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 don't know if you've noticed Mad, but Clinton's not running anymore and Obama's not president anymore. Sanders, on the other hand, continues to demand that he be treated as relevant and given control over the party that he has not earned.
If Sanders is relevant—and you yourself have defended his relevancy many times now—then he is worthy of criticism. Far more criticism, in fact, than people who aren't involved anymore.
For starters?
Obama was a very successful, two-term President dealing with complex issues and the most intransigent Republican congress ever. Some of us give him some leeway there, and he does get criticized from his left plenty. Obama has flaws. What the far left would be very, very wise to remember is Obama is not the enemy. He is shockingly popular, competent, effective and to isolate themselves from him and make him into their morality play's villain is a damned stupid idea.
Hillary Clinton doesn't get talked about much because she's essentially no longer relevant. And that's upsetting because people forget she was literally the most popular politician in American in 2012-2013. For years, the notion of her running for President fascinatedthe media and Democrats. She could do no wrong. And then she ran and she could suddenly do no right. She was made into this incarnation of evil of The Establishment despite having a complete benign record on most issues, and a very progressive one when it came to women's rights. Everything she did was decried as 'phony' and nothing more.
edited 3rd May '17 10:20:20 PM by Lightysnake
Aside from HRC trying to start a PAC to support Democratic candidates, not really.
Speaking of Obama, there's a chance our favorite slimeball Chaffetz will go after his pension citing his $400k speech as justification for it.
This is such petty bullshit.
edited 3rd May '17 10:22:57 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedObama hasn't been president for only 4 months. I can still critique him and he's still relevant today. He was president for 8 years and we're still feeling the repercussions of his presidency for good or ill.
I've talked less and less about Hillary as time goes on since she was never president.
We only talked about her today because she wanted to build a Super PAC, I believe, so even then she's still relevant.
Well sure. I didn't say he wasn't deserving of criticism. That's fine by me.
edited 3rd May '17 10:23:34 PM by MadSkillz
I think the issue is more that people don't know what my goalpoasts even are and that confuses them because I don't make them clear enough.
So I have to spend time re-correcting what I'm saying and then I'm accused of moving goalposts.
I think people build Obama up too much. I've mentioned that he was the best president of my lifetime. But to hear people talk about him, it's like FDR came back from the grave.
It's funny but I would've preferred Hillary to Obama in 2008.
I wonder if anyone remembers that Hillary ran to Obama's left in that election.
edited 3rd May '17 10:32:07 PM by MadSkillz
Mads, you didn't exactly respond to my Trump post here.
I can't sugar coat this...do you know the consequences of that healthcare bill passing?
Edit: As someone who respects FDR a lot...he was more conservative than Obama in some ways. He was a harsh deficit hawk, he screwed a lot of people out of pensions and he ended up making bargains to restrict people of color from his programs to get them passed. One of the reasons he was so successful was not challenging white supremacy. In addition to that, he had supermajorities throughout congress.
edited 3rd May '17 10:33:44 PM by Lightysnake
You do seem to have shifting goalposts, Mad. And referring back to the post where you said you use words interchangeably depending on whether you feel bitter or not, this is my advice: DON'T DO THAT. Words mean things, and using them in a particular way just because you're in a snit weakens your argument. There are, in fact, words that are not interchangeable in conversation with other people.
And to the thread in general: We all know Sanders is very much part of the Establishment. What matters is that he managed to sell himself as not being part of the Establishment precisely because he's been independent for all of his political career. The nuance that he caucuses with the Democrats and has voted their way more often than not because they're the team he agrees with most is lost on most of his supporters. Image does matter, however much we all here find that fact frustrating.
@Lighty Which post? You guys posted a lot of stuff.
I already commented on the healthcare bill by calling the Republicans cartoonish villains that are getting worse and worse.
Yes, yes, Ambar, I don't care about social liberties at all despite being a gay Hispanic girl. -rolls eyes-
@Lightysnake
Yep. Others like Tactical Fox have brought up that the New Deal involved tossing minorities under the bus.
edited 3rd May '17 10:35:54 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedhere you go: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13103447000A18674100&page=7464#186600
Look, Mads...I'm not saying anything about what you do or don't care about, but I do have to note there is a tendency to value economic progressivism over social from some circles. r
I don't really direct those bitter words at people here. I'm directing it at politicians.
But alright, I'll say that's fair. I'll be a little less derogatory.
@Snake Oh, I saw that. I dunno what you want me to say. I mean I think he's a monster too.
edited 3rd May '17 10:44:12 PM by MadSkillz
I love it when people write responses like this. I really do.
Fact is Mad, you've written post after post stating that economic justice matters more than social justice. When asked to define your perfect progressive you made "fights corporations" the key issue, listed a bunch of other economic positions you'd want them to have and then added social justice as an apparent afterthought. You've actively defended Sanders' so-called outreach to his fictitious version of the WWC, you've tried to downplay or explain away numerous sexist or racially insensitive comments, and you had to have the experiences of poor minorities (most notably Native Americans) explained to you when you kept insisting that a rising tide would lift all boats.
So no, Mad, I don't really have a reason to believe that you care all that much about social justice, and that your only response is to list your gender, race, and orientation is pretty telling. There are gay Republicans. There are Hispanic Republicans. There are female Republicans (hell, as the existence of Marine Le Pen so aptly demonstrates, there are female neofascists). What you are says exactly nothing about your stances on the issues—if it did, all white, straight men would be Republicans.
If you want to prove you do care about social issues, maybe, I don't know, talk about them?
edited 3rd May '17 10:48:56 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Do we need a formal moratorium on this discussion? All I am seeing are the usual arguments being thrown at each other with zero evidence to support many and zero people having their minds changed.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanLet's talk instead about the inhospitable radioactive future that certainly awaits us
Personally, I don't think that nukes will end the world, but when Trump does start a stupid war in North Korea, Best Korea's nukes will land on the ocean, Cthulhu will rise, and then everyone is really fucked.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes@Ambar First off, I thought we were supposed to talk about politics not make this topic about me. But if you're going to keep attacking me, I have to defend myself.
No, I haven't. Just because I talk about economic justice more doesn't mean it matters more to me than social justice. I'm extremely socially liberal but I don't talk about it because we're all in consensus.
I mean I literally do volunteer work for my feminist club to advance social agendas for my city. Half my family is at risk for social problems that affect minorities everywhere.
Really? Because of how I formatted it? Uh huh.
I want Dems to win.
Which ones?
On Native Americans, yes, because I don't know the issues on the Native American reservations. Wait, how is this evidence that I don't care about social justice? I literally thanked you for informing me. This is crazypants.
Yeah, I'm trying to shortcut this argument. I don't want to get through all the ins and outs of how socially liberal I am because I want to talk about economic issues since I'm getting push back on that.
How much pushback and discussion am I going to get out of proclaiming that I'm for gay-marriage, think marijuana should be legalized, for equal pay between genders, am pro-choice, against the death penalty, am fervently anti-racist, against religious discrimination laws etc?
Most of us here agree on that stuff.
Plus my opinions on social issues are pretty firmly entrenched. I'm still open to evolving my opinion on economic issues which is why I discuss it with you guys to find out more even if I am being argumentative sometimes when I do it.
edited 3rd May '17 11:28:54 PM by MadSkillz
![]()
![]()
Wish people would stop with the WW3/Nuclear War fearmongering...
![]()
Or Russia, probably Vladivostok.
edited 3rd May '17 11:15:13 PM by FireCrawler2002

That's cool. I never did.
That's actually how I see it.
I'm just voicing criticisms. Doesn't mean I won't vote for them when the times comes. I'll still complain.
edited 3rd May '17 10:19:09 PM by MadSkillz