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
Remember Romeny's "Binders full of Woman", from the 2012 election, well, they just found them.
@megaeliz.
Huh, Pavlovitz has a talent for breaking down what should be an essay into...a shorter essay. Tolerance is not a Moral Precept made the same point at probably 6 times the word count and 1/3rd of the rhetorical effect.
About moral compasses, have you seen this work: We’re heading into dark times. This is how to be your own light in the Age of Trump
? I'll advocate now that's its no message of hopelessness. One of its lines is spoiler warning!
![]()
I do think the whole comment was blown out of proportion a bit, although it did come out wrong. Probably would have been better to say"Binders full of Woman's resumes.
Yeah, just noticed that some of the comments were getting a bit harsh, and wanted to remind everybody why we're doing this.
edited 11th Apr '17 7:45:08 PM by megaeliz
And why is it bs? If you're going to move and all things being equal you find two places, one where it's really red and the other purple, then I would recommend moving to the purple.
People should do that more. And if anything you help more people out this way.
Where did I say that?
You mean like the Republicans during the Reconstruction period who actually did improve the South using this tactic.
edited 11th Apr '17 7:45:50 PM by MadSkillz
I wish but you shouldn't expect other districts outside of Kansas to perform this way. The blue upswing was compounded by how disastrous Brownback is for the state.
I'd look to the Georgie special election to see where things will really lie.
Since we're on the subject of flipping elections, this is an interesting read.
https://www.flippable.org/blog/2017/3/12/iop43l5pg4vlk3sble9dqcamyt3m48
Madskillz, what proof do you have that doing that actually helps? Especially if it's not en masse? You would need an en mass migration for that to have the effect you're looking for. (And frankly if they don't vote at all it doesn't matter where they live. This is probably tangential to your idea, though.)
Second, the Reconstruction ended too early, with things reversed until the Civil Rights movement, so I'm not sure why you think that was a good example. There were huge gains, until the rights of minorities that the Republicans of the time clearly weren't that concerned with began to be curtailed again. White Republicans were far more concerned with reconciliation than with curing the ills, in the end.
It's an ineffectual idea for the modern day, as far as I'm concerned.
Hmmm... not sure if that's encouraging or not, but I guess the point of the article is that we need to keep chipping away at the block?
edited 11th Apr '17 7:57:03 PM by AceofSpades
Although democrat Jim Thompson did not win in Kansas, the election was incredibly close. And in this case margins matter.
edited 11th Apr '17 8:13:35 PM by megaeliz
It would be preferable if it was en masse, yes. Imagine if 100,000 Blue Californians had moved to all the Midwest states that Hillary lost.
I'm talking about the people who do vote.
There were huge gains, until the rights of minorities that the Republicans of the time clearly weren't that concerned with began to be curtailed again. White Republicans were far more concerned with reconciliation than with curing the ills, in the end.
It's an ineffectual idea for the modern day, as far as I'm concerned.
The ideas worked. We just lacked the political will to continue it.
A state like Kansas was always going to be tough to claim, although (according to the article) putting little to no money in their Candidate certainly didn't help. Still, him being as close as he was is nothing to scoff at.
Hopefully, Jon Ossoff of Georgia is able to win and the Blue Tide can officially begin with him.
The first round is next Tuesday. I don't know when the next round is, but there will be another round as I don't think Jon can get 51%+ of the vote in one Round.
edited 11th Apr '17 8:43:31 PM by DingoWalley1
Donald Trump at it again. This time Saying that Putin was backing "a truly Evil Person" by supporting Assad. For once, I can agree with him.
Edit: fixed
http://thehill.com/policy/international/328403-trump-assad-is-an-animal?amp
edited 11th Apr '17 8:26:33 PM by megaeliz
“One of the things I floated a number of times... was a swap,” said Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), who tried and failed to negotiate a resolution to the Gorsuch standoff. “Let’s repair some of the damage done in 2013. Restore a filibuster for Cabinet, sub-Cabinet, district court, circuit court. But make it a 55-vote margin or a 56-vote margin. And in exchange for that, let’s lower the filibuster margin for the Supreme Court to 56.”
Asked in January whether he too was open to reinstating the filibuster rules originally overturned by Democrats, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) hinted at a willingness.
“I’d have to discuss that, but it’s something I’d certainly consider, yes,” Schumer told The Huffington Post, insisting that he argued against changing the rules in 2013.
Some dems want to bring back the filibuster once they gain majority again to encourage bi-partisanship.
-facepalms-
Stay losing.
![]()
Actually, he said that Putin is backing a truly evil person (Assad). He never said that Putin himself is evil.
"And I think it's very bad for Russia. I think it's very bad for mankind. It's very bad for this world," he said.
Trump further argued that Assad's use of chemical weapons on civilians makes the Syrian leader "an animal."
"But when you drop gas or bombs or barrel bombs — they have these massive barrels with dynamite and they drop them right in the middle of a group of people. And in all fairness, you see the same kids — no arms no legs, no face. This is an animal," Trump said.
edited 11th Apr '17 8:24:59 PM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!![]()
I'd want to bring back the Filibuster simply because it's a unique feature of the Senate, and removing it for almost everything is dumb and defeats the purpose of the Senate.
Also, trying to be Bipartisan, even with a faction that doesn't want to be Bipartisan, isn't a losing strategy.
edited 11th Apr '17 8:24:47 PM by DingoWalley1
Christ, what a self-righteous little shit. He was happy enough to take Putin and Assad's endorsements before.
And of course, does Trump believe what he's saying? Is this some play for ratings? Is he trying to put some distance between him and Putin? He's so fucking shallow, but I can't get a grip on whatever floats through his head.
Amusingly, even Infowars is making fun of Spicers' comment about Hitler. What upside down world do we live in?
edited 11th Apr '17 8:36:44 PM by megaeliz
If the Republicans are going to abolish the filibuster every time they get the majority and the Dems bring it back when they get it back, then that's a losing strategy.
You just make it harder to reverse everything the Republicans did. Why handicap yourself? At least bring it back when you think you're about to lose your majority.

[@Wildcard: One, the joke was by Bat and it was about nuking the population. That sort of thing is not funny in any context as far as I'm concerned. Madskillz was not joking at all, as far as I can tell. Madskillz also did not call for nuking anything.
@Madskillz: I mean natural outgrowth (possibly this is just very awkward wording) as something that comes from the citizens who want to make their place better. Most people who move aren't really taking politics into account anyway, and your suggestion for why people should move somewhere is complete bs. And quite frankly, I'm wondering why you think anyone moves or decides to go to a specific place because of their vote "counting" or not. In any case, you may not be advocating for "kamikaze" (what even the fuck) voters, but it doesn't mean you don't sound like people who have with this particular tactic.
Also, "And I want a unicorn" is again, a rather insulting non-answer. The Civil Rights movement was a thing that happened, and it can happen again. People are working very hard to do that, right now.
edited 11th Apr '17 7:36:54 PM by AceofSpades