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
Go for it.
Hell Rand Paul even has his own weird Russia vote thing, at one point he was blocking Montenegro from joining NATO for reasons that nobody really understood. Like I don't think Paul is a Russian asset, but dam if he wasn't trying to hard to convince that he is with that vote.
Edit: Hell I just checked and like Ron with Rand Sanders even has a son who is looking to get into politics and likely shares his same beliefs, if it turns out Levi Sanders was named after some crazy left-wing political philosopher I'm calling doppelgänger.
edited 26th Apr '18 5:11:09 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranIsn't Levi a Jewish name, though? Occam's Razor, people.
EDIT: I missed the "if" in there, sorry.
edited 26th Apr '18 5:23:20 PM by TroperOnAStickV2
Hopefully I'll feel confident to change my avatar off this scumbag soon. Apologies to any scumbags I insulted.He has claimed that but the odds a libertarian whacko names their kid "Rand" for any other reason are limited. I expect he realized that admitting he named the kid for a noted atheist might not have gone over well with the religious fanatic part of his fanbase.
Anyway, Sanders 2016 and Ron Paul 2012 have been compared a lot and for fairly clear reasons. It doesn't hurt that there's even some overlap between the worst of their fanboys—for the guys who think "legal weed is the answer to everything man," and various edgelord contrarians, there's no disconnect between voting for both of them. Heck, "progressive" commentator Glenn Greenwald was once a Ron Paul fanboy, which may explain some things for anyone who didn't know that.
Well, his name is Randal Paul. The claim is that he only became known as Rand Paul after marriage because it was his wife that started calling him Rand.
edited 26th Apr '18 5:47:56 PM by Wyldchyld
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.And what are the consequences of this interview?
1/ This morning, on Fox and Friends, Trump made a number of admissions that could create issues for him going forward. The first was his admission that Michael Cohen represented him with this “crazy Stormy Daniels deal.”
2/ That seems at odds with his prior statement that he didn’t know anything about the Stormy Daniels payment or agreement. Why would you hire a lawyer to handle a matter but know nothing about the agreement that resulted from his representation? It’s possible but hard to believe.
3/ Trump’s prior assertion that he knew nothing about the deal greatly undercut some of his arguments in the Daniels lawsuit, such as his argument that the case should be arbitrated, but it would have made it easier to avoid a deposition because he claimed no knowledge at all.
4/ The seemingly inconsistent statements could be used to undercut his credibility. In any event, it’s now unclear what his position will be in the lawsuit going forward—did he know about the Stormy Daniels agreement or not?
5/ Trump also tried to distance himself from Cohen, claiming that handled “a percentage of my overall legal work, a tiny, tiny little fraction.” That could be inconsistent with Cohen’s arguments in federal court that the FBI seized extensive attorney-client communications.
6/ As a practical matter, although this was cited by federal prosecutors, it had little impact on the judge’s ruling today appointing a special master, which was a very minor victory for Trump and Cohen. But it was a statement that appeared contrary to Trump’s legal position.
7/ Trump also said he was “very disappointed in my Justice Department ... I have decided that I won't be involved. I may change my mind at some point because what's going on is a disgrace.” There was nothing to gain for him telegraphing his desire to interfere with the DOJ.
8/ If Trump later takes action against Mueller or Rosenstein, those statements could be used to show his state of mind, such as his desire to interfere with the DOJ and his knowledge that interfering with the DOJ would be problematic. /end
edited 26th Apr '18 5:50:05 PM by megaeliz
x5 Now now, they could be a The Wheel of Time fan.
My response would be "And? What are you Berniebros going to do, vote Trump instead?" If the answer is yes, then they were already lost to sanity and we don't need them in the Democratic Party. If the answer is "I'm staying home," then the same. The far left are not the Democratic base, they're a loud fraction of it, and it's extremely important that we firebreak them and keep them from taking over.
So after the rise of Trump, I'm actually against canning superdelegates. They're there for "in case of populist asshole, break glass" situations. That said, we do not need another Debbie Wasserman Schulz, and we can do without the people who were running the Alaska Democratic Convention in 2016, and other "establishment monkeys" who really were vindicating the Berniebros by intentionally trying to silence him and his supporters.
edited 26th Apr '18 6:08:25 PM by Ramidel
If the populist is looking to win the primary unless you use superdelegates, then upon using superdelegates, you have just alienated a significant chunk of your own voters—and a majority of those politically motivated enough you could essentially guarantee their vote. They don't need to be extremists to be turned off voting for a party that has literally just told them "we don't really care about your vote".
Seriously, any situation superdelegates could be useful for party leadership in? You're just going to lose the election if you touch it and possibly alienate your core vote for entire cycles.
This just feels like a retread of our electoral college discussions, the idea of giving emergency powers to a select few elites because their elites to counter democracy is basicly admitting defeat. The electoral college isn’t for subverting popularists that and neither are superdelegates.
Sanders lost the primary because democracy works, part of why Trump won the republican primary is because of the anti-democratic state by state winner takes all delegate system.
The Democrat primary needs more democracy to avoid someone like Trump, I’d do away with delegates entirely and subject a primary candidate to a popular vote of the party membership, not a mix of primaries to elect delegates, caucuses to elect delegates and self-acting delegates.
edited 26th Apr '18 6:23:31 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
The fact that it wasn't even needed is not evidence against reform, it simply shows that reform would be harmless.
It has already been explained why delegates are fundamentally useless and I have yet to hear any convincing arguments to the contrary. I for one would love an opportunity to remove a useful symbol for populists to rally against.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangPossibly/probably a minor thing, but it has been revealed that Paul Ryan asked the House chaplain to resign (after 7 years of service, and both sides of the aisle having nothing but positive things to say about him), and may have covered up the fact that he requested the resignation and tried to make it look like he just left.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/26/politics/house-chaplain-patrick-conroy-paul-ryan-resign/index.html
Because it’s a shitty system? Sure it didn’t cause any unfairness or harm in 2016, but it’s still shitty, same as the electoral college was still shitty in 2012 and 2008.
If it had provided some valuable service by protecting the Dems from popularism I’d get people defending it, but it didn’t, the Dems protected themselves by being well informed, the only thing the system does is make Dem primaries less democratic.
Sure it’s not some urgent matter, but it would be some good internal housekeeping to make primaries more democratic (which also means abolishing caucuses and maybe even the entire system of delegates picking the candidate).
edited 26th Apr '18 6:40:28 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

Mind if I borrow it?
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang