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
Lost in Space
That's a consistent theme on the right: they must simultaneously represent the majority of Americans, who all agree with them in their hearts even if they don't feel empowered to declare it openly, and be under attack from the "mainstream", which is controlled by shadowy cabals of leftist elites.
The cognitive dissonance required to believe both things simultaneously is something they learn to live with.
Edited by Fighteer on Aug 15th 2018 at 12:50:59 PM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Such is the disease of populism, you have to be the plucky rebel fighting against the establishment even when you are a big part the establishment.
They need their Implausibly Powerful Amorphous Enemy (TM) to oppose.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 15th 2018 at 12:50:15 PM
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
“That's a consistent theme on the right: they must simultaneously represent the majority of Americans, who all agree with them in their hearts even if they don't feel empowered to declare it openly, and be under attack from the "mainstream", which is controlled by shadowy cabals of leftist elites.“
Well switch a few words around and you’ve got the fundamentals for all propaganda.
The results for the MN primaries are in. Unfortunately, none of my picks made the cut, though I will vote (D) in all possible categories in November regardless.
More importantly, Tim Pawlenty, former governor of MN, lost to Jeff Johnson. Just reading over his stances, he looks like yet another Trump-ite. And Trump just gave him his full endorsement, so there's that.
The lesson seems to be, if you try to be a moderate Republican like Pawlenty, you're going to lose. Lovely.
Edited by speedyboris on Aug 15th 2018 at 1:11:08 PM
Yeah, I've been pretty confused about that when people bring things up as "dirty". When so many of the things the opposition does are blatantly anti-democratic and only for the enrichment of their power to the detriment of everything else, I don't see how going "Hey, let's cut that out." is being dirty.
I'm sure there are ways the Democrats can play dirty, but most of the stuff normally brought up isn't that. And then when you have stuff like that guy in the thread who went on about how we have to make it impossible for Republicans to vote they were rightly shut-down so I'm not too worried about it.
Breaking up California would be a massive monetary and administrative burden in the short and medium terms, and that's assuming that the benefits some people promise will actually manifest at all.
A new CNN poll has the Democrats with a ~10% edge over the Republicans in generic ballot samplings. However, only 40% of respondents think that the Democrats will take control of Congress, with a majority predicting total Republican control (single digit % are calling for a split Congress, which is a very likely outcome). Democrats remain enthusiastic, so maybe we'll see a repeat of Trump's supporters; in that they think that their side is unlikely to win but vote anyway to try and shift the odds.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/15/politics/democratic-generic-ballot-advantage/index.html
More good polling news from Gallup, albeit as a single data point, Trump's weekly approval is below 40% for the first time since April.
Edited by Rationalinsanity on Aug 15th 2018 at 3:19:29 PM
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
She/her
Just FYI, breaking up California is a Republican proposal. There’s Republican chunks of the state who get outnumbered in statewide elections and the electoral college (like Democrat areas in Texas).
Chopping those Republican areas into two new states would mean four more Republican senators and god knows how many Republican congressional representatives.
Edited by wisewillow on Aug 15th 2018 at 2:29:57 PM
It depends on how you draw the borders; you could draw the borders to effectively gerrymander the state lines, for example.
That to, we've discussed that in detail, so I just wanted to mention the other issues with that plot.
She/her
That’s theoretically true, but the only ones to propose splitting up California are typically republicans.
Edited by wisewillow on Aug 15th 2018 at 2:33:57 PM
Since we mentioned the mentality of Trump-publicans, this seemed appropriate
×11, ×12
When feeling entitled to power as representatives of the Real People™, we’re frustrated that while we hold public power in the land we can’t do all things we want or get away with everything, so it must be because them still have an occult power which we must extirpate, and nothing but Absolute Power™ which is rightfully ours, will do.
Edited by AlityrosThePhilosopher on Aug 15th 2018 at 6:37:23 PM
Just as my freedom ends where yours begins my tolerance of you ends where your intolerance toward me begins. As told by an old friend
Like reflections in the glass!
I'd rather wait until most of California is generally more liberal across the board before considering splitting up the state. For one, as already mentioned, most of the people suggesting this are Republicans, Given Cali's status as a democratic stronghold, this is a classic divide and conquer tactic.
if we must split up a state, how about Texas? Splitting up a Republican stronghold would benefit Democrats more than splitting up a state that is already a lock for Democrats.
![[down]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_down.png "[down]"){kind=icon}
I think the video's a response to the NM Primary results, where a moderate Republican lost to yet another Trumpeter of doom.
Edited by MorningStar1337 on Aug 15th 2018 at 11:53:37 AM
I can't click and watch and that post is lacking context, so why is it appropriate?
Also
"Trump revokes security clearance of former CIA director Brennan: White House" - http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-brennan/trump-revokes-security-clearance-of-former-cia-director-brennan-white-house-idUSKBN1L01ZA
Edited by sgamer82 on Aug 15th 2018 at 12:53:14 PM
it’s a parody of “I believe” from Book of Mormon, “I am a trumpster!”
It’s pretty funny
I sort of feel like reducing potentially breaking up a state into "will it benefit the Republicans or Democrats?" is (sort of) ignoring the larger point of "Is that what the people living there actually want?"
Edited by LSBK on Aug 15th 2018 at 2:10:35 PM
So he's revoking clearance now...
B-but...Paul Ryan said that Trump was only trolling! How could this happen?
She/her
Oh, agreed- but that was tangential to the overall discussion of possible changes to the electoral process.
If I had my druthers, we’d do mandatory voting, your voter registration would be updated every time you interact with the state or federal government, and we’d do mail in paper ballots with adequate time to research candidates, plus fail-safe measures to ensure that people who move frequently or are homeless still get ballots.
The Mod with the Migraine
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history." - Dwight Eisenhower
... Anyone check to see how fast he's spinning in his grave at the desecration of his political party?
That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw
Like reflections in the glass!
Considering how Einsenhower's name is not "Donald J Trump" I thoroughly expect some Republicans to claim that "Eisenhower isn't a 'real' Republican"
Extremely ironic that the Republican party was created by Abraham Lincoln, I can only imagine what he'd think of it now.
Eisenhower was surprisingly prescient on a lot of things, despite his issues.
His comments on the military-industrial complex ring particularly true.
They should have sent a poet.
Asgore Adopts Noelle
x2 Correction; the Republican Party was created by Anti-Popular Sovereignty (of Slavery in the newly acquired Western Territory) Whigs and Northern Democrats. Abraham Lincoln was simply their first Presidential Candidate to win (not even their first Candidate; John C. Fremont ran in 1856 and got a number of northern States). In essence, Lincoln was the Trope Codifier of the Republican Party (or, the early Republican Party).
But the Anti-Nebraska (Act) founders of the Party would most likely be in the same boat the Republicans are now; the Know Nothing Faction (a minority even with the founding) would be basking in Trump's glow (as they are now), while the Northern Faction would simply focus on the issues and try to ignore the things they vehemently disagree on Trump with (like they did with Lincoln and, up to a point, Johnson).
Edited by DingoWalley1 on Aug 15th 2018 at 4:24:02 AM
Student of Story
Two articles from The Post that caught my eye:
There's a new litmus test to see if you're Republican enough: did you back Trump when the Access Hollywood tape broke in 2016? (Note: opinion column)
Long story short, anyone who criticized Trump over the Access Hollywood tape is being attacked by Republican rivals in the primaries, and being cast as disloyal cowards for not having Trump's back at the time, and being failures to conservatism considering the stakes of the election. And many of those who dared to criticize Trump are losing primaries this year.
Several sections bolded for emphasis.
Beyond this, Pawlenty’s loss provides a useful way to try to understand what is happening in the GOP of the Trump era. After it happened, Pawlenty told reporters:
“The Republican Party has shifted. It is the era of Trump and I’m just not a Trump-like politician.”
The phrase “Trump-like politician,” it turns out, is basically a euphemism for a “politician who is willing to defend President Trump at his most reprehensible moments.” The man who decisively defeated Pawlenty, local commissioner Jeff Johnson, actually ran an ad that blasted Pawlenty for failing to stand by Trump after the news broke of the “Access Hollywood” video, which featured Trump boasting in extremely lewd fashion about his ability to carry out sexual assaults with impunity.
Johnson’s ad hits Pawlenty for calling Trump “unhinged and unfit to be president,” just weeks before the 2016 election, a reference to the statement that Pawlenty put out after the “Access Hollywood” news broke. In the ad, Johnson then says, “When the Supreme Court and our economy were on the line, Tim Pawlenty stuck his finger in the wind,” before declaring himself the real “conservative” in the race and promising not to “panic when it matters most”:
It turns out that this is part of a pattern. As a Democratic operative points out to me, multiple Republican candidates have been placed on the defensive during this cycle for the same thing: failing to support Trump not just in a general sense, but more precisely for failing to support Trump when the “Access Hollywood” tape surfaced.
In the Michigan gubernatorial primary, for instance, Trump’s pick — Attorney General Bill Schuette — hammered his opponent, Lt. Gov. Brian Calley, specifically for pulling his support for Trump when the tape became public. “You deserted Trump,” Schuette said. “The president knows who was with him and who was not.” (Schuette went on to win the primary.)
Notably, Schuette ran an ad on this that used almost exactly the same language that Johnson’s ad did in Minnesota. “With the White House and Supreme Court hanging on the line,” Schuette’s ad said, “Brian Calley deserted Donald Trump.”
In Florida, GOP gubernatorial candidate Adam Putnam recently came under fire for displaying insufficient loyalty to Trump, and a key point against Putnam was his heretical description of Trump’s “Access Hollywood” tape behavior as “vile and obscene.” Primary opponent Ron De Santis seized on those comments, hammering Putnam for criticizing Trump “when we were trying to beat Hillary Clinton.”
...
