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
Silicon Valley bigwigs want California to secede.
Putin says Russia ready to fully restore ties with U.S
Cuba announces nationwide military drills after Trump victory.
edited 9th Nov '16 4:03:50 PM by Demonic_Braeburn
Any group who acts like morons ironically will eventually find itself swamped by morons who think themselves to be in good company.Huh, maybe those Silicon Valley bigwigs should fund Democrat initiatives to do stuff like what Pykrete suggested. I do think that if the Democrats want to win over that demographic they're going to need a strong push towards ground-level activism and initiatives. Thing is, stuff like that requires a lot of money and manpower.
@shame of being American
As disappointed as I am, no. Enough of the people in this country still voted against him that I can't lose all hope. The thing is, people like Trump stand against American principles, or at least the idea of what America should be. Like Orwell said true patriots are the ones who want it to change the most so it can be better. Excessive cultural cringe isn't going to fix things.
edited 9th Nov '16 4:10:05 PM by AlleyOop
It is rather odd to think that one of the best hopes to turn things around is for there to be another recession during Trump's term.
I can't think of anything else that would more thoroughly discredit Trump and his cohorts, and it isn't even too unlikely given what they want to do (especially if they get some nutjob to run the Federal Reserve), but I can't imagine just how terrible the results of another downturn with the economy still not near fully recovered.
Uh, hate to be the one to tell you this, (if you don't know this already) but it was one George H. W. Bush who negotiated and signed NAFTA
.
NAFTA was a successor to a free-trade pact with Canada. Bush had viewed NAFTA as a political opportunity, an achievement for his reelection campaign. He initialed the deal on Aug. 12, 1992, before the GOP convention, and then formally signed it in December 1992, after he had lost the election to Clinton.
Clinton had supported the pact during the presidential campaign but said he wanted to negotiate side agreements with Mexico concerning enforcement of labor and environmental laws. He didn’t pursue ratification in Congress till after those agreements were reached in August 1993 — but the deals were denounced by labor and environmental groups as too weak.
So Clinton did not negotiate NAFTA, nor did he sign it. But he did put his political prestige on the line to get it approved by Congress — even as two top Democrats, House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt (Mo.) and House Majority Whip David Bonior (Mich.), opposed it. In the House, NAFTA passed 234-200; 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voted in favor of it. The Senate approved NAFTA 61-38, with the backing of 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats.
In both the House and the Senate, more Democrats voted against NAFTA than for it — a signal that the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party was strong even then. Clinton held a signing ceremony for the implementing legislation on Dec. 3, 1993, flanked by former presidents and congressional leaders of both parties. But that’s not the same as negotiating and signing the treaty with Mexico and Canada. The trade agreement went into effect on Jan. 1, 1994.
Clinton finalized it and got it ratified, but that was the limit of his input. NAFTA was coming down the pike no matter who won the election in 92. Check out the flags behind H. W. Bush
.
So, basically Democrats are hated for something Republicans backed. Sounds like par for the course.
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |No we don't and I hold my state to a higher standard than some nutjobs in Texas. California will not run away from this. We'll endure, gear up for the next election and make things right.
@The Wanderer: I'm pretty sure he's talking more about the perception as the Clintons as the ones who perpetuated NAFTA, not what actually happened.
I mean, it's pretty common for presidents to end up getting the blame for the consequences of what previous presidents did. People seem to have trouble wrapping their heads around the fact that presidents can't automatically stop anything their predecessor did.
Ok, I get that people are frustrated with Texas being a republican stronghold, but sometimes I think you guys are shitting on my state just because it's an easy target and that's frustrating.
edited 9th Nov '16 4:12:13 PM by AceofSpades
Kind of surprised no one has replied to Pyrkrete's post. I agree making it a personal thing for them has merit. Though, the major problem is getting the right people to run for office in the Rust Belt. Not like we can fully control who runs for office.
edited 9th Nov '16 4:14:04 PM by RedRob
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet Unless I grew it. In that case, throw it in the trash.Well, to enact Pykrete's action I'd have to talk to much of my family and I'm not actually that close to most of them? Also, aside from my brother whose mind I'm pretty sure I can't change and I don't think voted, the ones I'm usually around share most of my views.
For a lot of us, doing what Pykrete suggests means actively going out and engaging, and not everyone here has the stomach for that kind of deliberate action. Kind of sad, but understandable.
In general I would say laughter and humor are things we desperately need in these times, and I still think that, but I have a hard time laughing at Trump right now. This isn't funny anymore. Hate crimes have already started and it's only been a day.
How would that make any sense? The Democrats rely heavily on Minority votes (perhaps too heavily), if they suddenly adopted bigotry they would lose much of their support base and still not touch the South.

@Mystery Man 23: I'm basically in agreement with you, I was just trying to explain why this thread is the way that it is.
If it seems like most people are in shock it's because they are.