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}
Republicans' strategy of fomenting distrust in news media and official reports while at the same time churning out so much propaganda of how great the Republican Party is doing possibly coming back to bite them in the ass? Delicious, delicious karma.
Seriously, it'd be a great combination of voter apathy ("This candidate sucks, I don't really want to vote for them") and false assurance ("We're doing pretty well, no need to force myself to go out and vote") that could very well give us an extra boost in the midterms.
Edited by danime91 on Sep 18th 2018 at 4:09:04 AM
Other than voter suppression and Russian and others meddling, wasn't voter apathy part of what lost us the last presidential election as well?
Edited by megaeliz on Sep 18th 2018 at 7:23:32 AM
Beautiful, it will be especially ironic if this costs them the midterms considering that quite a few people on the Democrat's side seem hung up over the specter of Democratic voters getting complacent.
Low voter turnout cost us the election, now it may have been because of complacency or it could've been more from the fact that it was a vicious campaign that involved two very unpopular figures.
I'm not sure which (or both) is responsible.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Sep 18th 2018 at 7:20:10 AM
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
I would love it if the right-wing media's embrace of "fake news" came back to bite the GOP in its rancid ass.
Edited by BearyScary on Sep 18th 2018 at 3:19:01 AM
I liked it better when Questionable Casting was called WTH Casting Agency
Is there any way we could see a reduction in that kind of political see-sawing in such a polarized environment? Or are we trapped in this Self feedback loop of reactionary hell forever?
I'm 19, and don't really remember a time when there hasn't been political gridlock in congress.
Edited by megaeliz on Sep 18th 2018 at 7:29:34 AM
Completely avoid it? No.
But Five Thirty Eight gave Clinton a 70% chance of winning and considering that I have no reason to doubt them I think that's strong evidence that winning elections like 2016 are more than possible.
But yes in the long term the only way Republicans aren't going to get back into power is if they face decades long electoral marginalization, which probably isn't impossible but it's not something to expect or seriously hope for.
As someone who's 21 I know exactly what you mean.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Sep 18th 2018 at 7:31:54 AM
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
It's kind of depressing to think that this is literally all we know.
Is there any wonder our generation was the least politically active, when this is what we grew up with?
Watergate looks puny in comparison.
I mean, Wiretapping and stealing documents from the Democratic National Committee's headquarters? Come on, now we get them through Russian Hacking!
Edited by megaeliz on Sep 18th 2018 at 7:42:46 AM
Figure of Hourai
I highly doubt Trump is as complicit in this as Nixon was in Watergate, I wouldn't call this bigger.
Avatar Source
Really good Letter to the editor in The NY Times about the Manafort deal, from a retired federal prosecutor.
In my 25 years as a federal prosecutor, I cut hundreds of cooperation deals. A prosecutor does not agree to recommend a lower sentence unless the defendant has something the prosecutor wants. So Mr. Manafort must hold the key to an especially shiny object in Robert Mueller’s sights.
I say “especially shiny” because Mr. Manafort’s circumstances would make most prosecutors say “no way” to Mr. Manafort’s request for a cooperation deal.
First, few things make the hair on the back of a prosecutor’s neck stand up more quickly than when a defendant threatens or tampers with a prosecutor’s witnesses. Mr. Manafort’s early introduction to prison life came when his bond was canceled for tampering with two prosecution witnesses.
Second, Mr. Manafort pleaded guilty on the eve of his second trial. By this time, the prosecutors had already prepared their exhibits, witnesses and arguments. So offering a cooperation deal immediately before trial is a rarity, especially in a case that appears so strong it has been described as “bulletproof.”
Before federal prosecutors offer a cooperation deal, they generally interview the defendant to get a preview of what he has to offer — sort of like a coming attraction. If life is like a box of chocolates, prosecutors are like skeptical moviegoers who do not want to buy a ticket unless they know the movie will be worth the money. A prosecutor will not offer a cooperation deal unless he knows the defendant has information that will assist in the prosecution of other criminals.
Until new indictments are released, or court filings offer a clue, or Mr. Manafort testifies at a public proceeding, we will not know the exact shape of his cooperation. But whatever Paul Manafort has offered the special counsel in exchange for his last-minute cooperation deal, it must be good. It must be really good.
Michael J. Stern
- Los Angeles
The writer was a federal prosecutor with the Justice Department.
The sense I’m getting is that the circumstances around the plea deal are more unusual, than the plea deal itself.
Edited by megaeliz on Sep 18th 2018 at 10:52:24 AM
A procrastination in of itself
I wonder if he offered up not just evidence to be added to the pile against Trump but also enough for a serious case against other big players.
Dear god, imagine if he has records (tapes, emails, whatever) of the Trump Tower meeting, if he brings down the other meeting atendants that would be huge.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
For a prosecutor to accept a plea deal just before the start of a trial, and after two witness tampering attempts, it would have had to be absolutely exceptional circumstances, especially for such a notoriously by-the-book one as Mueller.
Edited by megaeliz on Sep 18th 2018 at 9:56:49 AM
https://twitter.com/natashabertrand/status/1042202642414481408?s=21
I'm referring specifically to the Republicans being afflicted with voter apathy this time. If the party continues to field absolutely horrendous candidates, that combined with a lack of urgency of an impending blue wave could possibly make more moderate Republican voters not vote.
Oh, bother.
I wouldn't count on voter apathy affecting GOP voters in a significant manner. These people will vote even if they don't like their candidate very much because "fuck liberals". And racism. Don't forget the racism. Hatred is a powerful motivator. There's also free market fundamentalism to consider.
These people, for all their flaws, understand that a vote is power. And they will not give that power up.
Then again, in a close election it doesn't have to be significant. A few GOP voters staying home could mean the difference between a Red or a Blue district.
Edited by M84 on Sep 18th 2018 at 11:19:11 PM
Disgusted, but not surprised
They literally don't believe that there's any reason for them to worry, because of their distrust of objective polling and the news media.
How many "moderate" Republicans are left, even?
At this point, if they haven't jumped ship at this point, I figure either actually legitimately like Trump, and all that he stands for, or are living in willful denial.
Edited by megaeliz on Sep 18th 2018 at 11:54:16 AM
Or they simply live in a propaganda bubble. Though in this case they are incompetent for their job anyway.
Edited by Swanpride on Sep 18th 2018 at 10:36:51 AM
I know a few people like that, actually.
I actually managed to get one of my friends out of one of those a bit, last year. In something that I still struggle to get my head around, he told me that he didn't want to have friendships with other boys, because that would make him him Gay or some crap like that. I quickly set him straight. (no pun intended)
His mom sounds like a right wing Fox News and Brietbart loving conspiracy nut, but luckily, he wasn't really convinced of it himself, so it was easier.
He's in an Intel major, but judging from my conversation with him, they seem to be missing a few crucial things that should probably be taught.
Edited by megaeliz on Sep 19th 2018 at 3:35:12 PM
Trump Education Department adopts controversial definition of anti-Semitism
— The policy change was outlined in a letter last month by Kenneth Marcus, who leads the department’s Office for Civil Rights, in which he re-opened a 2011 investigation into Rutgers University about alleged discrimination against Jewish students. Marcus wrote that the Education Department, in its investigations into discrimination, would adopt the “working definition” of anti-Semitism that is “widely used by governmental agencies” including the State Department. That definition includes examples in which demonizing or delegitimizing Israel, or holding it to a double standard not expected of other democratic nations, are deemed anti-Semitic.
— The Obama administration closed the Rutgers case in 2014 citing insufficient evidence of discrimination. Marcus' letter says the department will now reevaluate the evidence “in light of the definition of anti-Semitism.” Investigators will seek to determine, Marcus wrote, “whether a hostile environment on the basis of national origin or race existed at the University for students of actual or perceived Jewish ancestry or ethnic characteristics.”
— Congress has debated the definition over the past several years. In 2016, the Senate overwhelmingly passed bipartisan legislation that would have forced the department to use the State Department definition in evaluating discrimination complaints. But the bill hit a snag in the House over concerns that it could interfere with students’ free speech rights. The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the bill earlier this year, but the legislation so far hasn’t gone anywhere in this Congress.
— But civil liberties and free speech groups have opposed the definition. The groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and PEN America, argue that the definition of anti-Semitism is too broad and would threaten political speech, such as criticism of Israel policy, on college campuses.
— “It’s certainly something that we feared would happen,” said Dima Khalidi, director of Palestine Legal, adding that the new definition “opens the door to equate any criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.” Khalidi also criticized the Education Department for adopting the definition “without any process or public input.”
— Several pro-Israel groups, meanwhile, including the American Jewish Committee, praised the Trump administration’s move. The Zionist Organization of America, which filed the original complaint against Rutgers and appealed, praised the Education Department’s “landmark” decision to adopt the definition.
Edited by DrunkenNordmann on Sep 19th 2018 at 2:38:24 PM
Welcome to Estalia, gentlemen.
Lost in Space
Gah. We need to stop giving special protections to Israel that don't apply to other groups, even disadvantaged ones.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
One last comment on Trump's Toad cock story.
Vinesauce. That is all.
Clinton was on TV voicing concern that Trump will start firing people left and right after the midterms, including the most stable people in the administration.
While most election forecasters, as well as strategists in both parties, believe Democrats are likely to win the 23 seats necessary to take control of the House of Representatives, Republican voters aren’t convinced, the survey shows.
According to the RNC study, completed on Sept. 2 by the polling firm Public Opinion Strategies, most voters believe Democrats will win back the House—just not Republican voters. Fully half of self-identified Republicans don’t believe Democrats are likely to win back the House. And within that group, 57 percent of people who describe themselves as strong Trump supporters don’t believe Democrats have a chance (37 percent believe they do).
......The internal RNC study finds that complacency among GOP voters is tied directly to their trust in the president—and their distrust of traditional polling. “While a significant part of that lack of intensity is undoubtedly due to these voters’ sentiments toward the President, it may also be partly because they don’t believe there is anything at stake in this election,” the authors write. “Put simply, they don’t believe that Democrats will win the House. (Why should they believe the same prognosticators who told them that Hillary was going to be elected President?)”
And from the (Failing) NY Times
Conservative-leaning voters in the study routinely dismissed the possibility of a Democratic wave election, with some describing the prospect as “fake news,” said an official familiar with the research, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the data was not intended to be disclosed. Breaking that attitude of complacency is now the Republicans’ top priority, far more than wooing moderates with gentler messaging about economic growth.
Edited by megaeliz on Sep 18th 2018 at 7:08:28 AM