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
I mean, anyone who actually votes twice can be, and it's not a wise strategy because it'll give the Dems cause to ask for a recount if he wins Colorado.
Though here's a question I have- if somebody gets caught committing voter fraud, what happens? Does one of their votes still count? And if so, how do they decide which ballot counts if they differ?
edited 30th Oct '16 7:03:09 PM by Gilphon
Right beneath that tweet there's another one with fairly well known example of men charged/prosecuted with various crimes in government, with Hilary beneath laughing. I suppose it's supposed somehow mean there's no misogyny, but it leaves out the fact that all those mean actually did what they were accused off, where at least with Hilary that hasn't been proven (assuming you don't believe she's guilty of any of the scandals).
Sanders has a long history of statements that go beyond the center-left, social democrat he claims to be/evolved into later in life. Plenty of dirt to attack him with.
A non-Trump Republican could have butchered him as weak on foreign policy and defense, and they'd probably be right.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Just as a side note, I can't help wondering if "Hilary" (with 1 l) is a common name in the US. I can't figure out why, otherwise, so many people are spelling Hillary Clinton's name wrong like that. Initially, of course, I took it for a typo, but it's too common for that to be the case every time. I should think "Hilary" would be changed into "Hillary" by autocorrect, but maybe it's the other way around. Is "Hilary" with 1 l more common than the 2-l variant?
(Incidentally, another thing that I've noticed is that sometimes people refer to the second part of Hillary Rodham Clinton's name as her "middle name". It's not that, though; it's her original last name, before she married Bill Clinton. To be honest I don't think of "Rodham" as sounding like a woman's name - or a male name, either - but then again, I didn't think "Hilary" (with 1 l) is a real name, and I'm guessing it probably is.)
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.I can't see Sanders doing well against Trump, because to the extent Trump has consistent policies, a lot of his economic views are basically the same as those of Sanders, just with a racist cast.
And since Sanders doesn't really have any skill in confronting bigotry, since he thinks everything is about economics, you'd have a situation where he'd be agreeing with Trump's comments against outsourcing while ineffectually batting against the vehemence of the anti-Mexican and anti-Chinese sentiments.
And I think the same problem would occur in a slightly different way had a more "normal Republican" gotten the nomination. In this situation, Sanders could do more to differentiate his economic views, but the fact that he's a socialist would make it difficult for him to call out his opponent as being far right economically. And again, he'd have no skill in calling out conservative social views.
I make the spelling mistake too. It's kind of confusing because Clinton has two ls, but an author I like, Hilary Mantel, only has one. I know that Clinton is apparently named after Sir Edmund Hillary (note the spelling), but from The Other Wiki article on the name, it seems like there isn't really any consistent rule along the lines of "single l in a first name; double l in a surname".
edited 30th Oct '16 7:49:01 PM by Hodor2
I think the "L" number confusion comes from the existence of the words "hilarious" or "hilarity" which influence the way people write "Hilar-".
I say that as an expert on the matter, as my last name has two consecutive "L"s in it, but since it is under the sound "ALLU", many people write it with only one - after all, "Aluminium" only has one "L", and it's commonly shortened as "Alu" in French when talking, for example, about kitchen wrap ("Papier alu").
That gives me something in common with Clinton! Who said she didn't know how to get close to people?
edited 30th Oct '16 7:50:53 PM by Julep
Apparently that is the root of the name according to Wikipedia
. Seems like in that sense, Hilary is the more correct spelling. I'm guessing the other spellings are a combination of English having nonstandard spelling until recently coupled with various people thinking in terms of first names that one l was the male spelling and two ls was the female one (as well as the opposite).
Edit- Not really on topic (although sort of given the name), but near where I live, there's this road that runs between counties and at one end is called Sanders and on the other end is called Saunders. No one knows why, but the best guess is something to the effect that different members of the family it was named after spelled or pronounced their last name differently.
edited 30th Oct '16 8:01:53 PM by Hodor2
That, apparently, is not true. Hillary Clinton has said that this is where her name comes from, but it turns out her parents had made it up after the fact. Sir Edmund wasn't very famous when Hillary Rodham was born - he wouldn't climb Mount Everest until 5 years after her birth - so it's unlikely that he would've been the inspiration for the name.
Instead, at least according to Clinton's campaign, her parents told her later that she's got the same name as the first (Western) person to conquer Mt Everest to inspire her.
It's a very understandable mistake on her part to think she was actually named for this reason, especially if her parents actually told her so, without checking the actual dates.
This, of course, is completely trivial. I suppose I'm just sort of interested in names.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.I had a sense that story might not be accurate and was debating on saying "supposedly", but didn't want to cast aspersions that Clinton herself was making things up.
Random guess, but since Hillary is the less correct spelling, that might be why her parents retroactively associated the name with someone who did spell his (last)name that way.
What, they're gonna brawl in the Senate? Break out the wiffle canes?
I'd like a Democratic blowout that changes things up enough for Clinton to have hopes of accomplishing something in at least the first two years, but I'm willing to settle for more of what's going on now, i.e. an obstructionist Republican legislature committed to accomplishing as little as possible and frustrating the president's attempts to solve any of our country's compounding problems. The worst-case scenario is of course President Trump and a Congress too scared to oppose him, but God willing we'll be spared that.
It's probably too much to hope for that after the alt-right hijacking of the primaries and Trump's newfound "drain the swamp" sentiment, the Republicans realize that it might be important to demonstrate that the American government can in fact function, in order to prevent a repeat of this debacle in four years. But since that would mean going along with the hated Hillary, I expect them to spend their time on those damn e-mails or whatever else they can come up with.
Unless all of the current Republicans in the House of Representatives all dropped dead simultaneously and were replaced with alt-righters, I doubt that there will be something that can be likened to a war going down. Obstructionism, yes, but just not that...
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot

I doubt it, he just gave them incorrect advice that will get them turned away. He didn't outright tell them to commit fraud.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.