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}
My main issue with the Space Force proposal is that it's just way too much of a leap from our current institutions. Establishing a combatant command for space makes sense, and then evolving that into a new branch in the next 5-10 years also makes sense, but jumping straight to space force within a presidential term is just ridiculous.
We have a huge military presence in space, and it's not exaggeration to say that orbital control is critical to our military dominance on Earth. We're going to need a space force soon, but now is just not the time, and that's the opinion basically all military leadership has echoed.
It's obvious this is a publicity move right now.
Edited by archonspeaks on Aug 9th 2018 at 2:02:49 AM
They should have sent a poet.
"It's obvious this is a publicity move" kind of sums up the Trump regime in a nutshell.
Edited by Deadbeatloser22 on Aug 9th 2018 at 10:06:43 AM
"Yup. That tasted purple."
That's Trump's view of every god damn thing. This week, Trump tries to negotiate with North Korea. Next week, Trump picks a fight with Iran. What happens after? Who cares, it's a tv show and Trump's the star.
And then he throws a hissy fit when his 'show' doesn't get high ratings because of some other stupid thing he did. Like how separating children from they're parents overshadowed his NK Summit.
Sounds more like Trump doesn't just think he's in a TV show, he's in a TV show with Negative Continuity and can't comprehend that the people watching him are the type of viewers who will dissect every little thing and point out the plot holes.
Edited by sgamer82 on Aug 9th 2018 at 3:36:02 AM
Puerto Rico: 1,400 died from hurricane but toll still at 64
So yeah, looks like the coverup is falling apart.
"Yup. That tasted purple."
Was it ever put together in the first place?
The Dishonorable
And yet a disturbingly large number of Americans don't believe Puerto Ricans are Americans, let alone realize Puerto Rico is a US territory. So this won't hurt Trump and his cronies a bit.
Edited by Mario1995 on Aug 9th 2018 at 5:50:33 AM
"The devil's got all the good gear. What's God got? The Inspiral Carpets and nuns. Fuck that." - Liam Gallagher
While I am normally hesitant to take such a pessimistic tone I think you're probably right, sadly Puerto Rico just isn't news on the general public's radars.
They need to be made a state as soon as possible, we owe them that much and more.
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
Figure of Hourai
And yet apparently there's not enough evidence it wants to become a state.
Which certainly seems like a case of Honor Before Reason to me, because whatever the emotional arguments in favour of remaining a territory are, they're massively outweighed by the practical benefits of having that sort of representation within the legislative system.
Avatar Source
No there absolutely is enough evidence, they had a vote for statehood and it overwhelmingly passed. The only reason there is any question is because people who opposed statehood told their supporters to boycott the vote, thus cowardly sabotaged it.
If we had a Congress that cared about what they want in the slightest they would be working on making Puerto Rico a state, hopefully that can be done when there's a Democratic Congress.
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
There's questions about the legitimacy of that referendum, since turnout was so low.
23% of Puerto Ricans Vote in Referendum, 97% of Them for Statehood
With nearly all of the precincts reporting, 97 percent of the ballots cast were in favor of statehood, a landslide critics said indicated that only statehood supporters had turned out to the polls. Opposition parties who prefer independence or remaining a territory boycotted the special election, which they considered rigged in favor of statehood.
On an island where voter participation often hovers around 80 percent, just 23 percent of registered voters cast ballots. Voting stations accustomed to long lines were virtually empty on Sunday.
Puerto Rico’s governor, Ricardo A. Rosselló of the pro-statehood New Progressive Party, said he planned to take the victory to Washington and press Congress to admit Puerto Rico to the union.
Edited by megaeliz on Aug 9th 2018 at 6:24:03 AM
I completely reject that idea, in any democracy if you don't vote then you don't get a voice. The idea that because people were apathetic and thus didn't vote should invalidate the election is completely incoherent, if we used that logic many US elections should be declared invalid.
The only reason someone would politically question its legitimacy is if they just didn't want to admit Puerto Rico as a state.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 9th 2018 at 6:27:27 AM
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
If the process or campaign is rigged, boycotts are legit. Otherwise (such as that case); people need to get out and vote or shut the hell up about it.
Your friendly neighbourhood Regent
From the Other Wiki:
The referendum was boycotted by all the major parties against statehood for several reasons. One reason is that the title of the ballot asserted that Puerto Rico is a colony. The Popular Democratic Party (PPD) has historically rejected that notion. Similarly, under the option for maintaining the status quo, the ballot also asserted that Puerto Rico is subject to the plenary powers of the United States Congress, a notion also historically rejected by the PPD. Likewise, under the 'independence/free association' option, the ballot asserted that Puerto Rico must be a sovereign nation in order to enter into a compact of free association with the United States. Supporters of the free association movement reject this notion. Had these parties participated in the referendum, they claim it would mean they had accepted those assertions implicitly, regardless of whether the assertions were correct.
So... The situation is a mite more nuanced.
Edited by Robrecht on Aug 9th 2018 at 3:32:26 AM
Angry gets shit done.
Oh absolutely, that is the one time boycotts are justified.
They had no such excuse, they just wanted to drive down the voting numbers as low as possible to taint the referendum. Thus I completely oppose allowing them to win by treat the low turnout as relevant, when it comes to the legitimacy of elections it very much isn't.
Doesn't invalidate my point in the slightest, elections do not become illegitimate because parties refuse to engage in them. That is simply an invitation to abuse.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 9th 2018 at 6:34:57 AM
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
The Dishonorable
Maybe we should go the Australian route and make voting compulsory (i.e. a crime to not vote).
"The devil's got all the good gear. What's God got? The Inspiral Carpets and nuns. Fuck that." - Liam Gallagher
I believe that would run afoul of the 1st Amendment.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Figure of Hourai
I'm of the belief that votes should at least aim for something approaching a majority of the electorate when dealing with irreversible constitutional changes. A grand total of about 25% of the electorate is simply too low in my mind to claim you have a workable majority, even if that 25% is unanimous in its result.
Avatar Source
Even if it didn't unless we have some kind of holiday on the day of voting then it would greatly hurt poor people.
I hope the Democratic Party disagrees with you when they are back in power.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 9th 2018 at 6:37:06 AM
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
Your friendly neighbourhood Regent
It does if those parties refuse to engage in them because in order to vote they have to make concessions to the assertions of a rival party.
If I were asked to vote in the 'Has Robrecht stopped beating his wife yet?' referendum of 2018, I wouldn't turn up either. (And not just because I'm not married.)
Edited by Robrecht on Aug 9th 2018 at 3:39:33 AM
Angry gets shit done.
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
I'd like to verify the claims made in this article (particularly the ones emphasized in boldface).
That's remarkable. (Hat tip to Wa Po's James Hohmann for doing the math!) And it speaks to the fact that despite Trump's weak numbers among the general populace, he remains a massively powerful force within the GOP — someone who can make and break candidacies with a single tweet.
Take Tuesday night. Trump endorsed John James in Michigan's Republican Senate primary, Bill Schuette in the Michigan governor's race and Kris Kobach in the Kansas gubernatorial primary.
James, who had been considered an underdog prior to the Trump endorsement, won the right to face Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow. Schuette, the sitting attorney general, crushed the state's lieutenant governor and several other challengers for the right to take on Democratic former state Senate Majority Leader Gretchen Whitmer in the fall.
But Trump's biggest coup appears to be his endorsement of Kobach, the controversial secretary of state who currently holds a lead of fewer than 200 votes over appointed Gov. Jeff Colyer. (The race has not yet been called by CNN.) Kobach, who led Trump's short-lived commission to investigate electoral fraud, is a favorite of the state's Trump conservatives but viewed very, very suspiciously by the party's establishment. His victory, if it holds, would make the Kansas governor's race competitive.
Trump, never one to avoid the tooting of his own horn, tweeted this out on Wednesday morning: "5 for 5!" Presumably, that's a reference to Trump's endorsement record on Tuesday — counting Troy Balderson's apparent win in the Ohio congressional special election and Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley's easy win in the state's Senate primary race alongside Kobach, Schuette and James.
In a subsequent tweet, Trump offered his conclusion based on Tuesday's results:
"As long as I campaign and/or support Senate and House candidates (within reason), they will win! I LOVE the people, & they certainly seem to like the job I'm doing. If I find the time, in between China, Iran, the Economy and much more, which I must, we will have a giant Red Wave!"
That's not exactly the right conclusion, based on Trump's results. More accurately, the first line of that tweet would read: "As long as I campaign and/or support Senate and House candidates (within reason), they will win primaries."
What Tuesday (re)proved is that Trump has tremendous power to move Republican voters behind his preferred candidate. Without the Trump endorsement, there is no way James is the Senate nominee in Michigan. And Kobach almost certainly comes up short without Trump. (Schuette and Hawley likely win without Trump, although perhaps not by the same wide margins.)
This should not be surprising — as poll after poll has shown that Trump is among the most popular Republican presidents ever among Republicans. The latest Gallup weekly tracking poll showed that 89% of Republicans approved of the job he is doing. And that's in a poll in which Trump's overall approval among the broader electorate is just 41%!
Trump's takeover of the party is total. The Republican base is almost entirely aligned with him; those who cross Trump — especially people in the GOP — are made to feel the pain. (See: John Mc Cain, Jeff Flake, Bob Corker.)
The problem that takeover creates for Republicans less interested in adherence to Trump than in making Republican majorities as large as possible is that the candidates the President favors are not always the candidates best positioned to win in the fall.
Take Kobach. He's a deeply controversial figure in Kansas and someone who lots and lots of dyed-in-the-wool Kansas Republicans just plain don't trust or like. If he unseats Colyer for the Republican nomination, the Sunflower State governor's race has at least the potential of becoming a Democratic pickup, due to unrest within the GOP directed toward Kobach. (Worth noting: Kansans elected and re-elected a Democratic governor in 2002 and 2006 in the form of Kathleen Sebelius.)
This is the Trump paradox for Republicans. Break with him and risk being on the wrong side of a primary loss. Stick with him and run the risk of being dragged down by his unpopularity with everyone outside of the Republican base.
Tuesday night affirmed that new reality for Republicans, and the near-impossibility of successfully navigating it.
I completely disagree, if they wish to refuse to engage in the political process they should suffer the consequences. The precedent set by parties being able to make a election illegitimate simply by boycotting it is terrible and nothing good will come from supporting it.
I see no reason to see that as anything other than an excuse to not engage in the political process because they know they would've lost.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 9th 2018 at 6:47:36 AM
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
She/her
I agree with Robrecht. Referendums and ballot initiatives are supposed to be carefully written. If you inserted “Trump is the greatest president in the history of the nation” in front of a ballot initiative to ban gay marriage, that’d likely piss off LGBT folks and democrats and depress turnout. That doesn’t mean the initiative is therefore valid after only republicans show up to vote.
Edited by wisewillow on Aug 9th 2018 at 6:52:47 AM
Edited by CookingCat on Aug 9th 2018 at 2:05:39 AM