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
So Daily Kos tends to be too hyper-partisan for my taste but this is interesting: there's a petition to the Supreme Court to nulify the results of the presidential election and it's working its way through the bureaucratic chain
Here
is the record of the case docket: as of today it's been "distributed for conference" for March 17th, meaning it's on the agenda for SCOTUS to decide whether to hear the case
.
The justification is that the Russian interference constitutes foreign invasion which the Constitution enjoins the federal government to protect the states against and SCOSUS has original jurisdiction over cases which involve foreign states.
![]()
Notoriously badly; Nixon shared many of Trump's flaws (minus the womanizing AFAIK), though unlike Trump he was smart enough to make it work for a time.
That will be shot down unless you can provide proof of tampering with voting machines, which is astronomically unlikely to have happened without it being noticed.
edited 22nd Feb '17 11:25:49 AM by CaptainCapsase
Indeed, setting a precedent for impeachment in cases of incompetence or unpopularity is not a good idea. It needs to be reserved for clear criminal activity that transcends politics. Otherwise you could have a party take control of Congress and use the threat of impeachment on a president on loose charges.
A handful of Dems wanted to impeach Dubya back in 06, but that would have been moronic, if it were possible, (even putting aside the whole President Cheney thing, and impeaching him afterwards would rightfully be called out as a non-violent coup) and in the end their short and mid term interests were better served by keeping him in office.
One positive thing more or less everyone says about Nixon is that he was totally devoted to his wife. Her illness and death basically finished him off. Besides, with Kissenger in town there weren't many women available.
edited 22nd Feb '17 11:27:01 AM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.If we are comparing the current cultural and political to Video Games I personally see a lot of parallels to Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty, especially concerning fake news and "alternative facts".
I am a simple man, I like stories therefore I dissect and discuss them.
Trump will probably at least bring it up to try and build domestic support.
In other news, Paul Ryan's tax plan
is running into problems with the Republican congress over the use of a Border Adjusted Tax to make up for the revenue lost from tax cuts. Ironically that's one of the most reasonable sounding (at least on paper) parts of the tax plan.
edited 22nd Feb '17 11:42:31 AM by CaptainCapsase
It really is. Fantastic deconstruction of the right-wing power fantasy that most military shooters tend to be. God, that game is good.
I don't know. He might be too busy making up fictional terror attacks to notice. Did you hear London got nuked off the map? It was probably ISIS. Hillary Clinton ordered them to do it in order to distract everyone from her losing Presidential campaign. She can do that 'cause she's the founder.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
I realize you're joking, but I'm kind of hoping that that sort of thing ends up causing his downfall - he finally tells a lie so big and so obvious that nobody, not even his own supporters, is willing to put up with it.
edited 22nd Feb '17 11:45:17 AM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!Yeah the former gitmo inmate was apparently a Brit who traveled there before ISIS became a thing, he likely went to join AQ before the split.
So either he was always a member of AQ and got released because the evidence was tainted due to torture, or he wasn't originally a member of AQ but joined out of spite after being tourtured for no reason.
edited 22nd Feb '17 11:47:28 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranSo the debate for DNC chair is coming up tonight
. Best of luck to those involved, I'm personally hoping for Ellison, and apparently so is Mayor De Blasio as of last night. Along with Chuck Schumer, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, among other congressional colleagues of his.
I don't mean any disrespect to Tom Perez, but Ellison probably has the best shot at mending the divide between the progressive left and centrists, and we're not going to win in 2020 without addressing those divisions.
edited 22nd Feb '17 12:13:40 PM by CaptainCapsase
Agreed. He's not only very capable and an effective advocate of the party's positions, but since he's the pick of the "disruptive" wing of the party, his being elected would go along way toward promoting unity, especially since he's understandably gotten endorsements from "establishment" figures- I saw yesterday that John Lewis endorsed him.
Yeah, I think Ellison might be better optics-wise, since he's a black Muslim in Trump's America. And I think Perez might be more useful where he is right now. But he and Perez are so close policy-wise that I'm fine with either. I'm more terrified that we're going to see more infighting even though the barbarians are inside the White House rubbing their grubby little fingers over everything.
Turns out Betsy DeVos was against rescinding Transgender Student's right to use the Bathroom they identify with at School, but Trump essentially forced her to go along with it
. Jeff Sessions was all for rescinding it, though.
EDIT: Kellyanne Conway has been sidelined, according to CNN
.
edited 22nd Feb '17 12:52:36 PM by DingoWalley1
![]()
The Sanders wing will be thrilled to see Ellison win, beyond a radical here or there, and he's got reasonable support from centrist democrats. Perez on the meantime will relieve certain centrists, but he'll struggle greatly with the progressive left unless he can pull off some very effective outreach.
Is it normal for a person to tweet with so many exclamation marks? https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump
(Last two tweets at the time of posting innocuous)
![]()
The one thing I would quibble with is that my impression is that Perez is a progressive, as are a fair amount of Democrats disliked by the "Sanders Wing". I see it more as a situation where the Sanders wing aren't really within the Party. Rather, like Sanders himself, they are people who often agree with Democrats/Progressive Democrats on issues, but are as likely or even more likely to attack Democrats as they are Republicans. And so besides being a great guy and very qualified, what's good about Ellison is that he's liked by these people and likes the Democratic Party.
Like the idea of Sanders as a party leader doesn't work, because his whole shtick is being outside of /in opposition to the party. Ellison doesn't have this issue.
Edit- Shtick might have too negative of a connotation here. But Sanders certainly places a fair amount of emphasis on not being part of the Democratic Party, even if he ran as its Presidential candidate. This is most clearly signaled by the fact that he identifies as being an Independent, not a Democrat and that he returned to this status immediately after the last round of Presidential primaries.
edited 22nd Feb '17 1:12:53 PM by Hodor2
![]()
![]()
My immediate thought: "five exclamation marks are the sure sign of a diseased mind"
![]()
edited 22nd Feb '17 1:13:48 PM by sgamer82
![]()
![]()
On some level the dislike for the democratic party establishment from the Sanders wing comes from a belief that many of them are either unwilling to push for more comprehensive progressive change or incapable of carrying that particular torch due to incompetence or complacency, and on some level I definitely agree with that assertion; the democrats are in a truly awful position as a party; me saying we may need to compromise with Republicans where we can was more due to the fact that the GOP holds virtually all the cards than any expectation that such deals will have a positive outcome rather than merely mitigating potential damages.
Note that since Sanders was elected as an independent, he was obligated to return to the senate as an independent. Considering his age it's entirely possible he'll end up retiring before he has to run again.
edited 22nd Feb '17 1:19:15 PM by CaptainCapsase
Honest question- who are you considering as the members of the Sanders wing?
I'm curious because my impression of this "wing" as well as my impression of the people you are talking about is in respect to people on the political left who don't identify as Democrats (although they will generally vote for Democratic candidates), which wouldn't really make them a "wing" of the party.
Hmm- that didn't make much sense. I mean are there actually elected officials in this "Sanders wing"? There's definitely Democrats whose positions are closely in line with those of Sanders (i.e. Ellison, Warren, and the infamous Gabbard), but except for the last of these, they don't have the oppositional attitude toward the Democratic Party that you are talking about.
edited 22nd Feb '17 1:22:01 PM by Hodor2
Sanders leaning politicians generally aren't oppositional towards the democratic party (nor is Sanders particularly hostile towards the party), but the base that supported him isn't particular keen on the current party leadership. We desperately need new faces in the party leadership (like Ellison), because the old guard (in my opinion) simply isn't up to the monumental task ahead of them.
edited 22nd Feb '17 1:26:30 PM by CaptainCapsase
Constituents, not elected officials, as far as who I think Perez will have trouble with. Both him and Ellison are fine in terms of support from party officials, Ellison is ahead by a fair bit in terms of endorsements in fact, but not enough to be a shoe in.
edited 22nd Feb '17 1:28:42 PM by CaptainCapsase

edited 22nd Feb '17 11:22:52 AM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!