In most of these cases, the offending act was not merely a personal betrayal of Trump. More precisely, the offending act was to display weakness — in the face of widespread moral condemnation of Trump’s reprehensible misogynistic boasting over his dalliances into sexual abuse and assault — when the stakes were high enough to demand fortitude in response to that condemnation.
In both ads cited above, the disloyal Republican was condemned for going weak-kneed when the Supreme Court (and with it, long-term conservative priorities) were “on the line.” As the ad from Johnson (who won in Minnesota) noted, it was a mark of him being a true “conservative” that he did not “panic when it matters most.”
Reflecting on Pawlenty’s loss, Post reporter Robert Costa noted that it signals the degree to which Trump has “transformed” the GOP, with the result that above all, GOP voters want “solidarity in grievance.” In a way, you can square this with the idea that deserting Trump in the face of the “Access Hollywood” tape has emerged in some quarters of today’s GOP as a badge of shame. When Trump is under fire in moments like this, the important fact about it is not what Trump did. It’s the liberal media establishment’s agenda in victimizing him for it as part of the broader project of trying to destroy conservatism.
Remember, this is exactly how Stephen K. Bannon, the keeper of the flame of Trumpism, built a new narrative to try to rescue failed Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore against abuse allegations. As one Bannon ally told Joshua Green at the time, the claims of numerous credible victims of Moore’s alleged sexually predatory behavior actually constituted “a missile launched at the conservative movement by the mainstream media.”
"Remember, it's not about what one of our guys actually did, it's about how someone else is victimizing us by criticizing us for it" sounds like a pretty decent summation of the Trump era GOP.
It's also a reminder, I think, why leftists can't hold out for nothing but perfection when it come to politics. You can't keep your hands perfectly clean, you can't wait for just the perfect candidates who exactly reflect what you want and how you want it to be said when the other side is working specifically to harm you, and is willing to stoop to any depth to do it. If you want to make any progress in the face of that kind of opposition, you have to be willing to get down, and you have to be willing to be eternally vigilant, not hope that one vote or one cash donation to your own personal favorite politician solves everything.
The other article from The Post is another one about ICE to get the blood boiling. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is conspiring with ICE to inform ICE when legal immigrants are present to work towards becoming citizens so ICE can detain them according to the ACLU
All they had to do was prove their marriage was legitimate, the first step on a long path toward a green card. They brought family photographs, their children’s birth certificates and their marriage documents. Luis was a U.S. citizen. Calderon was undocumented. She had been brought to the United States illegally from Guatemala when she was 3.
The interviews were quick and painless. Calderon’s included “football banter,” she said.
But then ICE showed up — and it was quickly clear to Calderon that she would not be returning home to her daughter.
The 30-year-old mother of two wound up handcuffed and then detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for nearly a month, capturing the attention of the ACLU and leading to a class-action lawsuit over what attorneys have described as a “cruel bait and switch” arrest operation. According to emails between federal officials unsealed in federal court documents this week, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had been coordinating with ICE to alert the agency when certain immigrants eligible for deportation showed up at the CIS office for routine interviews.
The ACLU of Massachusetts is accusing the agencies of conspiring to “trap” unsuspecting immigrants on a path toward legal permanent residency by inviting them to these interviews only for ICE to arrest them there. This happened to at least 17 people in 2018 including Calderon, although only 13 qualify as members of the class, according to the lawsuit. The ACLU argues this violates their rights to due process and the Immigration Nationality Act, among other things, for detaining the immigrants before they’ve had a chance to complete the process for seeking legal status.
ICE’s Boston field office spokesman, John Mohan, said in a statement Wednesday morning that any allegations of “inappropriate coordination” between the agencies were “unfounded.”
“This routine coordination within the Department of Homeland Security, not unlike the cooperative efforts we maintain with many other federal partners, is lawful and legitimate in the work we do to uphold our nation’s immigration laws,” Mohan said.
Emails between the agencies released Tuesday show USCIS employees scheduling interviews with certain married couples or other family members around ICE agents’ availability. When immigrants and their spouses or family members showed up, USCIS employees would alert ICE. If ICE agents were running late, ICE would ask USCIS to reschedule the interviews to accommodate them.
One ICE agent appeared to prefer scheduling the arrests to avoid drawing media attention.
“As far as scheduling goes, I would prefer not to do them all at one time as it is not only a strain on our ability to transport and process several arrests at once, but it also has the potential to be a trigger for negative media interest, as we have seen in the past,” Andrew Graham, an ICE officer in the fugitive operations division, wrote in an October 2017 email included in court documents. “If you have the availability to schedule one or two at a time and spread them apart, that works best for us.”
At the very least, this particular department of ICE must be disbanded, and ever single person who had any part in its actions must be blacklisted from federal level law enforcement. Not a single one of them is worthy of the office they currently hold.
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
Speaking of, it is baffling whenever the Fox News hosts speak derisively about the "mainstream media". That network frequently is #1 in viewership of cable news. They ARE the mainstream media.
...Which is another problem, but point is, they're not some underground pirate station trying to get the message out there that "the man" doesn't want you to hear.