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
One of Alex Jones' Twitter accounts (his main one, I believe) was suspended for a week after they deemed a video he linked to violated their rules on abusive behavior.
Better than nothing I suppose, but the article mentions that he's all but committing ban evasion by simply using other accounts.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-45193902
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
That's the option I'm somewhat resigned to, though it would require a concerted "shock and awe" campaign of gerrymandering, court packing, and other hardball tactics over the course of a very short window before the GOP (and the electorate) could adequately respond to the power grab. Meanwhile the end result is a (de-facto) single-party democracy in the vein of Japan, which is not exactly ideal, but it may be preferable to the alternative.
Edited by CaptainCapsase on Aug 15th 2018 at 9:59:32 AM
You misunderstand, it's not a power-grab.
Our democracy would not be compromised and would likely become more democratic as we're allowed to force through legislation that removes gerrymandering and other forms of voter suppression.
I think it would be possibly easy to justify when the Supreme Court inevitably shoots down any popular legislation, like say Medicare for All. Their power lies solely in popular legitimacy and thus if they're controlled by ideologues (as they like will be) then it will evaporate when they behave as ideologues tend to do.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 15th 2018 at 10:00:27 AM
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
Would that it were so simple.
The Democrats absolutely need to play a little dirtier, if only because stopping Republican policy is so important in the present, but I think any discussion of Hillary's 2016 platform as being "insufficient" is both wrong, and also wishful thinking in that it tries to fit the political paradigm of 2018 into the political reality of 2016. Trump's election, the Democrats' route, and the subsequent administration managing to exceed all others in incompetence and corruption have done a huge amount of creative destruction. Ideas and policies that would have been unthinkable two years ago are now platform positions, candidates that would have been impossibilities in 2016 are nominees in 2018, protest culture is being revived, the alt-right lost all of its media luster, and we have even sealed our grasp on Gen Z with the aftermath of Parkland, with Trump's presidency chainsawing any hope of a future conservative next generation.
"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."
If that's the route we go down there's no option other than a full on legislative coup*, because without those consensus forcing safeguards, the GOP can never be allowed to return to power in Washington under any circumstances, because that would most result in them imposing an outright dictatorship.
* Albeit one that's technically not unconstitutional.
Edited by CaptainCapsase on Aug 15th 2018 at 10:05:52 AM
A procrastination in of itself
X6 See now here’s the split I see come up time and time again.
I don’t see any of the suggestions being made there as dirty. Statehood for D.C. and Purto Rico? Sounds good to me. Breaking up Calafornia into multiple states? Honestly there’s a solid agreement for that and if the people agree than there’s nothing dirty about it. Killing the filibuster? It is an inherently anti-democratic thing that exists to block progress. Balancing out the courts to better represent democratic popularity instead of Republican good timing? Perfectly fair.
I’d go further, if the Dems are able to retake the Senate in November don’t hold hearings on a single person that Trump nominates without Democrat signoff. No federal judges, no supreme court seats, no cabinet members, nothing. Full investigations into Trump’s Russia ties, voter suppression, personal enrichment, ect...
Playing hardball isn’t playing dirty, playing dirty is when we cheat (so gerrymandering), it’s not cheating to use the tools at hand to properly represent the will of the people.
We can win at a fair game, it’s not cheating to force the other guy to play fair.
Edited by Silasw on Aug 15th 2018 at 2:08:16 PM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
I disagree.
On the filibuster yes that would allow them to pass things more easily but if those legislation are bad enough then we'll see electoral consequences for them, ultimately the filibuster has merely been a tool to benefit conservatives and reactionaries while obstructing progressives. It's not like it has stopped them from causing damage.
Furthermore with the Supreme Court it could lead to an arm's race that leads to the court being depowered, but frankly I view that as a win. The Supreme Court has also been a tool of reactionaries to hold back change and thus there is a strong argument to be made that it shouldn't be nearly as powerful as it is.
So no there is no need for a coup of any sort.
Excellent point, it's nit actually cheating or fighting especially dirty when the tools used are perfectly legal.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 15th 2018 at 10:09:07 AM
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
, The American politic system is heavily dependent on unwritten norms of conduct in Washington, that's what's prevented the system from suffering the same fate as the numerous Presidential democracies in Latin American based on the American model. It's not illegal to pack the court, gerrymander electoral districts, or remove safeguards against a party acting unilaterally without overwhelming majorities, but throwing those norms out the window means the GOP (or a hypothetical new opposition party born out of a GOP implosion) will be emboldened to escalate things further in response (and possibly into the realm of the unconstitutional), which is why, if we opt to cross the Rubicon here, the Republican party can not be allowed back into power in Washington under any circumstances.
Edited by CaptainCapsase on Aug 15th 2018 at 10:16:59 AM
A procrastination in of itself
A leglistlstive coup would be impeaching a Republican President for no real reason.
That’s never going to happen, for the simple fact that there are entierly legitimate grounds to impeach Trump. Here’s the thing, if the GOP can get someone elected president who isn’t a dirty rat that’s commited nurorous crimes against the state than they can stay, but that’s never going to happen with the current GOP, they’ll never nominated someone who hasn’t got a laundry list of legitimate reasons to be impeached.
This just reminds me of the questions about what Dems should do if Trump were to put foward leglistlstion that would help people have make the world a better place. Support it and give Trump a win or block it and hurt people?
I said at the time that said choice would never happen and it never did, because Trump and the current Republican Party are incapable of putting foward such leglistlation.
“Should the Dems impeach an innocent Republican President” is an oxymoron of a question, given the current state of the GOP, because they aren’t going to elect or nominate an innocent person any time soon.
Oh yeah it’s a one shot deal, once the Republicans realise that the Dems aren’t pissing about there’s no going back, but I honestly think that between an end to gerrymandering, the restoration of the voting rights act and statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico the Dems can secure democracy, not democracy under the Dems as a single party state (we don’t want that), but democracy.
Edited by Silasw on Aug 15th 2018 at 2:21:11 PM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
And I'm saying that those things have already been broken or don't matter, the idea that parties should only be able to do major legislation if they have a overwhelmingly majority is a reactionary rule that merely hinders progressivism.
Furthermore packing the court need not inevitably end in authoritarianism, especially not when we want to reduce things like Gerrymandering and voter suppression.
I still don't see any reason that must result in a one party state.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 15th 2018 at 10:21:35 AM
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
@Silas: Without the norms of forbearance and bipartisanship out the window, you'd likely have the same problem with any new opposition party, and our politics would start looking increasingly like that of a Latin American Presidential democracy.
Edited by CaptainCapsase on Aug 15th 2018 at 10:29:43 AM
What forbearance? What biparitsanship? The Republicans have decided quite a while ago (and it crystallized under Obama) that no Democratic President is legitimate. You're talking about norms that don't actually exist, not to mention that the Republicans are already aiming to build a one party state.
I think you are drastically overstating how likely the odds of such action leading authoritarianism are.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 15th 2018 at 10:41:00 AM
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
Lost in Space
The problem is that there's nothing magic about the Democratic Party that makes it immune to authoritarianism and bubble thinking. One of the noted problems with the Obama White House was that he trusted very few people to give sound advice and so surrounded himself with policy advisers who created a protected sphere that outside thought penetrated very slowly. Thus he largely missed out on orthodox opinions telling him that his economic relief plans were inadequate or that there would be such a savage GOP backlash against PPACA, among other things.
We cannot count on Democrats, having seized power and reworked the systems of governance to tear down Republican opposition, remaining on the good side.
Edited by Fighteer on Aug 15th 2018 at 10:50:11 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
A procrastination in of itself
That’s why people have to stay engaged and manage how this is done, it’s a fine line between playing hardball and cheating, people have to ensure that the Dems don’t step over that line.
Democrats shouldn’t at any point stop treating Republicans fairly, they just need to stop rewarding bad conduct. The GOP will either die and be replaced by other parties willing to act fairly (and thus benefit from the system) or adapt and become a party that benefits from engagement of the population and the existence of democratic principles.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Exactly this, with an engaged base and activist class there is no reason that Democrats should be particularly likely to slide into authoritarianism.
Thus in the name of society and our democracy we should fight "dirty" to make a better and fairer nation.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 15th 2018 at 10:58:16 AM
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
As terrible as that is it's impressive that 46% disagree, especially when one keeps in mind that current Republicans are those who have not abandoned their party and thus to some degree self-select.
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
Does fox news count as news media or is it ok because it say what they want to hear.
ANY percentage of people who agree a free press is the enemy of the people is too high.
These people have no idea what they're unleashing.
Edited by speedyboris on Aug 15th 2018 at 11:26:48 AM
I mean... that's not really a reasonable standard.
We don't have a hive mind and as such there will always be at-least 1% of people who are authoritarian, that can't really be avoided.
All the same obviously that is way too high and thus is unacceptable but I just can't agree with your position. It's just not realistic.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 15th 2018 at 12:27:44 PM
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
I guarantee you that Fox News isn't counted when they say the news media is the enemy. Fox is the Way, the Truth and the Life for these people.
Oh no doubt, count Breitbart with that too.
They hate any media that is even slightly critical of Trump and the Republicans (but I repeat myself).
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
Like reflections in the glass!
I wonder if Fox News can get away with changing its genre to "lifestyle" without changing any of its programs (or name)?
Lost in Space
Obama might have had an option to have Fox News disbarred as a "news" network by the FCC, but demurred on First Amendment grounds. When you take the high road and your opponents take the low...
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Or the Democrats can eliminate the filibuster and pass their legislation, while also packing the court to work on removing the voter suppression methods that give the Republicans such disproportionate power.
Extreme? Yes but that doesn't mean it's wrong, the filibuster has stood in the way of progress while doing nothing to stop the deprecation of the Republicans. It did not stop the Tax Bill and the their health bill was stopped by their lack of unity.
By doing both of those things we can deal with some of the major structural issues in the nation and thus reduce the chances of the Republicans coming back to power at the extent that they are now. It wouldn't magically solve everything but if we're going to put the country on the right track then the Democrats need to take the gloves off.
Vox has an excellent article on it, Why this political scientist thinks the Democrats have to fight dirty
.
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn