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
The Wall Street stuff is one thing, but I'll still never get why being a career politician is supposed to be a bad thing. I guess it's just one of those jobs like lawyer were doing it automatically makes you a bad person, regardless of what you actually do, but that doesn't make it any less bewildering/frustrating.
HRC was also a lawyer too, and a 'public defender at that. So she had that going against her too. The fake scandal about her defending a rapist back in the day springs to mind.
Seriously, there is nothing in HRC's life that the right-wingers won't try to spin into a scandal.
One idiot Congressman seriously proposed punishing HRC for supposedly breaking her college honor code thanks to her use of a private email server...decades after she graduated from college.
A few weeks ago Breitbart and the Drudge Report posted an article written by an HRC critic that claimed she was a bad candidate because when she was a little girl she once punched a boy for handing over baby bunnies to a bunch of bullies. Yes, they tried to spin her being a fierce defender of baby bunnies when she was a young girl as a bad thing.
edited 20th Oct '16 10:28:13 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedIf anything that makes me like her more.
Sanders had broad appeal and a hell of a lot of grassroots support, but he hadn't gone in it to win it, his campaign (while much, much better than Trump's) was not nearly as organized as the Clinton war machine, and his plan had way, way too much pie in the sky and too many magic asterisks. And, of course, he faced sabotage from DWS - though there's no way that that is why Clinton won.
Could Sanders have won? I think he had a fighting chance - far more than Trump has. He could have played much better (and Clinton could have played worse) - I think that his biggest mistake was failing to get a solid organization in place to properly leverage his massive netroots support. But he was definitely the underdog from day one, and contrary to fiction, underdogs usually lose - that's why they're the underdogs.
x4 Okay, I need to hear their rationale for that - how is protecting baby bunnies a bad thing.
The donation ticker on Trump's website is merely a looped sample file
. Low energy?
In which case she's either a doormat or a manipulative bitch.
These people (Breitbart, not normal Republican voters) literally see her as the devil. Anything and everything she does is examined in the worst possible light, and then fed to the rest of the base.
Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.
That's really the core of why the GOP hates her so much. She refused to play the role of a Stay in the Kitchen Blonde Republican Sex Kitten. She left the GOP when she realized that's what they wanted her to be.
Bill and her also humiliated them by making George H.W. Bush a one-term POTUS. And all of their attempts to smear and impeach Bill backfired (his approval ratings went up) while the Clinton administration basically cleaned up the crap left behind by the previous Republican administrations.
edited 20th Oct '16 11:33:38 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedYeah, Rubio is more dangerous - if he gets a little more in shape, and stops himself from chugging water, he could be something.
He's young looking, he's boyish, charming you name it. The main thing stopping Marco Rubio, however, is in fact Marco Rubio.
He's not that committed, and he's prone to letting his mouth go, whether it be to water or to bizarre jokes ala trying to play Trump's way, which just didn't work for him.
And still, Bush says he's voting for Clinton this time. If Trump was capable of analytic thought, that should trigger some introspection in him, especially about his compatibility with the Republican party and its core values.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.Rubio needs to actually show up to Congress to be a threat. That's why he's in such a tight re-election race (despite the DSCC recently pulling their funding for his opponent to spend elsewhere). He was often a no-show as Senator and clarified a few times that he doesn't really care about the position and just wants the White House.
That and he's got his own corruption skeletons that were never seriously trotted out because he wasn't a threat last cycle.

![[up] [up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png)
![[up] [up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png)
Does this mean they're in league with the Troll empress?
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."