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
I'm not also terribly fond of the idea that we have to play the GOP's game where only a white man is an eligible candidate. First and foremost, the Democrats need a candidate with no major issues and who can energize their base. A person of color and/or a woman could very well do that.
I found out what today's tweet storm was about.
Mueller Says Manafort Lied About Contacts With Trump Officials
He also lied about a $125,000 payment and information he provided in another case, prosecutors working for the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, said in a partly redacted court filing explaining why they withdrew last week from a plea agreement they had reached with Mr. Manafort in September.
Though he had told prosecutors earlier that he had “no direct or indirect communications” with any administration official while they were in government, Mr. Manafort had in fact kept in touch with a senior official through February 2018, prosecutors said. In another instance, he authorized someone else to speak with a Trump appointee on his behalf, they wrote. They also detailed additional contacts with administration officials, citing a search of his documents.
“Manafort told multiple discernible lies — these were not instances of mere memory lapses,” the prosecutors wrote in a memo to Judge Amy Berman Jackson of United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
Mr. Mueller’s team has left open the possibility that it could file new charges of lying against Mr. Manafort. His lawyers say he believes he was honest during his interviews with the special counsel’s office.
The filing is a new example of Mr. Mueller’s low tolerance for misstatements or dissembling as investigators examine Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and whether any of Mr. Trump’s associates conspired with Moscow’s operation. Including Mr. Manafort, Mr. Mueller’s team has accused five former aides to Mr. Trump of lying to them.
The new documents were signed by Andrew Weissmann, a prosecutor known for his no-holds-barred approach and who has become a favorite target of President Trump’s. “He wrongly destroyed people’s lives,” Mr. Trump declared of Mr. Weissmann earlier Friday on Twitter, citing Mr. Weissmann’s work as a prosecutor in the Enron case in the early 2000s. The government had a mixed record in that investigation, including a unanimous defeat at the Supreme Court.
In Friday’s filing, prosecutors blacked out much of the information related to Mr. Kilimnik but revealed that some of it had been uncovered in emails and testimony.
Even after Mr. Yanukovych was ousted in a popular uprising in 2014, Mr. Manafort and Mr. Kilimnik remained in touch. After Mr. Manafort joined the Trump campaign in March 2016, the two men traded emails discussing how to use Mr. Manafort’s position for financial gain. Mr. Kilimnik also traveled to the United States to meet with Mr. Manafort.
This year, prosecutors have claimed, Mr. Manafort and Mr. Kilimnik teamed up to try to persuade two witnesses to lie about the scope of the Ukraine work in order to protect Mr. Manafort. Both men were charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice, one of the felonies to which Mr. Manafort pleaded guilty in September.
A Russian citizen, Mr. Kilimnik now lives in Moscow. Because Russia does not typically extradite its citizens, he is not expected to ever face trial in the United States. In a 2017 interview with The New York Times, Mr. Kilimnik denied that he had any connections to Russian intelligence. He described himself as “a random casualty because of my proximity to Paul,” referring to Mr. Manafort.
Edited by megaeliz on Dec 7th 2018 at 10:03:37 AM
The main thing is to get someone with strong personal charisma. Race and gender don't matter all that much, since Trump has pretty much locked down the racist and sexist votes anyway
And the Cohen filing.
Prosecutors Say Trump Directed Illegal Payments During Campaign
The lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, had said that as the election neared, Mr. Trump directed payments to two women who claimed they had affairs with Mr. Trump. But in a new memorandum arguing for a prison term for Mr. Cohen, prosecutors in Manhattan said he “acted in coordination and at the direction of” an unnamed individual, clearly referring to Mr. Trump.
In another filing, prosecutors for the special counsel investigating Russia’s 2016 election interference said an unnamed Russian offered Mr. Cohen “government level” synergy between Russia and Mr. Trump’s campaign in November 2015. That was months earlier than other approaches detailed in indictments secured by prosecutors.
And in a separate case on Friday, the special counsel accused Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman, of lying about his contacts with an individual they accuse of ties to Russian intelligence, and about his interactions with Trump administration officials after he was indicted on criminal charges.
Together, the filings laid bare the most direct evidence to date linking Mr. Trump to potentially criminal conduct, and added to an already substantial case that Russia was seeking to sway the 2016 election in his favor.
Mr. Trump sought on Friday to dismiss the news, wrongly claiming it “Totally clears the President. Thank you!”
I can't believe this guy convinced people that he's smart ![[lol]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/lol2v12_4863.png "[lol]"){kind=small}
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
x2 To add to that: Trump brutally mocked for claiming Cohen memo totally clears him: "You are Individual-1"
Edited by speedyboris on Dec 7th 2018 at 9:31:14 AM
Trump must have thought that being Individual 1 means that he's number one! He's number one!
I liked it better when Questionable Casting was called WTH Casting Agency
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
A procrastination in of itself
On Hillary and sexism, while sexism did play a big role in 2016 it was an indirect role.
A big part of why Hillary lost was the fact that she’d been under attack by republicans for decades, that the media did their best to make her seem on the same level as Trump and that she was seen as boring and unable to inspire people.
A lot of that does tie back into sexism, Republicans have always hated her for being a women who broke gender roles (particularly as First Lady), the media treatment of her also had a lot of sexism to it, her characterisation as boring ties into female gender roles.
Sexism played a huge role, but not in the form of people not voting for Hillary because she’s a women, instead it was in the form of people not voting for her because she was unpopular, while she was unpopular in part because people were harsher on her as a women than they would have been an equivalent man.
As for if I was thinking of any particular midwestern women senators, I’m a fan of Tammy Duckworth, but that’s mostly because I think she might made Trump’s bran explode in rage. A female, foreign born, non-white, disabled, veteran whose family at a point depended on public assistance.
She’s the embodiment of so much that they hate that she might give the entire alt-right a brain aneurism just by being nominated.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Reading over Tammy Duckworth's wikipedia page, I have to agree. There is only one stance that I'm a hardliner on that she would need to change for me to vote for her.
Figure of Hourai
Which is...?
One that the mods have said essentially can't be discussed rationally and so we should avoid. I have my arguments for it, and I think their good rational ones, but I'm not going to be the one to start a discussion on a banned topic.
Figure of Hourai
Then why mention it at all?
Avatar Source
I didn't bring up the banned topic. I was talking about my perspective on a political person, that I could see a universe where I'd vote for them. I'm a fairly conservative libertarian who voted against Trump and Clinton. I'm one of the people in the middle who could be swayed to vote for one party or the other. Who I think I'm more or less interested in is noteworthy.
What may I ask is the topic so I can look it up? Not discussing it? You can spoiler it if it's like Voldemort's true name.
Edit:
Got it, thanks.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Dec 7th 2018 at 9:30:23 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Call me Stick
And now I'm curious as to what it is.
Hopefully I'll feel confident to change my avatar off this scumbag soon. Apologies to any scumbags I insulted.
Any topics we have specific rules about can be found here.
Back on topic, please.
About 2016 election, part of it was that for many Hilary look to much of establishment, mostly a water down version of Obama or diet obama if you wanted it, in part people vote for Obama because he feel liberal and pretty much anti bush(Inteligent, soft spoken, quiet,etc) and not surprising trump pretty much play the same card but in reverse: loud and uncheck, etc.
Compared to that hilary just comeas the same pre bush era of status quo.
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"
So can the Democrats stage a successful campaign with an anti-Trump, then?
I liked it better when Questionable Casting was called WTH Casting Agency
Not just anti-Trump. They have to run on all the things he's botched and promise to make them better. It'll probably help if Trump craters the economy, which there's a not-insignificant chance of him doing.
A Million Is a Statistic is also a factor: Voters don't care too much about "children" as a large aggregate group but they care a lot if you highlight one specific case or several. So saying "hundreds are dying every hour!" doesn't sway people but a photo of a starving child or two do. This concept also applies to Think of the Children! arguments in other contexts, too.
(There are a few more considerations)
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
So it looks like Republicans need to really worry about that North Carolina election fraud case. If the House (which will have a Democratic majority) refuses to seat Harris - and the refusal by the electoral commission in North Carolina to certify the election result is a valid reason - there will be a special election and Harris a) probably cannot be replaced and b) will probably lose.
The Democrats can do that?
-Googles-
Sweet mother of James Madison, they can do that! Man, it feels so good to actually have the power to finally stop blatant criminality.
I mean, the tricky thing here is that the 2016 election was close enough that if you point any one thing that could conceivably have helped Trump say 'Hillary would've won if it wasn't for this', then chances are that you're right, but you're also not drawing a useful conclusion.
So, like, Sexism probably did cost her the election. But so did two dozen other factors, so that's not a sensible reason to avoid nominating a female candidate.