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'd say he didn't win his bet so much as stepped on the other guy after he spontaneously passed out at the table.
And it can under international law, just one'll have a hard time proving intent or dragging an American president before the ICC in the first place.
Top Georgia Democrats choose a side in race for DNC chair
“Secretary Perez has made a commitment to the return of the 50-state strategy strengthening the Democratic Party from the ground up by strengthening state parties, recently using Georgia’s victories in Cobb and Gwinnett as examples,” read their statement.
“Secretary Perez has never shied away from a fight, and we need that fight brought straight to Donald Trump’s doorstep,” it added. “He has the vision, he has the record, and he has our support to lead the DNC.”
The fight over DNC chair has all the makings of a repeat of the bruising Democratic primary... \\ Sanders and other progressive powerbrokers are backing Rep. Keith Ellison’s bid for DNC chair, as are party heavyweights like Sens. Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren. Perez has support from allies of Clinton and former President Barack Obama.
Other leading contenders in the race include Jamie Harrison, the head of the South Carolina Democratic Party, Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of the Indiana city of South Bend, and Sally Boynton Brown of the Idaho Democratic Party.
edited 17th Feb '17 3:56:13 PM by CenturyEye
Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our livesWonder if someone has a breakdown of all the pros and cons of Perez vs. Ellison. The only thing I know is that the latter is a Muslim African-American congressman - one of the first muslims in Congress in fact (complete with a bogus controversy over using the Quran during the oath of office instead of the Bible)
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanI never understood why people got pissed off over a non-Christian refusing to swear an oath over a book that means nothing to them. If swearing over scripture is supposed to bind your soul to the oath, should it be a Scripture you believe in?
See, this is why my agnostic ass is grateful that I can forgo oaths and just take a solemn affirmation instead.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Depends on how his presidency shakes out. You'll notice that Dubya is not fondly remembered.
(In the setting I've constructed, he's seen as a fool who caused a medical catastrophe that has reduced the States to a fourth rate superpower. And who consistently mishandled every disaster and tragedy)
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanThey're pretty similar in most respects. But I believe Ellison is very strong on messaging, which is what the Democrats need. Here's Trevor Noah's extended interview with Ellison.
edited 17th Feb '17 4:14:30 PM by Eschaton
![]()
![]()
It's hard to say because we are at such a volatile stage. If Trump actually gets impeached in his first year (which I'd caution against expecting, but it is a scenario that can't be ruled out), then pretty much everyone will remember the Trump presidency as that weird thing that happened in between Obama and Pence's presidencies.
But I think we need to keep in mind that Reagan had a lot of charisma (so does Trump in a sense, but it's an extremely unstatesmanlike form of charisma) and was president during the breakup of the Soviet Union and was much more popular during his tenure. The really bad stuff only comes up if you make it a point to dig below the surface.
I saw the word "Eisenhower" somewhere and my mind went to that. Wilson was an awful president though. Well-intentioned in forming the League of Nations but he caused a lot of bad stuff decades after his presidency.
And yeah, it's time for the Republicans to go the way of the Federalists. The last few presidencies have shown that their ideas are unpopular at the best of times, and in the rare moments these days where they can get a president elected the president ends up being terrible.
edited 17th Feb '17 4:24:06 PM by theLibrarian
You were saying about "paid protestors"?
(It's a pic of a craigslist ad apparently trying to recruit people for Drumpf's FL rally this weekend)
I mean, Eisenhower only signed up with the Republicans because there hadn't been a Republican in office since the first FDR administration in 1932. On the whole he was a very bipartisan President.
Which seems to fit Ike's MO. Also his warnings about a military industrial concept and the consequences of defense spending are prophetic, almost.
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.That reminds me. I saw a Fox News article today that actually acknowledged Clinton's 3 million popular vote win
Speaking of Ike and prophecy.
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.[Washington Monthly]: How the Opposition Can Wound Trump
basically: Trump's supporters support him because he looks strong: install the idea that he's weak and his support will evaporate.
The Republican party itself will have to realign in order to survive at some point in the future. The demographics are against it. One reason why white working class males are so inclined toward extremist politics is because they can feel their majority-status privileges slipping away. That's not a trend any President or Congress can reverse.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
The Problem with the Modern Republican Party is that they are beholden to the Baby Boomers that vote for them: They could've reformed in 2012, and maybe not get elected until 2020, but they would at least become palatable. Instead, they doubled down on their path, and are now full of Alt-Righters, Conspiracy Nuts and Openly Racist White Supremacists. The Republican Party is now complete poison to (almost) everyone younger then 40, and is only on good terms with Baby Boomers who support these things for a variety of reasons.
If by 2020, the Republicans have lost most of their power (and I'm expecting they will), they will be a dying party. Hell, they'll be a dying party by the 2030's when most Baby Boomers are gone.

Under that definition, it's not unreasonable to consider it genocide when someone refuses to do anything about a deadly disease outbreak because it appeared to only affect a particular group (ie, the AIDS epidemic seemed to be limited to gay men). The main question there is whether refusing to do something can be seen as a genocidal act.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.