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
As far post civil war US-Civil Unrest goes, there's the Civil Rights movement and, more metaphorical to this situation, the Compromise of 1877
, which was likewise a powder keg election (as Keith Olbermann pointed out in a recent video of his).
Globally, it's the worst time for democracy since the 70's, yes.
edited 15th Dec '16 4:58:09 PM by Gaon
"All you Fascists bound to lose."My guess is that the Republicans see Trump as a stepping stone to get all the political positions they've been after, something they can control long enough to get the policies enacted they want, and then to be used and thrown away. If so, they probably don't understand what they're dealing with - men like Trump cannot be controlled, and they can rarely even be 'handled'.
The only way to handle someone like Trump is by massaging his ego in a certain direction and then letting him come up with the 'brilliant' idea you wanted all. That's not how most people function (although it sounds like it's how Ivanka handles him, judging by some of the articles I've seen, and it sounds like how certain world leaders function, too). It'll be interesting to see if the Republicans can do it. They've been a bit like a sledgehammer so far and that just makes men like Trump stubborn just so they can claim a 'win'.
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.Call me late to the party but it's seeming more and more like there's no way for this debacle to end without subverting democracy in some fashion.
We let Trump be inaugurated without issue we do so adhering to the letter of the law despite the proven actions by a foreign power to influence the election.
The electors go faithless and it disregards the (state-by-state) popular vote while adhering to one of the stated purposes of the electoral college.note
Even should that happen to a degree there is no guarantee that Congress would select anyone else, and even if they did they'd effectively be a president nobody voted for, which would potentially taint the legitimacy of whoever it was.
edited 15th Dec '16 5:27:32 PM by sgamer82
I know. It's a common story throughout history.
I'm assuming that's why Obama has so far been so focussed on ensuring an orderly transition of power. At this point, not doing that would make him the person who's subverting democracy. Anything outside an orderly transition that he does will damage US democracy more than it already is. It's not only not a win-win for Obama, it's not a win-win for the country either.
Worst of all, it sets a modern precedent, which is a very dangerous thing to do when the president-elect is actively setting new (and democratically dangerous) precedents by the day.
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.Actually, putting like that setting a precedent for a non orderly transition of power doesn't sound that bad. If the alternative is setting a precedent for allowing an openly corrupt fascist-like president who conspirator with foreign powers to subvert democracy, then is a non pacific transition really the worst option.
I mean, if democracy is fucked either way I think I prefer the option without Trump, Putin and their cronies. Dictator Obama seems like a reasonable option given the alternative, which is fucked up.
![]()
Oh, yeah, that does seem like the best case situation right now. But my understanding is that this is not likely to happen. And the second best option seems to be an openly authoritarian measure that could shake the foundations of US democracy as it is the alternative to an openly authoritarian president, whose election could shake the foundation of US democracy. This is some scary shit.
The second best option is finding something that forces Trump's impeachment. The third best option is doing what we can to keep him from consolidating power within the legal system. If Obama causes a constitutional crisis in some fashion, he's sending us down the road towards much nastier unrest than what we currently experience.
I can only source this tweet
on the CNN reporting.
If the Republicans REALLY, REALLY cared I'm sure they already have enough dirt on Trump to get him impeached. I doubt they'll get rid of him before passing all their terrible agendas. Then maybe if it's not politically inconvenient to themselves they'll try to wash their hands off him, but the problem is that Trump wouldn't like that in the slightest and would try to drag them down with them as hard as he possibly could.
edited 15th Dec '16 6:12:01 PM by Draghinazzo
![]()
In for a penny, in for a pound of flesh. The Republicans will not turn on Trump unless the only alternative is life in prison/a firing squad. The ones that endorsed him and the platform know they are finished if they back away without breaking the system in their favor permanently. If they try to dump him after he rubber stamps what they want, he will take most of them with him in a heartbeat, and by that point they will be too far gone; it is the same logic as a double agent. The deeper they get, the more they get pushed to do and sink further in the spiral. It really is the party of Trump-if he goes down, most of them are along for the ride as accomplices.
Fortune: Donald Trump Has Named a Pro-Coal Advocate to Watch Over America's National Parks
If the Senate confirms Zinke, a Republican, to lead the Interior Department, he will head an agency that employs more than 70,000 people across the country and oversees more than 20 percent of federal land, including national parks such as Yellowstone and Yosemite.
As a single-term U.S. representative, Zinke took several stances favoring coal, a fossil fuel that suffered during the administration of President Barack Obama as development of natural gas and renewable energy soared.
He’s tapped Montana Rep. Ryan Zinke as Secretary of the Interior. President-elect Donald Trump on Thursday named U.S. Representative Ryan Zinke of Montana, a former Navy SEAL commander and a proponent of coal development on federal lands, as his choice for secretary of the interior.
If the Senate confirms Zinke, a Republican, to lead the Interior Department, he will head an agency that employs more than 70,000 people across the country and oversees more than 20 percent of federal land, including national parks such as Yellowstone and Yosemite.
As a single-term U.S. representative, Zinke took several stances favoring coal, a fossil fuel that suffered during the administration of President Barack Obama as development of natural gas and renewable energy soared.
Zinke, 55, pushed to end a moratorium on federal coal leases on public lands by 2019, saying it had resulted in closed mines and job cuts.
He also helped introduce a bill expanding tax credits for coal-burning power plants that bury carbon dioxide emissions underground to fight climate change, a measure supported by coal interests and some moderate environmental groups. In introducing the bill, Zinke said he wanted to keep “coal, oil and gas communities viable for generations to come.”
Zinke would replace Sally Jewell, who in January put a temporary ban on coal mining on public lands, canceled leases for drilling in the Arctic and Atlantic coasts, expanded wildlife protections and cracked down on methane emissions from industry.
The choice of Zinke surprised some observers because Republican officials had wanted him to challenge Democratic Senator Jon Tester in Montana’s 2018 Senate race.
Many environmental groups oppose Zinke for his commitment to fossil fuels. Bradley Campbell, the president of the Conservation Law Foundation feared that Zinke would be tasked with unraveling Obama’s protections of the environment and federal lands.
“Considering Mr. Zinke’s history of … defending fossil fuel interests, it is likely that we will be facing an uphill battle,” Campbell said.
Zinke, a regular hunter and fisherman, impressed Trump’s son, Donald Jr., who shares those interests. Land Tawney, the president and CEO of the outdoors group Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, said Zinke would bring a conservationist voice to Trump’s leadership team.
Zinke is a proponent of keeping public lands under federal ownership, which puts him at odds with some in his party who would like to privatize the lands or put them under control of the states.
“He’s been great at keeping public lands in public hands and goes against the Republican establishment,” Tawney said.
"They thought she was going to win, so they were willing to kick the can down the road," said one U.S official familiar with the level of Russian hacking.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/why-didn-t-obama-do-more-about-russian-election-hack-n696701
Trump must've rolled 20 on Luck when he was born.
Damn, Obama is damned whatever action he pulls now.
I'd hope the EC revolts but I think the best thing to do is to hold off the EC vote until the CIA completes its investigation.
The worst thing is lettting Trump take the presidency or completely denying it to Trump. The latter would vindicate the GOP's voterbase and the former would put a dangerous individual in charge of the US.
But of the two, it might be better to vindicate the GOP than risk a Trump presidency.

I dunno, the late 1960s were pretty damn chaotic, and I'm not entirely sure the period we're in right now compares equally to it, though we may need more perspective.
But if prominent leaders start getting assassinated, then I'm pretty sure that'll be a clear sign that we're in deep shit.
On a global level, however, this (neo)nationalist wave is extremely concerning from a historical perspective, since it doesn't have a good track record.