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
@above sentiments
How about being decisive (but not reckless), principled, and reasoned?
It is inspiration that heralds positive changes, not meekness nor boorishness. "Politics is a zero-sum game" isn't a belief one should embraces.
Fantastic! This is the kind of crap the Democrats need right now! Freakin' peachy! This kind of crap makes me worried that the 2018 Elections are going to be a crap show...
![]()
![]()
I think the last election proved that if your good enough at insults you can win elections. So since the other side won't ever try to help people who aren't themselves you gotta do what you gotta do, and right now it is insult the other candidate. Enough people don't pay attention to the substance of argument and the American people largely care about who could look better on tv.
edited 21st May '17 8:28:49 AM by Wildcard
![]()
![]()
This seems eerily similar to Sanders supporters appealing to superdelegates when it became clear Sanders wasn't going to win the 2016 primaries.
Granted, losing by 62 votes is pretty close in a 3,000 vote count. Recounting shouldn't be too tricky, Now, if the recount confirms the loss and Ellis still refuses to accept it...
edited 21st May '17 8:28:41 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedI mean, in some jurisdictions a vote that close triggers an automatic recount anyway, just in case. But if she still loses and continues to stoke division, that's a problem.
Not like recounting 3000 votes is a huge administrative burden or anything.
edited 21st May '17 8:30:04 AM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.She could at least have been more open with why she felt a recount was warranted, if only to make her seem less like a Sore Loser.
edited 21st May '17 8:36:40 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedEh, I'm willing to withhold judgement until her reaction after 1) her request is refused or 2) a recount confirms her loss. That is assuming of course that she doesn't win the recount.
62 out of 3000 is only 2%, which is pretty thin.
edited 21st May '17 8:42:55 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedWhat are we supposed to do, keep right on pretending that their lies are as real as our facts? Continue to act like this is normal public discourse while they claim up is down and right is left? This sort of nonsense has to be called out, and at a certain point you cannot be polite about it. I'd also note that, given some of the things that have been said in this thread, neither you nor I are in a position to be demanding universal politeness from others.
Anderson Cooper did entirely the right thing there. The guy he was talking to was refusing to acknowledge the existence of objective reality or otherwise engage in debate. Past a certain point Cooper had to either find a way to shut him down, or let the guy continue to make trash up. He chose option A, and I'm glad that he did. That some on the left are more hung up on his language choices than on the fact that he did his job baffles me. That some of those same leftists have no problem casting aspersions on fellow Democrats or progressives but demand that every Trump troll be treated with utmost respect baffles me still further.
Ultimately I have to ask—do we want journalists to nail Republicans to the wall for their BS, or do we want them to respect Republicans' feelings? Because you cannot always do both.
To be fair Fox, this one was a genuinely close election and as others have said, in many places this would result in an automatic recount anyway.
You know how I feel about Sanders and his diehards, but so far this particular candidate isn't doing anything wrong. If she refuses to accept the results after the recount, then we can accuse her of being a problem.
As to the overall question, I don't know when or if the Sanders crowd will get the memo that their strategy doesn't seem to be working. A lot of them have a built in bogeyman to blame in the form of the DNC or "The Establishment", who they can accuse of not giving a candidate enough money etc. Occasionally they'll even have a point on that front—the reality is that the DNC cannot give every candidate the same amount of support, and sometimes it will be the Sanders-esque candidates who lose out.
edited 21st May '17 8:54:11 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Somehow I have trouble getting concerned about a race that apparently is going to someone on the Democratic side either way, in a position that is pretty small??
Anyway, regarding insults and such: We, as a society, theoretically tend to require a higher standard from newspeople and politicians. The idea of what "we" as in the general public should do as regards as the people we're seeing on TV are, actually, two different but related things as far as I'm concerned. While I'm not going to think that the occasional shot from a high profile figure is going to ruin anyone now, and probably be on their side as long as they're right. I do general expect that they shouldn't reduce themselves to the level of youtube commentary, which is what you guys seem to be thinking they should.
Before you say, no that's not what you meant, I'm going to point out that you guys have taken Cooper's actions and then spoken about yours as if they have equal levels of influence on the national conversation. Cooper and similar figures reach a far larger audience than anyone here can. We don't need our representatives lowering themselves to Trump's level. We should be expecting better behavior.
![]()
There absolutely is. I think it's the inherent problem with people who embrace messianic politics—they're so inspired by their messiah of choice that they often think everyone else will be to if only they'd listen. It makes it difficult to plan a campaign.
I wouldn't say that's what Cooper did though. There's a world of difference between a well-placed and well-deserved shot at someone who is refusing to debate in good faith—as happened here—and what Trump does, where he doesn't bother to have a discussion and just insults people.
Cooper was trying to have a conversation with someone who was refusing to participate. He finally resorted to insult to shut the guy down. It's not something that should happen in every interview, but it's also something I have no issue with happening in this interview.
edited 21st May '17 9:07:27 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar
China 'crippled CIA operations, killed informants': New York Times

That was straight savage, though. We need more of that in journalism.
"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."