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
On the subject of Hannity vs Kelly, its becoming increasingly clear he's finished with the network, with Ailes gone. His only path forward is a Trump victory. Short of that, he ends up looking like a loon (to his own supporters I mean), and his words don't count for crap. Kelly on the other hand, is about to eclipse O'Reilly.
IAT: your original suggestion was a good deal more violent than that last post, so I'm giving a side eye to you. Also, we can't reduce the role of television, it's the main way we have of getting debates broadcast at the moment. You are literally suggesting that we make viewing the debates harder for people. Unless you'd like a state sponsored television channel, which appears to work for Great Britain, and that's not free from accusations of bias. (You're also kind of missing the point that a presidential candidate can't just not show up to a debate without losing, in this day and age. It's not required, but like tax returns has come to be expected for many reasons.)
And who the fuck cares if other professions don't have debates like this? That's not even remotely relevant. Again, the idea is that the fact checker in the debate is supposed to be the other candidate. If they don't know enough to do that, that's on them, and is not the moderator's responsibility.
![]()
![]()
I wonder if that explains all the internal hostility towards Kelly; she is, after all, not a raving lunatic ideologue and is female to boot. If she takes a premier position as Fox's leading television personality, the network might lose some of its credibility with the alt-right.
There have to be some people over there who are not pants-on-head Kool-Aid drinkers and occasionally have pangs of conscience over the things their network says and does.
edited 6th Oct '16 4:55:17 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
It's hard to predict what will happen if Trump loses the election (fingers crossed). He may end up being a one-time phenomenon, or he might cause the GOP to implode - in which case, everything will depend on whether Fox decides to go "raving lunatic" or "conservative with some sense of basic human decency". In the latter case, Kelly is sure to be their new star, as she didn't become a Trump fangirl.
edited 6th Oct '16 5:10:28 AM by Julep
Think Hannity might be after a job at Trump TV?
edited 6th Oct '16 5:14:53 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranTrump got mad at his own VP candidate after he was praised as doing better than Trump in the debate. If Trump does create a new network (that doesn't fail, look at ones like UPN and P-TEN) you can bet that he wouldn't let anyone take more of the spotlight than him. Working on Trump TV would be horrible, especially since Trump would probably have issues getting experienced TV people, or quite possibly, advertisers, on board.
I think a problem with candidates fact-checking each other is that many viewers often don't have the knowledge or expertise to know whether the candidates are lying or ignorant about their facts. Do I trust candidate A who says X is 5 or candidate B who says X is 10? They're both calling each other liars, but that's to be expected. I suppose I could Google X, but since I'm a lazy couch potato (and Google is a biased media gaslighting me), I'm just gonna believe what my preferred candidate say about X.
edited 6th Oct '16 5:55:31 AM by nightwyrm_zero
538's polls only and now cast projections have Clinton pulling ahead in Arizona, while Trump is faltering in critical states like Florida and Ohio. Its a bit early to say, but it looks like Pence didn't help Trump's numbers.
Also, Obama has hit a second term high approval rating of 55%.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/06/politics/obama-approval-rating-new-high/index.html
"Do I trust candidate A who says X is 5 or candidate B who says X is 10?"
In more technical portions of debate this is a big problem. Any time two politicians who are vaguely familiar with economic schools of thought start arguing you can just feel the audience falling asleep. I don't think it'll be a problem with trump as he is seems to be allergic to hard numbers.
On a side note this is a tactic creationists use extensively. They're very good at making their articles look sciencey and in debates they can throw around just so much jargon. It's not until you actually look at their sources or breakdown every other word that the facade can be fully broken but they make an effort to throw so much bullshit at you its impossible in a debate setting to address it all.
LBJ is probably my favorite president because I'm pretty sure the guy was fucking crazy. He was known for forcing his aides and congressmen into the washroom with him so he could dictate orders/shit on them while shitting and if you were a democrat planning to vote against something he favored he'd corner you in a hallway and just get right into your personal space and stare you down until you either changed your mind or another congressman rescued you. cracked
has a pretty great podcast just going into the sheer insanity that was the LBJ presidency.
