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
Indeed it won't. The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the Constitution sets out the requirements and that further ones cannot be added without a constitutional amendment. There was a case in the 90s about term limits, SCOTUS found them OK on a state level but said that federal ones need a constitutional amendment.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanYou can, however, require that a presidential candidate release their tax returns, if only to try and determine the extent of any conflicts of interest.
Oh, okay then.
I think a tax return amendment wouldn't go over that badly though. Maybe the parties can require it.
edited 16th Feb '17 8:30:49 AM by Zendervai
I'm thinking more along the lines of making it mandatory for presidents to release tax returns and other documents that may detail conflicts of interest.
edit: While it's true that the Democratic president would need to go through congress I think the Republicans would be stupid to not go along with this. If Trump is forcibly removed from office because of this shit then it's going to be very hard to argue against this stuff.
edited 16th Feb '17 8:33:51 AM by Kostya
Not on this topic (is there a better thread for it?) but Robert Kennedy Jr. and Robert De Niro offer $1000,000 to anyone who can prove vaccines are safe
. I guess it's kind of connected to this thread because although those two are at the opposite end of the political spectrum as Trump, he's on the same page as them with antivaxer craziness. As mentioned in the article, RFK Jr. recently met with Trump to float the idea of a "vaccine safety commission".
edited 16th Feb '17 8:35:04 AM by Hodor2
![]()
I'm pretty sure that's in "science does not work that way" territory. One, biology is messy and there will always be edge cases. Two, science relies on consensus and preponderance of evidence and has to remain open to the fact that someone screwed up along the way. Three, it ignores the preponderance of evidence that already exists for vaccination safety and the dangers of not having them.
edited 16th Feb '17 8:39:43 AM by Elle
![]()
![]()
I'm guessing by "safe" they mean zero side effects whatsoever for any vaccine recipient, which is fundamentally impossible for anything that has an actual biological effect, and not "vaccinating everyone is significantly safer than letting the disease it prevents from running rampant", which is what really matters.
@174217
It can be hard to parody Trump when he's so over-the-top and evil in reality that there's not much room for exaggeration. I wouldn't be surprised if the Daily Show's job gets a lot harder for the next four years.
@174228
Which is why I doubt he's actually a spy. More likely, he's just somebody Russia thought would encourage Trump to make deals that are favorable to Russia. He might even have some financial ties to Russia (given the amount of brazen corruption in the Trump Administration, that wouldn't be surprising).
@174235
Would they support cutting our bloated military budget?
@174237
Why does everyone on this thread keep ignoring Hillary Clinton's evil
? Don't get me wrong, Trump's call for killing the families of our enemies and bringing back torture is evil, too. I would even argue he's worse than Clinton. But to act like there's no legitimate reason to vote Trump and everyone who voted for him is a bigot is just silly. You're all only paying attention to the bad things about Republicans and ignoring the bad things about Democrats, even when a lot of those bad things are the same for both parties. This willful blindness is puzzling and frustrating to me.
What would you say to someone who told you "being personally (and oftentimes superficially) nice and pleasant while not being personally hateful only means so much when you still support someone who represents wanting more deaths of innocent children"?
@174298
Yeah, thanks Obama. You just took the Bush-era policies that violate our privacy and civil liberties and put them on steroids even more than you've done for your entire term. Truly, you've proven yourself to be Republican lite.
@174307
On the contrary, I think Pence is worse than Trump. He's all the bad stuff about Trump + a greater dedication to theocracy.
@174314
Well, saneer. Sanity is relative in the Republican Party.
@174330
I do like the idea of him being kicked out with a giant boot like in that Simpsons episode. But only if Pence if removed, too. Preferably the same way.
@174333
Well, the general public largely seems to agree
with these "ideological purity wankers", so I'd say the DNC race needs more of them, not less. And given how sensible the policies of the Bernie wing and "purity wankers" are, you seem to be succumbing to the Golden Mean Fallacy.
@174360
And who founded the EPA? Why, Richard Nixon, of course.
