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
![]()
Because if we gain a Democratic majority, those Dems that occasionally vote in line with Trump can more easily be convinced not to? It's a strength in numbers thing. There's also a debate to be had about whether or not it's actually worth it to try and test the Republicans over Gorsuch, no matter how much it may gall us over the whole Garland thing. Gorsuch's approval means the SC stays pretty much the way it was, it's the next replacement that may well chance the face of it.
Also, Tactical Fox is actually pretty militant, in rhetoric if nothing else. It just tends towards a sort of centrism rather than the extreme ends of ideology.
Being willing to support Trump on a few votes is not the same as being totally unwilling to resist him. The point is to stop as much of Trump's agenda as possible, being willing to let 100% of Trump's agenda though because the other option was to 'only' stop 80% of it is stupid.
Sure I'd be nice to have Congress be made up of people willing to resist Trump 100% of the time, but right now that's not practical, if you can come up with a way to make it practical I'm all for it.
All of this obviously ignores that controlling congress actually has advantages even if how votes go stays exactly the same.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran@Thewanderer: That was a very nice list of progressive policies, I will have to preserve that somehow.
Re: Dem solidarity- I wouldnt primary someone on the basis of a single vote, even one in favor of Gorsush; that said, if a Dem votes more often for corporate interests than progressive ones, then they lose my support.
edited 30th Mar '17 4:54:54 PM by DeMarquis
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.i found a good article talking about when the democrats should work with the republicans, actually.
edited 30th Mar '17 4:58:32 PM by megaeliz
This was never about resisting Trump, yes the man is a baboon, but he did win the election (I was one of those in the "Give the man a chance"camp, that lasted until the Muslum ban). It was always about resisting his agenda. If he is willing to change his agenda, maybe we can work with him. Occassionally.
@sggamer: Thats practically a contradiction in terms. You'll have to be specific.
@vipermagnum: thanks
edited 30th Mar '17 5:03:26 PM by DeMarquis
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
No specific examples in mind when I posted. I was mostly just being ironic/contrary. That said, there's nothing that says a corporation can't pursue a progressive interest for its own corporate sake. Isn't that basically what happened with a bunch of companies and such pulling out of North Carolina over the bathroom laws? At worst serving a progressive cause in the name of corporate profit?
edited 30th Mar '17 5:04:14 PM by sgamer82
As if the anti-privacy laws weren't bad enough, Trump is already looking to go after Net Neutrality: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/technology/net-neutrality.html
As has been pointed out, there's no word yet that the FBI or any such agency has taken the deal with Flynn.
As was pointed out in some of the Twitter-speculation earlier this week, they're only likely to take the deal if it will likely lead them to a bigger fish. There is only one bigger fish.
Incidentally, I have to wonder if Flynn has noticed the tendency of Russian officials fallen out of Putin's favor to end up dead (however many of them can actually be attributed to hostile action) and he has more than immunity from prosecution in mind.
![]()
![]()
![]()
fascinating eyebrow
![]()
![]()
They'd give immunity in exchange for Bannon I'm pretty sure. Comey cannot be happy about him on the NSC.
FWIW I'm pretty sure the laws never went into effect. We're still at square zero in terms of IS Ps being able to flog your data.
edited 30th Mar '17 5:17:07 PM by Watashiwa
I'm freaking out here. I NEED my full unstrained internet access almost all day to stay sane, it's the only thing keeping me from snapping. One of the reasons why I moved to California from Gibraltar was because it was easier to get internet there as my surviving grandparents who I live with were preferred customers with Cox for more than 10 years, Gibraltar had a annoying tendency for blackouts, and I was stuck with one of those portable drives with limited data in my grandparents house in Gibraltar.
edited 30th Mar '17 5:25:32 PM by Bat178
House votes to restrict EPA’s use of science
The House approved a bill that makes the EPA use only "publicly available" science to justify new regulations.
Bonus track: the bill's sponsor? Rep. Lamar Smith
, also known as "the asshole who created SOPA".

Because you can persuade such a Democrat without risking charges of breaking and entering, blackmail, assault and more?
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot