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
@Capsace, let us stipulate that this forum, unlike the others you seem to be used to, does expect a reasonable quality of discourse, including the citation of sources for unusual or incredible claims. Treat us like adults and we'll return the favor. But this has come up before, has it not?
edited 13th Sep '16 8:57:03 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"edited 13th Sep '16 8:59:20 AM by sgamer82
It's strange, in a way, how many people still rely on the television news media for information, despite (apparently) widely distrusting said media for being either politically biased or committed to sensationalism over substance. We seem to hate it, yet we can't turn it off, and we forget anything that hasn't been talked about in the past few days.
edited 13th Sep '16 9:01:01 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@Fighteer: I think there's a bit of a disagreement on what is unusual or sensational. To me, the "default" assumption is that all samples of people are similar, behaviorally speaking, except as shown otherwise by data. Would you not be incredulous about a claim that a particular sample of (living) people has no need to poop?
I am saying that we have proven information that the psychology of the right and of the left are different in this country, and that their policies are not equivalent. It's one thing to suggest that someone like me would oppose public health care if Trump proposed it, because Trump is odious enough that I would doubt any such thing he offered (but I would at least take a look to see what the catch is). It's another to suggest that I would support deporting Muslims if Clinton proposed it, since that is so incongruous with what I understand of her beliefs.
Still, you have made an assertion and, when asked for proof, demurred with this bullcrap about "we're all sheeple".
edited 13th Sep '16 9:10:05 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Well, then, talk to us at our level. Save the baby talk for Reddit and Facebook.
Edit: I don't have a college degree, but since people have asked me if I'm secretly Paul Krugman, I think my "layman's education" speaks for itself. (My failure in school was for reasons other than lack of intellect.)
edited 13th Sep '16 9:12:44 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Y'all are taking umbridge at the implication that Cap is implying you personally are "sheeple" when the real takeaway is meant to be Humans Are Flawed. Humanity are all, without exception, subject to cognitive biases. I'm pretty sure the name of the phenominon Cap's referring to is listed here somewhere but my patience to go through the list myself is a bit thin at the moment.
edited 13th Sep '16 9:14:41 AM by Elle
![]()
Again, nobody here is claiming to be free of cognitive bias. However, claiming it as an excuse for why it's impossible to have any kind of reasonable political discussion is puerile at best.
edited 13th Sep '16 9:13:45 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
I should add once again that I was attempting to be descriptive about the state of the general electorate, not necessarily about this thread or site in particular. People seemed to take the notion I put forward (that an extremely large portion of voters are ignorant of policy and vote more out of loyalty or for personalities than they do for policy) personally.
edited 13th Sep '16 9:15:36 AM by CaptainCapsase
I think that this thread and this forum aren't really representative of the American population because it isn't that American in the first place. Many people are Canadian, Australian, British, Scandinavian or German, and yes, they have an interest in discussing foreign politics for things other than lulz and memes.
I assume that this interest in foreign cultures makes them more Democrat than Republican by default.
![]()
![]()
While I agree with you on human fallibility in general I differ on you on a major point: the relevance of the individual. The branch of political philosophy you come from basically dismisses it as irrelevant, but when you try to argue those views with people who strongly believe in individualism, coming off as patronizing to them and them taking it personally is fairly inevitable because it implicitly marginalizes them. Rightly or wrongly their own self-confidence in their rationality and beliefs is also a factor; the more sure they are the more negative the reasons, because 'Surely I'm better than that.' Occasionally it's true.
Going back a few pages: Yes I do think a poll that uses Obama/Trump rather than Clinton/Trump is still valid to that point that was being made, as would one that was Democrat/Republican. If we accept that there are a significant number of Republicans who will vote Trump just because he's the R ticket, we can't ignore the fact that there are Dems who do the same,
edited 13th Sep '16 9:40:47 AM by Elle
Going back a little, but...
Why is that the case?
Oh God! Natural light!It is undoubtedly, unequivocally the case that there are people who vote D or R out of simple party affinity with no thought to the candidates or their specific platforms. Those, however, are not the ones who decide elections, except for state districts where they can be safely gerrymandered, and so talking about them as if they are relevant here is fallacious.
edited 13th Sep '16 9:44:35 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Pneumonia Virus Terrified After Remembering What Clintons Capable Of
'Expressing regret over its reckless decision to infect the Democratic presidential nominee, the virus causing Hillary Clinton’s pneumonia was reportedly terrified Monday after remembering what the Clintons were capable of. “Oh shit, what the hell was I thinking—you don’t get on the wrong side of these people,” said the infectious agent, which became increasingly worried while recalling just how far the Clintons were willing to go to get what they wanted, as well as what often happened to those who dared to cross the powerful politicians. “Everybody knows you never mess with the Clintons. These people won’t hesitate to absolutely crush you, and they have the money and connections to do it. I knew I should’ve just stayed clear. I’m so fucked.” At press time, the horrified virus was reportedly planning to avoid the Clintons’ wrath by taking its own life.
http://www.theonion.com/article/pneumonia-virus-terrified-after-remembering-what-c-53927
To brighten things up.
Its utterly insane that people really think that the Clintons are criminal masterminds who dominate the world through sheer willpower and influence.
Hopefully that doesn't end up becoming a "Funny Aneurysm" Moment.
The reason why the Clintons are considered effectively nobility in American politics is obvious if you look at the U.S. Presidents after Ronald Reagan and know the history of the 2008 Democratic Primary.
After Reagan, our presidents were Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama. Had Obama lost the 2008 Democratic Primary, the list of presidents could have very well have been Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. Hell, even this particular election had the Republican Establishment hoping that Jeb Bush would have won the Republican Primary leading to Bush v. Clinton. Given how this particular election will go, it is likely that we will have Bushes and Clintons in the White House for 24 of the 32 years since Reagan by 2020 with only Obama as the exception. That is certainly an unusual coincidence.
Wizard Needs Food BadlyCapsase, can you knock it off with the "Clinton is going to die" posts?They're bad enough from people panicking who like Clinton, but in your case...
I'm not exactly sure why, but for some reason you feel obliged to take your "view every decision Clinton makes as having a guaranteed negative outcome" and apply it to her health.

edited 13th Sep '16 8:57:22 AM by CaptainCapsase