I mean, seriously, what the hell? The Republicans are stomping on their own legacy because they can't remember what's actually theirs and what's actually Democrat related. The National Parks thing is in the same boat. Theodore Roosevelt was one of the biggest driving forces behind them, and he was a Republican.
The Republicans have moved way to the right - off the cliffs of sanity - since the days of Nixon, let alone Theodore Roosevelt. The policy we call Obama Care was proposed by Nixon and later supported by the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation and Newt Gingrich. Heck, Republicans even praised Merrick Garland when a previous Democratic president - I think it was Bill Clinton? - picked him for a lower court position, only to oppose him when Obama picked him.
The Republicans now turn against their own ideas when Democrats support them. Not that some Democrats are much less tribal to judge from how their position on Russia has turned into that of Mitt Romney in 2012 (as has been seen multiple times on this thread, now). Speaking of which, Captain Capsase, you seem to be by far the most reasonable person on this thread. You aren't Kyle Kulinski by any chance, are you?
@174504
The Justice Democrats are correct about nearly everything, so I don't see the problem there.
edited 16th Feb '17 9:08:16 AM by SeriesOfNumbers
The best argument against anti-vaxxers should be pictures of children in iron lungs.
That kinda beats autism conspiracy theories, even if the connection wasn't implausible.
I love it when someone claims they're not trolling, then cites Glenn Greenwald as evidence of Clinton being pure evil. All while continuing to post defenses of a cast of characters that includes or has included in prior posts grifter and dictator apologist Tulsi Gabbard, genocide denier Cenk Ugyur and his "movement", the absolute fringe left, and Assad himself.
In other news, Rachel Maddow on physical abuse and the White House
.
edited 16th Feb '17 9:34:47 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar
The problem with "ideology purity wankers" is in the end they tend to care more about principles than helping people. Also, they're part of what got Trump into office. On both sides.
In any case, no, Hillary Clinton is not all that evil, and we are freaking tired of that drum being beat. She was clearly the better candidate out of the two, and Trump is proving constantly that there's a whole bunch of shit that the public in general will gloss over and ignore when it's performed by a man and a "political outsider", as if that last one had any sort of value.
@TC: Oh no, a Texas official has been implicated in corruption involving oil! How unusual for our state!
On a more serious note, I wish Texas Democrats would stop running into these small to medium scandals because they sure as shit are not helping us get a better foothold in this state.
Domestic abuse: Enough to ruin the Secretary of Labor's chances, but not the President's apparently.
edited 16th Feb '17 10:12:41 AM by AceofSpades
Re: #174527
It was irrelevant during the election because no amount of "evil", real or imagined, turned her into a worse choice than Trump. It's irrelevant now because she's since suffered the political equivalent of Mike Tyson being OHKO'd by Little Mac. It's irrelevant because Donald Trump has spent every day since the election treating the accusations of corruption against Clinton like they were his job description.
In short, it's irrelevant because we have much more important and immediate factors to worry about than a politician whose career, after a loss like that, is as good as done as far as holding elected office is concerned.
edited 16th Feb '17 10:52:40 AM by sgamer82
Also? She didn't win. She has nothing to do with the presidency or the government because she isn't part of it. If things are done in reaction to her or her proposed policies...well that isn't her fault. It's the fault of whoever can't let the idea of EBIL HILLURY go because the need something to fight against, regardless of how stupid the fight is.
edited 16th Feb '17 10:53:39 AM by Zendervai
That thing with child soldiers is troubling, though. Although I am not certain if her fault directly (let alone whether there'd be a way to improve the situation at the ballot box).
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanI'm getting some "Not Making This Up" Disclaimer from US friends about Trumps Press Conference.
What happened?
"You can reply to this Message!"BUT HER EMAILS
"Yup. That tasted purple."

Yeah. Don't think there's any way you could pass a law saying "it is illegal for the President to surround himself/herself with super-shady people who may be beholden to foreign governments".