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
If this election taught me anything it is that trying to predict politics can now be a futile practice. From what I know some of the democrat senators up for reelection are in vulnerable areas that Trump won in the election. But I think we should wait and see, if Trump performs poorly or if the Republicans fail to sufficiently mobilize for 2018 then the Democrats could have the advantage.
![]()
![]()
We'll have a better idea once the DNC chairship is decided.
Even if that doesn't seem to be intended by the actual candidates, people are already framing Thomas Perez and Keith Ellison's competing bids as an extension of the Clinton vs Sanders primary bout, all while ignoring the other two candidates in the race.
edited 19th Dec '16 6:32:27 PM by Mio
Tbone 511 made the account Dread King as a sock to astroturf this topic. Bouncing both.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Does anyone have thoughts on who should be the next DNC chair? I've heard good things about Ellison and Perez both, and I'm also hearing that another candidate, Adam Parkhomenko, understands the increasing importance of social media as a political battleground.
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."![]()
![]()
They both seem like fairly decent choices. Ultimately i don't care as long as the party is unified and they come up with a real long-term plan that covers all bases from the Presidency to county mayoral elections.
![]()
Do you have any reason to feel that way other then Sander's endorsement?
The other candidates are Raymond Buckley
and Jaime Harrison
,
Both are state party chairperson, relatively unknown, and are probably not going to get much attention.
edited 19th Dec '16 6:54:30 PM by Mio
I think Ellison is a good man. Most of my problems with him came from him not saying whether or not he'd keep his seat in Congress. Recently he came around on that. He seems to have a good head on his shoulders, and is not "anti-establishment" despite endorsing Sanders. He had no problem supporting Clinton, and he called Trump being the nominee July of last year when everyone laughed at him. However, I'm concerned about his ability to get Dems elected. He seems no more qualified for doing the actual job than either of any us, save for the fact that he's an elected Congressman, but I digress.
I just want Perez because his contacts with the labor sector are deep. There's literally no way you can spin Perez as a man of the "establishment" or rich donors, and he's a pragmatic center-left moderate. He'd know exactly how to find the right candidates for the Rust Belt and South so we'd be competitive.
In reality, we have two really good candidates, we just need someone, if Ellison is chosen, to be able to hold him accountable and know when and where to tell the far left to fuck right off. You can't run progressives in every district in the country. That's completely asinine.
edited 19th Dec '16 7:01:28 PM by TacticalFox88
New Survey coming this weekend!Re: the religion discussion a few pages ago (incoming rant).
As a Jewish man, I can honestly say that I hate Christmas. I have no ill will whatsoever towards any Christians who just want to enjoy Christmas with their family, but I absolutely despise what Christmas has become, and how omnipresent it is this time of year. Everywhere I go; Christmas lights, all the radio stations; Christmas music, the only radio station I know that doesn't play Christmas music rubs it in every other commercial that they are the only station that doesn't play Christmas music. Almost every store I go in has terrible Christmas music blaring over the speakers and huge Christmas displays all over the place while selling Christmas-themed items. The tv and internet is flooded with Christmas-themed commercials, Christmas episodes, Christmas specials, Christmas updates to games.
And you know, this much Christmas crap goddamn EVERYWHERE wouldn't annoy me nearly as much of there was ANYTHING AT ALL Hanukkah related ANYWHERE. Like, I literally can't avoid Christmas getting shoved in my face, and I have to be a goddamn detective to find Hanukkah stuff anywhere, and it's NEVER in anything big or mainstream. It's like 'oh hey, I found some Hanukkah wrapping paper in one store! That makes up for Overwatch having a huge holiday update with everyone getting a skin themed around Christmas and ONLY Christmas! That makes up for everything and everyone saying 'Happy Holidays!' with red and green being the only colors present! That makes up for dozens of Christmas movies coming out every year and no big Hanukkah movies at all aside from Eight Crazy Nights from 2002, which sucks!(cries inside)'
edited 19th Dec '16 8:00:49 PM by PushoverMediaCritic
If someone made a (good) movie about the origin of Hanukkah, I would absolutely go see it, and I'm not Jewish.
The only adaptation I've ever seen of the "lamps lasted for eight days" thing was a really loose reference in an episode of the Nanny of all things.
edited 19th Dec '16 8:11:06 PM by Zendervai
I agree about the "war on Christmas". Xmas is everywhere. Some people just want to complain for the sake of complaining. Or they're just complaining that not everyone else is a Christian.
I figure that it's a very small portion of Christians that complain about the fake "war on Christmas".
Your Xmas cup isn't red and green? Boo hoo, there are people starving in other parts of the world.
Do not obey in advance.It doesn't help that every Christmas movie ever made that includes a character with any negative feelings towards Christmas at all shows said character as being either the villain, a generically bad person, or shown the error of their ways and 'redeemed' into loving Christmas, creating the idea that disliking a frigging holiday makes you a bad person and inherently wrong. I acknowledge that I'm in the minority, even among people who don't celebrate it, but I hate Christmas.
You know what's really absurd about Christmas? It really wasn't a thing early on. The Catholic Church created it to distract from the Solstice festivals, and then the Protestant Church after the Reformation tried to dump it, but then Charles Dickens came along with A Christmas Carol which revitalized it, while adding in a bunch of new elements that weren't actually there before. The really big Christian thing should be Easter. Christmas is important, I guess, but it should be the more minor one.
The early(ish) church kind of lumped the "Jesus was born and the wisemen gave some really offensive presents Frankincense and myrrh were heavily used for embalming. Giving them to a mother with a newborn was basically saying "yeah, your kid's gonna die within the year." in with Easter.
edited 19th Dec '16 8:34:23 PM by Zendervai
Christmas has long since become a hallow shell of what it's supposed to be. We've known this ever since the damn Charlie Brown Christmas Special. Still, in a sense, Christmas isn't completely without merit. After all, it offers us a wonderful opportunity each year to reflect upon what we all most sincerely and deeply believe in. I refer of course to money.
"On Christmas Day you can't get sore/Your fellow man you must adore/There's time to rob him all the more/The other three hundred and sixty-four..."
I dunno, to me, when people say "Christmas movies", I think of this
. Not exactly a movie that makes Christmas look awesome.
It's funny because while American culture permeated a lot in France, during Christmas, we don't really watch Christmas-themed stuff. The TV channels mostly air cartoons (I just caught Frozen a few hours ago and I'm sure we'll get the upteenth reruns of the Wallace And Gromit shorts soon enough).
TBH, I support Ellison. Young, charismatic, smart, and a good gap-bridger.
Regarding supporting Democrats, btw...the fact is, on some policies? We're going to have to make compromises if we want to win certain states. Winning, say, Montana, Georgia or Utah congressional seas is a dicey prospect, and it'll require some Blue Dogs. Guys who may be blue as you get on, say, the environment, labor, etc. but are more red on guns or a few things.
We can't really be choosers, though. It's best to have the Blue Dogs back to help pass progressive legislation than Republicans who'll laugh in our faces.
Voter Suppression Handed Trump the Presidency - When Will Dems Act?
The Democrats have an opportunity right now to get to work trying to repeal or take some of these voter suppression tactics to court, to get them overturned. In fact, most of the time when these voter suppression laws are challenged in courts, they end up getting overturned. But, the Democratic party just isn't willing to do that. They would rather sit, piss and moan about the fact that they lost an election, rather than actually address the problems like voter suppression. They could be working on it today. I'm sure there're probably are a few Democrats who actually are, but most of them are not. Most of them don't care about it. Representative, Senators, they won their election, so obviously voter suppression's not that bad. It is.
It doesn't matter if you won or lost. The fact that eligible voters are being denied their basic right to vote, should be enough to make anyone angry, Republican or Democrat. But, the Republicans want to make it harder for Democrats, people of color, to vote. That's exactly what they've done and that is what cost Hillary Clinton this election. The numbers are there to show it. If the Democratic party doesn't get off their butts right now and start working on that, they're going to lose the next election too.
I've mentioned several times before that I think this is one of the worst dangers going forward. Forget Russian hacking, this election was already essentially rigged by targeted suppression on the part of the GOP. Now there's very little to stop the GOP from running amok even more than they've already been doing. Jeff Sessions along is a living nightmare for voting rights advocates, and he's just the tip of the iceberg.
If the Dems don't take serious action to both protect voting rights as they are, and regain lost ground, then we're not going to be winning any elections for a while.
edited 19th Dec '16 8:50:00 PM by RBluefish
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."
