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 actually agree with Swanpride(!) in that I like the sentiment behind the statement, even if it gets a little muddy in terms of actual implementation. There are some morals in life that are non-negotiable and cannot be compromised on. There are times when you really do need to stare the world in the face and say "no, fuck you."
A recent real-life example of this sort of action would be the water protectors at Standing Rock. They stood there, unarmed, in tents, riding horses, in freezing weather, and faced down a literal army of heavily-armed jackbooted corporate thugs. And they said "no. You move."
I think that other Americans would do well to learn from their example over the next, oh I dunno, four years.
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."Obama orders Russia expulsions, sanctions for interference in 2016 election
And the Kremlin responded
shortly after.
Slightly off-topic from the current discussion at hand, but I just had a thought last night before bed and decided to wait til this evening to suggest it. While the issue of D's moving to R controlled states tends to get dismissed, I wonder about the inverse, incentivising D voters to move to lean or safe D states in order to shift the balance of those 435 house seats in time for the 2020 census. I'm sure there's probably a few catches I haven't thought of but it seems like that might have more chance to have an impact than the former idea. Anyone have any thoughts on that?
"Arizona sheriff Arpaio asks appeals court to void contempt finding" - http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN14I1YV
Well, the only way you could use population redistribution to affect Congressional politics is by moving Democrats not only to red states, but to red districts. Easier said than done. One, the culture shock — these places genuinely are flyover country, filled with empty wilderness and dying towns. An urban Californian or New Englander isn't going to be jumping at the chance to move there. Two, and building on the first, there isn't a whole lot of work outside the cities that someone newly moved in from Boston would be looking for. In both cases, you'd just end up having all of the Democrats clustered in a few districts.
Thinning out the local crop of Democrats will only make it so they lose everywhere, instead of having at least a few bastions of support.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."![]()
I realize that, but with the fact that a lot of social programs that the most vulnerable will depend on will end up being gutted (at the federal level at least) and that some blue states (such as MA, where I live) implement some of these on a state level as well, perhaps the incentives could be enough of a draw to pull a not insubstantial number of people from more solidly red states.
I was actually speaking strictly of the inverse of what you were suggesting. Although now that I think about it since the apportionment was limited by congress I suppose they would probably have enough time to lessen the blowback as a result of such a move.
I realize all this sounds more akin to an evacuation rather than typical political strategy, but those red states won't get any bluer if the people without the tattered remains of a safety net beneath them die or are disillusioned or disenfranchised (because lets be honest, the Republicans aren't going to sacrifice their core voter base if they can just cut it for everyone else).
edited 29th Dec '16 3:33:12 PM by rfindlay
Well, more New California laws
are going into affect at the beginning of the year.
Some were already covered here, a few a newly mentioned.
Only Mc Cain and Graham, and they're already on Trump's shitlist.
Hmm. Imagine a world where the GOP does become the party of Trump in every meaningful way, but McCain remain an out spoken voice against him. It's not hard to imagine, in that scenario, that McCain could end giving up on his party and crossing the aisle.
And wouldn't that be a thing, if a guy who ran for President against Obama ended up joining his party. Imagine if that's how they end up taking back control of the senate!
edited 29th Dec '16 4:29:29 PM by Gilphon
![]()
They have been trending liberal. Young people don't trust them though.
edit: I'm torn between whether or not I want Mc Cain and the others to switch to Democrat. On the one hand it would send a powerful message and bolster their numbers. On the other hand it makes it impossible for them to try and influence the party.
edited 29th Dec '16 4:30:23 PM by Kostya
Paul Ryan welcomes Obama's "overdue" Russian Retaliation
, although he condemns Obama for not doing so earlier.
So make that 3 Republicans that verbally oppose Russia, including the Speaker of the House.
Graham and Mc Cain seem to think that they can get a veto proof anti-Russia majority in the Senate, and considering that Democrats hate Moscow right now and that there are plenty of Republicans with vested interests in the security status quo, I'm inclined to believe them.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.The way Ryan said it made it seem like his motivation is twofold.
It allows him to criticize Obama and the democrats for being weak, while helping the GOP save face and make it look like they have some degree of integrity and aren't simply going to let Trump and Russia do whatever they want.
If Trump sinks later and they keep taking these sorts of measures in the meantime (without compromising their other horrible plans), they can just say Trump was a freak who hijacked their party, that he doesn't represent them and that they did everything in their power to stop him while he was in office, meanwhile accusing the democrats for not bringing out a stronger candidate, not being hard enough on him, creating the situation that led to Trump, etc.
edited 29th Dec '16 4:56:56 PM by Draghinazzo

"If the majority of you voted to rape and murder my sister, that still wouldn't make it right." — paraphrasing Terry Goodkind, in one of the Sword of Truth novels.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank.