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
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
It's less the Obama administration in that terms than the Bush administration in that regards, and I didn't think that was a particularly controversial fact regarding that period; effective executive power was expanded, and it remains that way to this day, in no small part because the GOP refuses to play ball with the democrats.
I should also add once again that I voted for Clinton, and if you're blaming me for voting Sanders in the primaries then why the fuck does the party even have them?
edited 24th Jan '17 4:29:31 PM by CaptainCapsase
Lost in Space
If you voted for Clinton, then that's great. But all I hear from you is apologia for why the Democrats need to stop demonizing their political opponents, while simultaneously getting on the Democrats case for being too like the Republicans. My feeble mind can't grasp this contradiction.
You don't have to demonize your opposition, much less their voting base, to oppose them, going for the same tactics as the GOP will simply result in a perpetual and escalating deadlock which ends either with a dictatorship or a civil war, going off of the numerous examples of this sort of feedback loop in Latin America and in our own history during the leadup to the civil war.
edited 24th Jan '17 4:35:30 PM by CaptainCapsase
![[awesome]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/minis/award_star_gold_3.png "[awesome]"){kind=small}
[REDACTED]
I have some very serious and irreconcilable disagreements with Hillary's positions. Just because you don't disagree with her on these issues doesn't make my objections "superficial" in any way.
P.S. Also, screw accelerationism. I don't think I know anyone who sincerely advocates it.
edited 24th Jan '17 4:39:46 PM by henry42
One does not shake the box containing the sticky notes of doom!
Lost in Space
We've been trying to come to terms with the modern incarnation of the Republican Party for over 40 years. It has only gotten us burned. Obama started his term in office with direct overtures to the GOP leadership, and they called him the Antichrist. Literally. At a certain point even a child can learn that there's no point in trying any more.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Quoth myself:
Which is the flaw with your argument, Capsase. You haven't given us any reason to believe the GOP isn't objectively worse. In fact, you've tacitly implied that they are. Why should we seek to end partisanship, which may cause a dictatorship in the future, when partisanship is currently the main defence against an incoming dictatorship?
Lost in Space
There's a saying about the definition of insanity that applies here. Insanity is treating the Republican Party like it cares about governance — like it can be induced to care through compromise and dialogue. Clearly it does not, as ought to be patent to anyone with eyes and a brain.
edited 24th Jan '17 4:46:50 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Compromise where we are prepared to compromise, stand out ground where compromise is unacceptable. Be more nuanced than simply becoming the party of "no". That's what I want of democratic lawmakers, in terms of how they carry out the business of governing.
use political terms to describe, not insult
Whatever is necessary to keep democratic institutions intact; combating policy that further erodes those must take the highest priority. Note that I'm talking about compromise with the GOP, not with Trump; unless Republican lawmakers turn against him, he'll have free reign for the next four years.
edited 24th Jan '17 4:59:23 PM by CaptainCapsase
Lost in Space
Would you please be specific? You keep demanding rigor of us; return the favor.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Yeah, that's the kind of 'sounds good on paper' bipartisanship I was talking about. And, well, with the ways thing look at moment, compromise on the things where that can afforded in a given, and we'd be lucky if we manage to hold our ground on the things where we can't. So a certain amount of focus on that second bit is warranted.
I'd be willing to take welfare cuts and top level tax cuts-ie the thing that the party's elite backers actually care about-if that's enough to get the GOP to put their foot down against Trump if not outright impeach him.
edited 24th Jan '17 5:01:13 PM by CaptainCapsase
Lost in Space
Democrats would not accept welfare cuts, so I think you're not going to achieve anything there. Also, that's rather cruel to welfare recipients...
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Jake Tapper laying down the Truth Bombs!
Those welfare and tax cuts are happening anyway, it'll just take a bit longer if the democrats fight hard to block it. It's cruel to welfare recipients, but allowing Trump to consolidate his clique's power and creating a precedent for a President de facto ruling by decree will have far worse long term consequences.
edited 24th Jan '17 5:04:34 PM by CaptainCapsase
I would also accept that, if that was the trade being offered. But would they offer that trade when they get those things done by not putting their foot down against Trump?
edited 24th Jan '17 5:04:43 PM by Gilphon
It's official - the Fuhrer has signed an executive order that would restrict immigration from heavily-Muslim countries.
Also, I don't know if this was mentioned or not, but Dems have introduced a bill (cosponsored by Ted Lieu, who's been getting some attention these days) that would restrict the Fuhrer's use of nuclear weapons. FOR GOD'S SAKE, PEOPLE, PASS THIS BILL.
use political terms to describe, not insult
x9 Can you name any point in particular you propose to use to achieve the compromise?
Also, since I'm here, I have a question for the thread:
It has been said a few times here that there's roughly three types of GOP voters (some of course belong to more than one group): The personally racist ones, the rich/plutocrats and the people who're "trapped" in the right-wing media disinformation bubble, but would otherwise be nice people in a one-on-one conversation. Would anyone be opposed to trying to reach that third group (read: the part of it that's not also in group 1)? and how can the disinformation bubble be broken?
edited 24th Jan '17 5:04:30 PM by IFwanderer
1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KV
I like how Jake Tapper in opens with "the fiction that so many people voted illegally"
[REDACTED]
If anything, I think that welfare the last thing Democrats should compromise with Republicans on. In fact, I think that even the Democrats are often too stingy about welfare.
edited 24th Jan '17 5:06:10 PM by henry42
One does not shake the box containing the sticky notes of doom!
Asgore Adopts Noelle
That's a real shame. So many poor people have one less place to get to, to escape their hell hole. I guess the Statue of Liberty isn't going to stand for long now...
edited 24th Jan '17 5:07:01 PM by DingoWalley1
I mean, liking the Democratic party at least enough to vote for them is pretty much the most obvious and most effective way to fight the alt-right, so I don't have any sympathy for that statement, Henry. There's a time to focus on disagreements you might have with them, but when the choice is between them and literal Nazis, it is not the right time for that.