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
So was the 2012 election this crazy here, or was discussion of differing political positions actually promoted instead of sweeping judgmental statements and fear-mongering?
This really feels like a case of He Who Fights Monsters to me.
edited 23rd Sep '16 3:51:40 PM by randomdude4
"Can't make an omelette without breaking some children." -BurIt is this sort of thinking that leads to these dangerous information bubbles. Banning people purely because they pick the wrong candidate will lead to them being angry at liberals and hanging out in places like Breitbart where the information bubble that allows people to support Trump is re-enforced. And yes, I know that you, smokeycut, have very valid reasons to hate everything Trump stands for and I support those reasons. That doesn't mean that people should be banned just for supporting Trump, but can be banned for their actions on the board itself as our troll here was. Even Clinton limited her comments to only half of Trump's supporters being deplorable. Be more like Clinton here.
edited 23rd Sep '16 3:52:14 PM by GameGuruGG
Wizard Needs Food BadlyWe don't reflexively ban people for supporting Trump. We do ban people for expressing racist, xenophobic, etc. opinions. It happens that these things frequently align. Also, the "Troll Post" thing is an artifact of the system that we use to mass-delete posts; it does not mean that we believe that the posts in question are explicitly trolling. I'll see if we can get it made slightly more neutral.
![]()
It is quite clear that the poster in question was in the "deplorables" camp, not least because he posted the damn ad celebrating it. So let us move on to rational discussion.
edited 23rd Sep '16 3:52:45 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Yeah, this place has a great moderation system, Fighteer. I was really just using this situation to go back to my point about the danger of information bubbles. I'll drop this subject then.
edited 23rd Sep '16 3:56:39 PM by GameGuruGG
Wizard Needs Food BadlyEdit: Yeah, I was thinking to myself that with the current trend, today's moderation was probably trying to nuke that nickname from orbit... I bet you even changed the icon from a skull to something else because it's the only way to be sure...
edited 23rd Sep '16 4:07:14 PM by Medinoc
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."@Cap Already mentioned by some other Latin and South American Tropers, but Trump sounds an awful lot like the Caudillos and populists that have always plagued the region since its inception.
Specially the tidbits, where to fix the country economy, the political system and to fix perceived injustices is only possible if you surrender your rights and power to him and him alone, because the system can't be trusted and everybody else is too corrupt to bring change thus requiring a charismatic strong leader to take charge of...everything.
Needless to say through a brief look at our history, this doesn't work by a looooooooooooooooong shot.
edited 23rd Sep '16 3:57:46 PM by AngelusNox
Inter arma enim silent leges2012 was pretty quiet round here. Romney didn't inspire much love or hate and his numbers were always so shit no one was really worried obama wouldn't make it so the anxiety levels aren't where they are now. Mostly it was arguing about keyseian economics vs the frankfurt school and whether or not romney presented a threat to the LGBT demographic.
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?@Medinoc: Correct, but it's worth noting that we also are not really happy with the "skullfuck" moniker, either. Eddie had a way with words, but that way was rather ... abrupt. Anyway, let's end the derail.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Guys, does this article about the upcoming Clinton vs. Trump debate
sound like a reliable assessment, or is it being unnecessarily alarmist on at least some points regarding Clinton's prospects? The "Clinton's once-comfortable lead in opinion polls over the former reality TV star has evaporated" line is especially unsettling.
I don't really consider Yahoo! a source of serious reporting, but the tone of the article is not so dire as your quote from it makes it sound. The real question, for me, is whether the audience wants to see a serious, statesman-like Hillary Clinton, or a fiery, combative Hillary Clinton.
edited 23rd Sep '16 4:05:55 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"On a lighter note, even the Dalai Lama can make fun of Trump
.
"And his mouth - small. <smacking noises>"
![]()
I would tend to disagree about how dire things could be. Clinton needs to be on the top of her game and so do the moderators, otherwise Trump is going to completely take over the stage and turn the whole affair into an episode of reality television mixed with a sleazy infomercial.
Unfortunately, the incumbent party is very hard pressed to "win" the first debate in the eyes of the popular consciousness and the media, so unless Trump is such a total disaster that nobody can really deny it, I doubt he's going to lose support during the first debate.
edited 23rd Sep '16 4:13:12 PM by CaptainCapsase
![]()
![]()
Well, the first three paragraphs definitely sounded to me like the writer believed Clinton's odds have become so-so almost within an alarmingly short span of time.
edited 23rd Sep '16 4:11:20 PM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
Trump shot up to about a 40% chance on 538's acclaimed election model
in the span of about 10 days, and prior to now people seemed to be in denial about the election having tightened.
I would not worry about how well Clinton will do in the election. There are few paths Trump has to the presidency compared to Clinton, and Trump has an abysmal ground game compared to Clinton's, especially since she inherited Obama's ground game. Personally, I wouldn't start worrying about a Trump Presidency unless Trump and Clinton actually end up neck-to-neck in the polls in the weeks before the election.
Wizard Needs Food Badly
It's not, but it's a good collection of signs that have been predictive of an incumbent parties strength for the past 150 or so years, and it's based on the poly-sci assumption that an American election is essentially a measure of the effectiveness of the incumbent party during the past term.
Democrats got creamed in the last midterms; that's a bad sign for the incumbent party.
Clinton has a scandal that's sticking regardless of whether or not it actually has any factual basis; that's a bad sign for the incumbent party.
Clinton simply isn't an amazing orator on par with Obama; that's a bad sign for the incumbent party.
There hasn't been any major military triumphs under Obama; that's a bad sign for the incumbent party. (unfortunately)
The incumbent president isn't running; that's a bad sign for the incumbent party.
Thanks to the GOP, there's been no major policy changes in the past four years; that's a bad sign for the incumbent party.
Third parties are slated to get more than 5% of the vote; that's a bad sign for the incumbent party.
Historically (for 150 years thus far), those factors have all been predictive of incumbent party weakness. If Trump loses, it'll be because he's such an awful candidate that he manages to blow what aught to be the closet thing to a perfect storm the GOP can hope for given current demographics.
edited 23rd Sep '16 5:03:18 PM by CaptainCapsase

"I AM YOUR VOICE.
I have embraced crying mothers who have lost their children because our politicians put their personal agendas before the national good. I have no patience for injustice, no tolerance for government incompetence, no sympathy for leaders who fail their citizens. When innocent people suffer, because our political system lacks the will, or the courage, or the basic decency to enforce our laws – or worse still, has sold out to some corporate lobbyist for cash – I am not able to look the other way. And when a Secretary of State illegally stores her emails on a private server, deletes 33,000 of them so the authorities can’t see her crime, puts our country at risk, lies about it in every different form and faces no consequence – I know that corruption has reached a level like never before. When the FBI Director says that the Secretary of State was 'extremely careless' and 'negligent,' in handling our classified secrets, I also know that these terms are minor compared to what she actually did. They were just used to save her from facing justice for her terrible crimes. In fact, her single greatest accomplishment may be committing such an egregious crime and getting away with it – especially when others have paid so dearly. When that same Secretary of State rakes in millions of dollars trading access and favors to special interests and foreign powers I know the time for action has come.
I have joined the political arena so that the powerful can no longer beat up on people that cannot defend themselves. Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it."
It's not flowery, but it's not Trump's usual incoherent ramblings. These are the moments where he legitimately sounds like an early 20th century dictator on the rise. Rationally, I seriously doubt he can come even close to that sort of power, but I do not want to find out.
edited 23rd Sep '16 3:50:23 PM by CaptainCapsase