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
@Ambar: Honestly, this isn't about Sanders as much as it is about the apparent unwillingness of democrats to pursue meaningful change to their platform or their strategy in the wake of Trump's victory. Trump's sheer incompetence might hand them a victory in 2018 and 2020, but it won't do anything to meaningfully deescalate the growing partisan tensions within the nation that will probably lead to a repeat of the 2016 election a few cycles down the line.
Sanders has his good points and his bad points, but as far as this thread is concerned he's a convenient scapegoat to blame for all of the party's missteps and failings, some of which Sanders definitely shares. (trying to turn local races into national races is a big error that both he and the democrats seem to be falling into)
If Ossoff loses in the runoff (quite likely), it will suddenly be Sanders fault that he lost, despite your insistence that Mello's defeat demonstrates how meaningless his influence and endorsements are.
As for the debate, Sanders' fans will think he won, Kaisich's fans will think he won, and literally nobody's mind will be changed. In our current hyperpartisan environment, debates only really serve to fire up your base, not to convince people on the sidelines. Hence Trump wasn't hurt nearly as much as he should've been by his humiliating debate performance.
edited 10th May '17 9:26:57 AM by CaptainCapsase
What I stated has not been disproven.
Also, there's this:
https://twitter.com/Pamela_Moore13/status/862107590003748864
Feinstein states, "Not at this time."
Days Before He Was Fired, Comey Asked for Money for Russia Investigation
Shiiiiit.
New Survey coming this weekend!I like how you're trying to call me out on hypocrisy not yet demonstrated. Here's a reality—if Sanders believes his claim that the only way to win is with him, then his denunciation of Ossof is worthy of condemnation because regardless of if it has an actual impact on the race, Sanders thinks it does. No matter how you slice it "he's not a progressive" was an attempt at kneecapping a candidate, it's actual effect on the race be damned, and you bet your ass I will condemn him for it.
Of course, I also never said his endorsement was meaningless, I said he sucks at getting people elected. Not the same thing. Try responding to the stuff that I (and others) actually say.
~IM Boring: We also haven't disproven that there's an invisible dragon in my garage. Enough with the strawmen. If you're going to do the Trumpista/Alex Jones thing, you could either stay out of this topic or save yourself the trouble and ask to be banned.
edited 10th May '17 9:30:01 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@Boring: Nobody besides the Russians are denying it these days, and even they're being fairly half-hearted about it. If it makes you feel any better, this sort of thing is pretty tame by espionage standards. Both the the United States and the Soviet Union did far more brazen things during the Cold War.
edited 10th May '17 9:29:54 AM by CaptainCapsase
There is ample evidence that Russia is carrying out a systematic program of interference with elections across Western nations. This isn't their first time around this particular block: they've been doing it for decades across the world. They are really good at it. What is perhaps more surprising about this particular episode is how blatant it was — and enough people fell for it anyway to get Trump elected. GG us.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"They tried the same thing with the French election as well and I'd be shocked if there wasn't Russian presence in England right now with their election coming up.
Simply put we are back in full blown Cold War espionage mode and the Russians have one hell of a headstart.
edited 10th May '17 9:34:38 AM by LeGarcon
Oh really when?I don't think that's going to fly. The Cold War is over in U.S. culture, and any President who starts hamfistedly sending operatives to muck with Russian elections is only going to earn the ire of the isolationist crowd. Hell, all Russia has to do is leak evidence of that and it'll send all our media into a tizzy.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@Ambar I'm of the mind that Russian elections aren't rigged in the sense that the ballot boxes are sabotaged. More in the sense that the opposition is systemically knee-capped or lured into Putin's tent so that he and his party are the only competent choice come voting day.
edited 10th May '17 9:40:58 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedCase in point: during the 60/70's the US collaborated with the military to foment distrust in the populace and install dictatorships to avoid having their sphere of influence void by the possibility of communist uprisings like in Cuba. They funded right-wing think tanks to spread propaganda and outrage, trained military personnel in torture techniques, and gave them ample funding for decades.
Compared to that the russian hacking is pretty tame, though obviously an interference like that is still scandalous.
@Fighteer: Nor would that tizzy be undeserved; escalating things with the country that has the single largest nuclear arsenal in the world is not a particularly smart course of action. Over the course of the cold war there are around a dozen cases where nuclear war was just barely averted; wanting to go back to that is utter insanity.
edited 10th May '17 9:44:17 AM by CaptainCapsase
![]()
![]()
No, we aren't losing — Russia has no ability to wage territorial war and it knows it. What we need is multifold but it starts with a substantial investment in information security across the government and a significant public awareness effort aimed at getting people to understand that when foreign agents compromise our computers and "expose secrets", it's an attack on our sovereignty and not the noble efforts of a bunch of freedom-loving Edward Snowden wannabes.
This, too. Interfering with foreign governments never goes well, and the CIA's history with doing so has had disastrous results for our own global interests. There is no way we could attempt it and come out well, even in the dream scenario where we somehow dethroned Putin.
edited 10th May '17 9:44:33 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
No it isn't. Despite throwing their weight around these days like the Soviet Union of old, Russia is a declining power. Their demographics are crap, they're more or less surrounded by unfriendly if not downright hostile states, their economy is lackluster, and their military, while powerful, isn't strong enough to seriously threaten anyone outside of their immediate neighborhood.
edited 10th May '17 9:46:45 AM by CaptainCapsase
As far as I'm concerned, the Republicans are also compromised or at the very least being blackmailed.
Their base are nothing more than mouth breathing racist morons who would likely jump off a bridge if Fox News told them it would hurt minorities. So the damage control of getting rid of Trump would be extremely easy.
Yet they refuse to do so.
You don't have to wonder why.
New Survey coming this weekend!
If you're comparing Russia in the 1990s to Russia in 2017, sure, their influence has grown, but anyone expecting Russia to remain a nonentity in global affairs forever was clearly swept up in the "End of History" bullshit that got paraded around during that period. Compared to the Soviet Union, Russia is quite weak, and they can't keep this game up indefinitely.
Which in fact is the real danger the country poses; letting a nuclear power back itself into a corner is not a smart idea.
edited 10th May '17 9:51:24 AM by CaptainCapsase

CNN is hosting a Sanders/Kasich debate
. Cause I guess Sanders getting clobbered by Cruz wasn't bad enough. He needs to demonstrate how badly he'd have lost to all the Republican contenders from last year.
Then again, I suppose the actual Democrats are too busy trying to fight the Republican who actually won.
edited 10th May '17 9:22:46 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar