals as a prior, then updating those beliefs as polling information comes in. We let races affect one another and assume that the state-to-state errors will be correlated.
The main difference between 2014 and this year is that we have some additional information to gauge candidates’ chances in a presidential year. Previous research suggests that there is a strong relationship between presidential and Senate voting.
Accordingly, our model assumes that Senate races will track the presidential race in each state to some degree. That is, if Hillary Clinton has improved her standing in the presidential forecast since the last time a state has been polled, we “fast-forward” the Senate polling average a small amount in the same direction.
Incumbent Democrats
Incumbents are running in seven of the 10 seats being defended by Democrats. All seven seats are considered safe.
For the other three:
- Democrats are guaranteed to win the seat in California: Barbara Boxer is retiring, and two Democrats — Kamala Harris and Loretta Sanchez — won the top two spots in an open primary.
- Initial polling in Maryland showed the Democratic candidate, Chris Van Hollen, up by 20 to 30 points.
- It’s only in Nevada, where Catherine Cortez Masto is trying to replace Mr. Reid, where the election is competitive.
This leaves Democrats with 36 seats that are not up for election this year — including two independents, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine, who both caucus with Democrats — in addition to nine safe seats.
Single-Term Republicans
Much of the weakness in the Republican position comes from seven G.O.P. incumbents in mostly liberal-leaning states trying to win a second term after first being elected in the Republican wave year of 2010: Ron Johnson in Wisconsin, Mark Kirk in Illinois, Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire, Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania, Roy Blunt in Missouri, Rob Portman in Ohio, and Marco Rubio in Florida (assuming he wins the Republican primary next week).
In addition, the retirement of the Republican Dan Coats along with the entry of the former Democratic senator Evan Bayh in the race in Indiana shifted that seat from a likely Republican hold to a possible Democratic pickup. Richard Burr’s seat in North Carolina also seems vulnerable.
Polling indicates that even Senator John McCain of Arizona could be swept out by the encroaching Democratic tide. If Mr. McCain beats back a primary challenge from the Tea Party candidate Kelli Ward, he will face a Democratic challenger, Ann Kirkpatrick, who was within two points in a June poll. Our model gives Ms. Kirkpatrick a roughly one-in-four chance of taking the seat.
To give themselves a cushion in retaking the Senate, Democrats would probably need to win six of these 11 races: the seven elections with single-term Republicans; the elections in Indiana, Arizona and North Carolina; and the contest for Mr. Reid’s seat in Nevada. If Mrs. Clinton wins the presidency and they win five seats, they will most likely control that chamber because the vice president has the tiebreaking vote in the Senate.
With so many seats remaining uncertain, the race could still tip in either direction, with Republicans possibly retaining a slim majority or Democrats running the table. As of today, the most likely outcome is a tie.
Their current projection breakdown
:
10 Likely Democrat (85+%): CA, VT, NY, HI, CT, MD, CO, OR, WA, WI
10 Competitive (each side has at least 15% chance at this point): IL (80% D), NH (65% D), IN (62% D), PA (53% D), NV (61% R), NC (74% R), MO (82% R), AZ (83% R), OH (83% R), FL (84% R)
14 Likely Republican (85+%): UT, ND, OK, SD, AL, AK, SC, ID, KS, AR, IA, KY, GA, LA
At the bottom they have a little graphic with each of the races represented as little spinners, proportionally shaded red or blue according to probability. Kept hearing the clack-clack-clack-clack of The Wheel.
The damned queen and the relentless knight.I know that I am seriously pushing for Toomey to be defeated in my home state.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"http://www.vox.com/2016/8/26/12639588/donald-trump-executive-power
Vox neatly lays out the ways a President Trump could pretty much fuck anyone over who's crossed him.
New Survey coming this weekend!Yeah, I figured they'd be happy about it. It doesn't surprise me. Roosh V said that the news media condemning the manosphere creates more people who join the manosphere.
I have to wonder if attacking the alt-right so publicly and attaching them to Trump was a good idea, a bad idea, or a double-edged sword.
It could be the case that Trump's supporters just don't believe anything bad said about him by an outsider. However, I notice that zero Republicans rushed to Trump's defense of being called racist. They're unlikely to condemn him unless they're not afraid of losing Trump supporters, as they want Trump's voters but not Trump's baggage.
It could possibly sink Trump and Republicans who either won't try, or suck at, detaching themselves from him, while at the same time increasing support for the alt-right and making them more mainstream. It could do both: sink the party for a long time while creating a very open far-right bigoted movement, a movement that could last a long time while the Republicans have to either distance themselves from it, or embrace/be taken over by it, either of which could splinter those who aren't on the left and prevent the right from unifying.
I'm not quite sure if that's the outcome I want, but I imagine the alt-right won't just go quietly into that good night. They'll make noise, because when people aren't paying attention to you, you need to scream to get noticed.
It was probably inevitable that someone would have to call attention to them eventually and calling out people for feeding the trolls is probably not useful here. In a sense, it's like relying on 'security through obscurity'. it solves none of the underlying problems and may cause more when people are blindsided by it.
edited 26th Aug '16 11:00:18 AM by Elle
How long until all the Senate and House primaries are done? I know that several Republican Senators haven't officially become the candidates yet and I'm wondering if some of them will start moving away from Trump once they're not longer at risk of loosing a primary.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranTechnically, Louisiana's Senate and House elections on November 8th are primaries (they do a jungle - top two regardless of party do a runoff on December 3 if no one has 50%+1). Besides them, the latest Wikipedia has is September 13th (Delaware, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island; New Hampshire has both House and Senate primaries this year).
edited 26th Aug '16 12:31:37 PM by megarockman
The damned queen and the relentless knight.Final paragraph of that article:

Oh god, I just visited the Daily Stormer out of curiosity. Now I feel like I need to take a long shower.