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
@speedyboris on the "Vote Trump" incident: There's a trend on news site comment sections that certain readers are believing that it's a ploy by the Democrats to boost Hillary's rating.
Here's one of the similar trends of comments on ABC's report on the story:
Also, not meaning to double-post a subject, but since it's on Youtube now, I'd thought I'd repost The Daily Show With Trevor Noah's Halloween episode this year, when they did a post-apocalyptic vision of what Donald Trump's first four years in office would be. Warning: it's a bit horrifyingly depressing.
Christ, this is just getting worse and worse for Clinton - a new leak connects the Assistant AG to the Clinton campaign by virtue of his having given them a heads-up regarding the email probe
back in May, 2015.
It's events like these that 'really''' make me wish Sanders had won the nomination. Even though he hasn't been as vetted, I doubt there'd be anywhere near as much shit getting flung at him that he'd created.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"So I've been reading this book about the history of lower class whites in America and how people like Andrew Jackson were able to appeal to them, even when they never really represented their interests.
There's a lot of eerie parallels between Jackson and Trump, except of course that Trump was never a part of the lower class
And unlike some of his diehards he managed to be pretty gracious about it.
Look, Sanders seemed like a decent guy, if remarkably tone deaf on a few issues. He tried, he lost, he conceded, and went to work for Clinton.
Bill Weld on Clinton
. I increasingly think that she should offer him a job.
edited 2nd Nov '16 3:01:29 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
You misunderstand my point - I'm not a Bernie or Bust type, but god damn it's hard to approve of Clinton with all this shit (of her own making - "if you don't want to get caught doing something, don't do it", after all) flying around. And all that said, I absolutely dread if Trump somehow pulls off a win against her - and that's the inherent problem. For many people, myself included, this is an election about "Who do you hate the least?" rather than "Who do you like the most?", and there's only so far you're able to motivate people with the former.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"Most of this "shit", as you put it, is not of her own making in any way, shape or form, unless you consider being viciously attacked for things you had no control over (like her husband's infidelity) to be her fault. Of the remaining ones, the email issue is an absurdity, the Clinton Foundation is a complete blank, and her work at State was pretty darn good, all things considered.
It is hard to conceive of a public figure with anything approaching her stature who could pass this ineffable test for perfection that people seem to be applying. People are looking for excuses to dislike her, and then using those excuses as retroactive justifications for why they disliked her all along.
I say this as someone who does not uniformly agree with all of her political positions, so don't get on my case as some kind of shill.
edited 2nd Nov '16 3:18:18 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
This ![]()
The e-mail thing is a complete non-issue that the Republicans keep trying to make into some sort of bullshit "scandal" that they can use against her. And all their efforts have come to naught, yet they persist in trying to nail her on something.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results. — Albert Einstein
This Space Intentionally Left Blank.It's generally more like that anyway. Maybe not to this extreme but if your issue is that you don't find any candidate inspiring enough to motivate you to vote, that's more on you and not them. I mean, appeal is important, but at the end of the day their jobs are supposed to be to govern, not make you feel warm and fuzzy.
If you find this offensive or that it doesn't apply to you directly, it most certainly applies to a lot of other people, and needs to be said.
On the race for the House of Representatives, the scenario isn't that bright for the Democrats.
The Economist: Democrats seem unlikely to turn the House map blue
]
THE polls have tightened since the news, late last week, of fresh e-mail difficulties for Hillary Clinton, but the Democratic nominee still seems likely to win the White House on November 8th. If she is victorious, however, Mrs Clinton is likely to take the helm of a divided government.
For while Democrats still have a chance at wresting control of the Senate—punters peg their chances at 62%—something more dramatic would be needed to give them the House of Representatives, where their hopes are deemed to be about one in ten. As Barack Obama knows well, passing legislation through a recalcitrant Republican opposition, as Mrs Clinton is almost sure to face, can be a difficult undertaking.
The lack of polling at the house-district level makes empirical forecasting difficult. Nonetheless qualitative projections, given by experts, give some guidance. Even in an American election as tumultuous as this, 213 of the seats are rating as safely Republican, compared with 182 rated safely Democratic. Only 218 seats are needed for a majority.
Only 12 of the 435 races, less than 3%, are rated as tossups. Good-government advocates bemoan this sort of congressional entrenchment, though its cause can be hard to attribute. Some blame gerrymandering—the redrawing of boundaries for electoral gain—and indeed Republicans won 51% of votes in the 2014 elections, though they translated that advantage to 57% of House seats. Others point the finger at the so-called “incumbency effect”, and perhaps rightly so. Last time, 95% of congressmen who sought re-election got their wish.
Donald Trump and his businesses have deleted countless emails, often in direct defiance of court orders, that were subpoenaed in both civil and criminal suits. Where's that in the news? Lock her up?
edited 2nd Nov '16 3:39:38 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Some time ago, somebody on this forum said that the lesson to be learned from the whole e-mail thing is: "US gov't IT tech stinks and desperately needs to be upgraded," not: "Hillary is evil/bad/wrong."
I'd like to give credit where it's due, but I forget who posted it, sorry...
This Space Intentionally Left Blank.

Actually, I almost forgot, the PRIVATE PRISONS are the heart of the beast. Drive a stake through that means of economic income, and the "problem precincts" may be crippled by the shockwaves.
EDIT: Actually, it's probably a bad idea to boil down these modern problems to one hypothetical lynchpin. But it does warrant scrutiny.
edited 2nd Nov '16 12:55:27 PM by nervmeister