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 see your Atlantic and I call! [1]
(I think that's how it works. How do you even play poker?)
My main point: I would rather not see the country continue drifting off into completely different worlds. Even the internet, the information superhighway can separate as good as bridge divides. Apparently all censors ever had to do was offer differing persons what they want to hear and set them loose to attack anyone who criticizes them.
If I may bring this [2]
up again. The counter to those tactics seems to be the type of experience and interaction one finds in say, New York. [3]
My question is how to get that without necessitating that everyone lives in a dense city. (That's just not possible in the south at least).
As for comparing those Atlantic and Salon articles, the Atlantic looks at the states and assigns them characteristics maybe based on good guesses but still distorting. The Salon looks at the percentages of total voters. Furthermore, neither article talks about how many states fell within the margin of error. That is random happenstance (people staying home for the rain, a traffic jam, a sale of the good kind of hot dogs) could have changed the result. Meaning the people who went to the polls had no majority opinion, on an election like this one. Just a bit troubling...
~vandro: Regarding your first point, my impression too was that Democrats turned out far more for Obama than Hillary.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman"But they are still your compatriots, not wanting anything to do with them rather than convincing them is what got you there."
No, fuck them. They have their fuhrer, let them destroy the country and tie their own nooses. The rural scum that voted Trump in could not be more different than me, and that's the problem. America is a fucking sham when we and they are represented under one flag.
They cannot be convinced and they cannot be reasoned with. The only hope for the future is in their marginalization.
edited 6th Jan '17 8:34:41 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."Why is it that white people having "economic anxiety" okay and acceptable, as they've been left behind or down on their luck but literally everyone else is a lazy moocher who needs to work harder.
Like I sometimes genuinely think people aren't aware of the cognitive dissonance on display here.
This election was anything BUT Economic especially since Trump voters skew richer and Clinton won voters who main concern was the economy
New Survey coming this weekend!WikiLeaks critizises Obama administration / CIA for ... leaking information
Does the onion have a legitimate reason for existing anymore?
New Survey coming this weekend!I'm curious as to whether or not there'll be any information of substance in there that we didn't already essentially know.
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."It's going to depend heavily on how both parties behave. Their next vote isn't going to be based on Trump's shittiness, but on the GOP and Dems' reaction to that shittiness.
If they see Republicans going, "ALL HAIL GOD-EMPEROR TRUMP!!!" and Dems going, "Man, we tried to warn you, but it's cool. We all make mistakes. I get it. But listen, maybe now's a good time to talk to you about some of the ideas I've got that might help fix your situation...." then they might swing.
If they see Republicans going, "That crazy asshole, amirite? Don't know how he hijacked the party. But look, our new candidate is way more awesome, listen to his ideas...." and Dems going, "HA! YOU DESERVE TO BURN, SHITF*CKERS!!!!" then they're staying where they are.
As tempting as it might be to dance on the graves of the people who voted in Trump, it's not conducive to winning in 2018 or 2020. If we become the Party of Sore Losers, then there will never be a Democrat in the White House again, and we can all enjoy watching our number of Congressmen shrink down to nothing.
The CIA despises Trump. This is hardly surprising news.
Neither is this, but it's nice to finally have the actual broken promise instead of just the fact that the promise is unkeepable to work with. 2016 was the year that Facts died. 2017 needs to be the year that Facts's vengeful ghost rises from the grave seeking retribution.
That is my impression as well. It's not that millions upon millions of people who voted for Obama decided that Orange is the New Black. It's that a portion of Obama's voterbase just didn't show up because Hillary didn't "inspire" them the way Obama did.
And that portion still isn't as large as many think it is. Hillary won the popular vote and even in the states she lost, many were down to a razor's edge. Given other contributing factors such as voter suppression, this whole identity politics argument isn't even wrong; it's invalid.
We should be asking how we can work to dismantle the system of voter suppression, how we can encourage more Dems to turn out, how we can make sure that the mistakes of this administration are visible. Instead, "Because identity politics!" is an answer to the question, "Why did Trump crush Hillary in a landslide victory with huge swaths of Democrats betraying their party in favor of him?"
And it cannot be right. By definition, it physically cannot be a correct answer, because the question it tries to answer is, itself, wrong. What point can possibly be had in debating a subject that proves itself false?
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
This also depends once again on the assumption that Trump will fail in a manner that is readily visible by the time the next election is being held, and that his borrowing of Putin's strategy of talking tough and making highly publicized but ultimately only symbolic deals with particular powerful interests to give the impression he's doing something meaningful to help alleviate his base's plight doesn't pan out.
edited 6th Jan '17 9:25:48 AM by CaptainCapsase
How is it that the right didn't have to reach out to the left when they got their butts handed to them? Twice
How is it that minorities have to empathize with the hardship of the working class whites, but they won't do the same for us?
Hell, how is it that the right can call the left baby killers, godless heathens, cucks, feminazis, anti-white, lazy, snobby, stupid and get away with it, but the left calling the right bigoted is somehow too far?
How is any of this shit even remotely fair? Why does the left have to be the pillar of morality?
While I feel racism play a part in choising trump, I dont thing it was the deciding element and in fact it sound a little bit of self serving narrative "we lost because the other are stupid and evil unlike me".
what I see is the whole Strongman/Miracle men myth, the idea that what you need is one man who can change thing if you give him all the damn power, in this case a lot of things align with Trump: first is oponent is Hilary clinton the "Establishment figure" per excelent that allow him to play the outsider angle and the way he proposed simple solutions to complex problem(the middle east, immigration,etc).
For last I have seen some troper here expresing surprise in how many rep got surprise when Trump star kicking them, that is explain by what I call "the strongman virtues" the idea that he will only take what it need, only judge to what is fair and so on, here is when racism start to play: he will deal with the mexican problem but he will not go after all mexicans because he is wise enough, he will ban and track all evil terrorist and leave muslim behind because he is accurate enough.
For me, THAT is the real danger that the public left him to do what it want by the delusion he will no used it.
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"From what I've seen from Facebook comment sections, the American defenders of strongman politics reckon that since it gave the world Lincoln and Roosevelt, it can't be all that bad.
Speaking of the entire "Make America Great Again" stuff, Quag 15 linked a rather interesting documentary in the European politics thread:
Yeah, that's another issue; America's past forays into strongman politics have gone relatively well, or at least weren't disastrous like such occurrences usually are. I attribute that to luck rather than the so called exceptionalism that others cite, but without a clear counterexample, we aren't likely to move past the myth of the great man president.
I can imagine them salivating with the Republican's push to axe the ACA. Scum like them prey on the poor when healthcare becomes scarce. Only the Mass. governor can veto it now. They're trying to sell it as "oh it protects the citizens from untrained naturopaths" while failing to mention that there no difference between a "trained" and an untrained one, given that their "training" is purchased online and consists of homeopathy and vitalism nonsense.
edited 6th Jan '17 10:26:32 AM by carbon-mantis
I suppose their life expectancy being brought back down to historical levels was not what the folks who wanted uppity minorities put in their place wanted?
Wikileaks continues to sink
. I think that's what's called doxing on the chans...
I see no problem with legitimizing naturopathy on one condition, and it's basically the same condition I have whenever conversation rolls around to pseudoscientific practices: it must be subjected to the same level of scrutiny and criticism as actual science.
Which means proving results.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.![]()
![]()
Not when you have the power of money lobbying.
How the US botched its presentation on evidence for Russian hacking
.

I can understand rich people — of any race — voting Republican. Hell, it's why my dad is a registered Republican, though he hasn't voted ever since we moved to California decades ago. The GOP not only panders to that crowd, it also — and this is key — actually enacts policies that offer (at least short-term) benefits to them. Usually in the form of sweet, sweet tax breaks.
Disgusted, but not surprised