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
Tim Kaine is the buys-you-an-ice-cream-even-though-Mom-said-no step-dad. Mike Pence is the caves-your-skull-in-because-you're-dating-a-negro step-dad.
The VP debate is gonna be great.
edited 27th Sep '16 10:22:14 AM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."One thing I don't like about hillary's pepe explainer is that it makes it sound like every pepe is racist. Thankfully the ADL isn't the same way
"The mere fact of posting a Pepe meme does not mean that someone is racist or white supremacist." —ADL website Pepe himself isn't racist, there is plenty of fine memes with hime, its just that some terrible people use him to make racist memes. And with that, I'll take my leave.
Looks good and its good for you!![]()
![]()
We'll have to wait and see what happens. I'm still not entirely sure if this debate is going to really have a lasting impact in the polls; Hillary did well at tearing down Trump, but the debate focus groups still seem to largely be of the "giant douche versus a turd sandwich" mindset
; but I'm not sure Trump's really going to lose any more support than he already has. His rise in the polls over the past month is largely due to him consolidating Republican support, and nothing he did last night stands out as something worse than all the others things in the past year.
This year is very hard to predict at this point precisely because of the sheer number of voters who are undecided or have gone for third parties, and if neither candidate manages to make themselves seem more likable to the electorate (Trump blew his best chance last night) those people might simply abstain from voting for President.
edited 27th Sep '16 10:53:15 AM by CaptainCapsase
They want the democratic nominee not to be Hillary Clinton, or the Republican nominee not to be Donald Trump. I'm skeptical either candidate has a good prospect of dramatically improving their favorable rating, and as such, would expect the polls in the long term to trend towards the "fundamental model", which is basically where we are right now; a very close race with democrats slightly ahead.
Which is what I'm personally expecting over the next couple weeks: a short term bump for Clinton, followed by a rally for Trump back to about 1-2 points behind Clinton in aggregates, which may move one way or the other as the campaign continues to develop, though over time I would expect it to regress towards the fundamentals.
edited 27th Sep '16 11:05:37 AM by CaptainCapsase
So I recently found an old Trump thread from this website.
Incidentally, I wasn't even actively looking for old Trump threads; I was looking to see in what threads mentions of Donald Trump might be tropified, (I love tropifying real life on this site) expecting them to be more recent threads, and came across that thread.
Interesting to look back in hindsight on these old conversations, knowing what we know now.
edited 27th Sep '16 11:06:53 AM by neoYTPism
I think Clinton just sort of has this arbitrary antipathy and many uninformed people are willing to brush her off just because she's the wife of a former president. The smear campaign hasn't exactly done her any favors in that regard, either.
As an anecdote, I was casually talking with my brother (who's gay, and about as liberal as they come) and he said that while he WOULD vote for her in this election he doesn't really like her. I confronted him about the fact that her being Bill Clinton's wife doesn't mean anything when she has a long political career in her own right and he just said "I know", but didn't really address the argument.
(neither of us are US citizens so it was just a hypothetical)
"She lays out her plans? "She doesn't support our desires""
That might actually be rectified on subsequent debates. The candidates dabbled in a little of everything, but things like civil rights, immigration reform, health care or education were only mentioned in passing. Once those topics get more focus and Clinton can show off her plans for those subject, voters with a horse in those races will come around.
@smokey: It's pointless to blame voters. In large numbers, human behavior is relatively consistent and predictable. This is more or less exactly you'd expect to happen if two historically unpopular nominees faced off. If you're looking to blame someone, blame the people responsible for Clinton's favorable/unfavorable ratings being only slightly better than Trump.
edited 27th Sep '16 11:16:36 AM by CaptainCapsase
@Capsace: You can't just lay out "historically unpopular" at face value without looking at why that is the case. In Clinton's case, it's all about the media (right, left, and center) constantly peddling in the little lies, the little scandals, the smoke being fanned by the hard-right that never had any real fire beneath it. Blatantly biased, scurrilous reporting that mentioned scandals without mentioning that all investigations into them had turned up nothing worth anyone's time to prosecute.
On her record, on her career, on her positions, she should be as popular as Barack Obama. Aside from the anti-interventionist crowd whining about "warmongering", there's nothing in any of that worth the ire that she's been getting.
Trump, meanwhile, is a carnival snake oil barker who made it big by cheating everyone he ever did business with, has no concept of fact-based reasoning, invents reality to suit his desires, and runs a cult of personality based on white nationalism.
In any rational time, he'd never have gotten within ten miles of that debate stage. But these are not normal times. The aberration in our political landscape is profound and, if Trump wins, or if Clinton scrapes by without a clear mandate, it may well be beyond repair. We truly will get the government we deserve.
And if it's not our fault as voters, whose fault is it? We allowed ourselves to be lulled by the pan flute of the mass media complex, because we refuse to deal in issues more complex than can be explained in 30-second sound bites. We allow people like Trump, who are abject failures at everything but self-aggrandizement, to prosper by flocking to watch his moronic reality TV show. We have chosen to prefer gut feelings over truth.
This is on us, and nobody else.
edited 27th Sep '16 11:20:31 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
As far as elections go, it doesn't matter why she's unpopular. It doesn't matter whether she deserves to be so unpopular. All that matters until November 9th is that she is extremely disliked.
Why though? From the perspective of the people likely to skip voting, their choice is perfectly reasonable, and if you shared the same set of knowledge about the world, you would very likely be making the same choice.
edited 27th Sep '16 11:22:16 AM by CaptainCapsase
I'm voting for Hillary. Enthusiastically, without the slightest reservation. I won't take the blame for this. But I will personally blame each individual who chooses not to vote for her because they dislike her personality, or don't trust her, if she loses.
![]()
Nobody has a right to believe wrong things. Yes, they have a worldview. That worldview is blatantly false to fact. Thus, I reject it utterly.
edited 27th Sep '16 11:28:25 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"You could make the same argument for anyone who votes Trump.
Nobody believes things they think are unreasonable. Doesn't mean they aren't.
It's kind of hard not to blame voters when they're the one putting the guy in power (assuming he actually wins), and it's even worse with Trump.
Like, in 2012 (and probably further back) it was a thing were people just either didn't believe he and the Republicans would go as far as they said they would, or just straight up didn't believe they said things they actually said.
But that's not case with Trump, the kind of person he is should be readily apparent to anyone watching, and it either appeals to a large swath of people, or they're trying to be willfully ignorant. I don't think either is a valid excuse.
Blaming a nebulous "other" which likely comprises millions and millions of people—in this case, people who aren't voting in the election, or even those who aren't voting for your preferred presidential candidate—is an easy, even natural thing for people to do, but it's not particularly constructive outside of an appeal to pathos.
edited 27th Sep '16 11:40:37 AM by CaptainCapsase
If Trump wins, Capsace, I could be denied my right to vote. I could be denied work for my gender. I could be banned from public restrooms. I could be put into conversion therapy.
If Trump wins, it's the fault of the citizens who didn't vote for Clinton. They would be directly responsible for what he does, and what he allows.
I agree. But saying "people who voted for this awful person deserves some of the blame for what he does" is not doing that, and is actually pretty reasonable. At least it is when the person is so blatant about it like Trump is.
"People who vote for Trump" and "People who refuse to vote for Clinton out of personal dislike" are not some "nebulous other"; they are concrete, definable groups.
Frankly, it is rare that we get such a clear-cut case of good vs. evil in an election cycle. Even with folks like Romney, one could nod along with some of his expressed positions in general terms, and he had a record of occasionally doing intelligent things while in political office (Romneycare, for example). One could imagine him governing with a modicum of principle; the argument against him was ideological, not personal. Not so Donald Trump.
He has no ideology, he is a genuinely awful human being, and he's a mouthpiece for the Breitbart-inspired, neo-Nazi extremists in our nation. The man would be a joke in every way if he weren't potentially a few percentage points from becoming the President. So I will not mince words when it comes to my political positions this cycle.
edited 27th Sep '16 11:54:31 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Even some channers are complaining Trump did badly.