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
Trump still has some support from: career politicians who need trumps base to make it through this election, the pro-lifers who will do anything to get control of the SC and the folks who actually like him. Pretty much everyone else is working to either distance themselves or actively undermine him.
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?The GOP never wanted Trump as their candidate in the first place, and now that he's running, he's become pure poison to anyone whose constituents aren't Grade A Lunatic. A lot of GOP types have been disassociating themselves from him in the hopes that he won't damage their personal brand, and that the damage he does to the GOP as a whole can be fixed.
For example, 538 is currently predicting a 50/50 Senate split with a Democratic tiebreaker
because Trump is poisoning Senate candidates who really should be able to hold their ground (Pat Toomey, for example, is looking like he might lose).
I'm happy I was sleeping when the Trumpodrone #25365 decided to pay a visit, I could only deduce what he said from the replies, but it probably was the kind of thing that makes my blood boil.
Still, how bad is this last "episode" going to be for Trump? It is supposed to turn undecided voters towards Hillary? Because I am pretty sure his fans will just shrug it off, "men talk" style.
Now I'm waiting for Next.POTUS.S02E09.The.Even.Madder.Debate.HDTV.x264-LOL.mkv
Is that a Mr. Robot reference?
I hope it turns undecideds towards Hillary. Trump can not win.
Heh, I feel like a time traveler desperately relaying a message to someone in the past.
edited 8th Oct '16 2:48:59 AM by BearyScary
Do not obey in advance.![]()
![]()
The Nimble America hire Trumpelina had a real hard on for Mexico. And Mexican drug smugglers. While wanting weed legalised.
Not the cause of Three Percenters
◊.
So people are claiming that what happened 10 years ago didn't count, while insisting that Hillary smearing people 20 years ago counts. Why the hell do I bother with getting an education if these folks get decently paying jobs and I don't?
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotThe Republicans only have themselves to blame
Harth, Houraney, and Trump were working on a pin-up competition together when Trump allegedly began making sexual advances. The project began in December 1992. According to Harth, in January 1993, Trump's behavior escalated. In her 1997 deposition, written about recently in the New York Times, Harth testified that at a business dinner Trump “name-dropped throughout that [meal], when he wasn’t groping me under the table.”
Then, the lawsuit alleges, Trump tried to get Harth into his daughter’s bedroom alone. When he was with Harth in Ivanka’s bedroom, Trump allegedly groped her again.
Two weeks later, the alleged assault escalated to “attempted rape”
The Guardian’s Lucia Graves reported that Harth described this episode in her deposition this way: "It's a good thing I had pants on, that's all I can say." Trump allegedly persisted and Harth became physically ill
Trump has denied the allegations, and prior to the lawsuit he attempted to depict Harth as wanting to sleep with him. In 1996, he was quoted in the National Enquirer as saying that Harth “was trying to get into my pants.”
A similar quote appeared in a pornographic magazine, and Trump also allegedly bragged about having sex with Harth outside of the courthouse in December and March 1997
The BBC: US election: Could Republicans still dump Donald Trump?
Death, declination, or otherwise.
The Republican National Committee (RNC) sets out in its Rule 9 the terms for "filling vacancies in nominations".
It reads: "The Republican National Committee is hereby authorized and empowered to fill any and all vacancies which may occur by reason of death, declination, or otherwise of the Republican candidate for President of the United States."
In other words, not really. It is simply too late.
Keep Rolling OnAnd in other news, the author of the Drudge Report has drawn ire for trying to claim that the government's lying about Hurricane Matthew's intensity
as a False Flag Operation regarding global warming.
Edit - apparently the "transcript" was from an Onion-like source 5 days before the Wikileaks emails were pushed out. Here's a write-up regarding the speeches from the NY Times
.
Whether it was said at all, and I've got to say I'm surprised at your casual condemnation of people that are justifiably frustrated with a system they see as not acting in their interests - we've criticized the Republican base for voting against their interests before, so why criticize the Democratic base for wanting to vote for their interests? Hell, the real email leak even has Clinton saying this:
edited 8th Oct '16 6:25:13 AM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
If what is true, that it was said, or that the statement itself is accurate? Because the latter is definitely the case: the left is also breeding a class of low-fact, reactionary types that distinguish themselves from the alt-right mainly by their choice of issues. They aren't as influential as Trump supporters — witness the fact that Clinton was nominated — but many of them fell into the "Bernie Bros" camp and rejected him when he decided to endorse her.
edited 8th Oct '16 6:18:03 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Also, some interesting stuff from the Podesta emails
. Actual link included because I'm nice like that.
- Clinton Said Single-Payer Health Care Systems “Can Get Costs Down,” And “Is As Good Or Better On Primary Care,” But “They Do Impose Things Like Waiting Times.” *“If you look at countries that are comparable, like Switzerland or Germany, for example, they have mixed systems. They don't have just a single-payer system, but they have very clear controls over budgeting and accountability. If you look at the single-payer systems, like Scandinavia, Canada, and elsewhere, they can get costs down because, you know, although their care, according to statistics, overall is as good or better on primary care, in particular, they do impose things like waiting times, you know. It takes longer to get like a hip replacement than it might take here.” [Hillary Clinton remarks to ECGR Grand Rapids, 6/17/13]
- Clinton Cited President Johnson’s Success In Establishing Medicare And Medicaid And Said She Wanted To See The U.S. Have Universal Health Care Like In Canada.* “You know, on healthcare we are the prisoner of our past. The way we got to develop any kind of medical insurance program was during World War II when companies facing shortages of workers began to offer healthcare benefits as an inducement for employment. So from the early 1940s healthcare was seen as a privilege connected to employment. And after the war when soldiers came back and went back into the market there was a lot of competition, because the economy was so heated up. So that model continued. And then of course our large labor unions bargained for healthcare with the employers that their members worked for. So from the early 1940s until the early 1960s we did not have any Medicare, or our program for the poor called Medicaid until President Johnson was able to get both passed in 1965. So the employer model continued as the primary means by which working people got health insurance. People over 65 were eligible for Medicare. Medicaid, which was a partnership, a funding partnership between the federal government and state governments, provided some, but by no means all poor people with access to healthcare. So what we've been struggling with certainly Harry Truman, then Johnson was successful on Medicare and Medicaid, but didn't touch the employer based system, then actually Richard Nixon made a proposal that didn't go anywhere, but was quite far reaching. Then with my husband's administration we worked very hard to come up with a system, but we were very much constricted by the political realities that if you had your insurance from your employer you were reluctant to try anything else. And so we were trying to build a universal system around the employer-based system. And indeed now with President Obama's legislative success in getting the Affordable Care Act passed that is what we've done. We still have primarily an employer-based system, but we now have people able to get subsidized insurance. So we have health insurance companies playing a major role in the provision of healthcare, both to the employed whose employers provide health insurance, and to those who are working but on their own are not able to afford it and their employers either don't provide it, or don't provide it at an affordable price. We are still struggling. We've made a lot of progress. Ten million Americans now have insurance who didn't have it before the Affordable Care Act, and that is a great step forward. (Applause.) And what we're going to have to continue to do is monitor what the costs are and watch closely to see whether employers drop more people from insurance so that they go into what we call the health exchange system. So we're really just at the beginning. But we do have Medicare for people over 65. And you couldn't, I don't think, take it away if you tried, because people are very satisfied with it, but we also have a lot of political and financial resistance to expanding that system to more people. So we're in a learning period as we move forward with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. And I'm hoping that whatever the shortfalls or the glitches have been, which in a big piece of legislation you're going to have, those will be remedied and we can really take a hard look at what's succeeding, fix what isn't, and keep moving forward to get to affordable universal healthcare coverage like you have here in Canada. [Clinton Speech For tinePublic – Saskatoon, CA, 1/21/15]
Now that you mention it... Can someone explain to me what is the difference between "single-payer" and "multi-payer" when it comes to healthcare systems, and why is it that the USA seems to have a phobia about the former?
edited 8th Oct '16 7:31:49 AM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
To grossly oversimplify it, single-payer is public health insurance (MOAR taxes), while multi-payer is private health insurance (price gouging).
To a lot of Americans "Single-payer" is socialism. And socialism in the minds of Americans, is a step away from Communism. And That's Terrible
edited 8th Oct '16 7:48:06 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedSo I missed another Trump supporter. Fairly unhinged sounding. I'm more surprised he wasn't banned the moment he said he supported Trump.
Incidentally, judging by responses, he made the observation that the left is becoming increasingly authoritarian. I'd say that's 100% correct unfortunately. It hasn't become blatantly obvious in circles of power yet like it has with the right, but I'm growing increasingly convinced that it's only a matter of time before the left shifts to meet them.
![]()
... which is ironic, considering all the fuss that American advocates of laissez-faire capitalism (e.g. Ayn Rand and like-minded Objectivists) raise about cricitism that calls it a step away from outright plutocracy.
edited 8th Oct '16 8:06:51 AM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Here's a recap of basically everything that happened in the past 24 hours or so
.
Oh God! Natural light!