No, my second post, thumped "to preserve my dignity" was the significantly more violent one, to demonstrate the proposal is not a call for politicians to be put through an inquisition(although I don't fault anyone wanting it).
If you go to court and make a mess you might get a bailiff called on you. Politicians, especially not those going to run 1/3rd of the federal process, don't deserve fluffier treatment, in my view. And if people have to work harder to see a debate? The debate used to be overseen by a neutral third party of voting organizers. Not a government group and certainly not corporate conglomerates. At most, I could see someone saying taking it off television to be over correcting but you, Ace Of Spades, are not even acknowledging a change for the worse.
I could see fact checking for a moderator being over correcting but the opponent is supposed to fact check? So, it's like when every debate happens and one says a falsehood they aren't corrected? Their opponent usually does correct them and they just keep talking like it didn't happen. They raise their voice in attempts to throw off their time cues to do so. When someone says something completely true the opposition never responds with lies? The politician is held to no obligation to tell or even acknowledge the truth, as is. Is that necessary viewing? "He's a liar and that's all you need to know". Wouldn't that save everyone's time? We will probably never get to that level, but we could strive to.
Not showing up to the debate would amount to losing? That was the entire point. Swearing on holy books clearly isn't effective at weeding out the dishonest, certainly not pledges to parties. If a politician can't simply tell the truth for an hour and a half, do they really deserve a chance to win?
Buldogue's lawyer![]()
![]()
![]()
LBJ's presidency was great for the huge advances in social justice, but also pretty sad when you consider all the lost opportunities owing to being an avowed progressive serving as president during the Cold War. If Vietnam never happened, LBJ would have accomplished a lot more.
edited 6th Oct '16 7:14:13 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."538 polls-only has Hillary with a 78.1% chance of winning, and is up by at least 1% in every state Obama won in 2012, as well as North Carolina.
edited 6th Oct '16 7:34:54 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."Trump supporters are gone folks.
I didn't even get some amusement.
That was probably the most depressing article I've read all year, and that's saying something.
As if we didn't need move confirmation over Trump supporters being uneducated folk disconnected from reality.
Inter arma enim silent leges
It's basically a woman who's life genuinely sucks because she lives in a town that was hit really hard by the fall of coal and the recession. She blamed Obama for it, because he seemed really distant and didn't seem to understand what she wanted, then she had a bunch of awful things happen, and had a nervous breakdown or something. She buys into all the conspiracy theories around Obama (including a bizarre one where he's gay, Michelle is actually a guy and their daughters are kidnapping victims). Trump came along and voiced all her obsessions and anxieties and she thinks that he "understands" her.
She sounds like someone with a really fragile mental state who has a history of rejecting help. The type of person Trump loves preying on.
![]()
As far as I know, there's no paywall, so you should read it. It's in many ways a deeply saddening article.
Many of the people supporting the most deranged wings of the American right are like Melanie (the person the article documents). People who have been left behind in a changing world, who have lost their jobs, their homes, their dignity, and more, people who have very real plights, and are looking for people to blame.
edited 6th Oct '16 8:01:51 AM by CaptainCapsase
And they've usually been tricked into supporting the wrong people. As it stands now, the Republicans are actively stomping on people like Melanie, making absolutely no concerted effort to actually help them. The Democrats aren't perfect, but they're at least trying to figure something out.
Note: this does not apply to all Republicans. The Utah Republicans, for example, have made huge strides in dealing with homelessness and associated issues, but that seems to mostly be the influence of the Mormons.
edited 6th Oct '16 8:07:02 AM by Zendervai
The question is whether the point of the debate is to have a debate, or to better inform the public about the candidates and their positions. If it's the latter (and it should be — debating as an academic sport is well and good, but not really relevant to the election cycle), then the moderators need to step in and provide a baseline when one side or the other goes completely off into the weeds in terms of truthiness.
edited 6th Oct '16 8:14:53 AM by NativeJovian
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

Man, Florida just can't catch a break this year.