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 didn't claim that anyone was, what I said is that if fake news started getting pushed saying things like that some people here would lap it up.
edited 16th Apr '17 5:09:39 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.” ~ CyranI think the rule is that you can't sue a President...for being President or any of the duties involved in being President, but it's perfectly legitimate to sue someone for something they did either outside their duties or before they became President. Anything Trump did before he ran for President is fair game. Also, if Trump did something like randomly slap and fire an employee in New York without fair grounds, the employee could sue over that.
The other thing is that Trump's businesses are still wide open for lawsuits and because he's not supposed to maintain any connections with them, he can't use the "being President" excuse to get out of it. Which may be a problem because of the bizarre way his personal resources are tied into his businesses.
And since precedent is what drives the courts, Trump has already allowed precedent to come into play regarding this. The literal hundreds of lawsuits already aimed at him? All of them are allowed to play out, because the Trump University one did. Therefore, precedent exists to allow a pre-existing lawsuit to continue. And, of course, the courts have no reason whatsoever to coddle Trump.
edited 16th Apr '17 5:23:36 AM by Zendervai
![]()
Well, the first comments were merely complaining about the optics. Then someone suggested that maybe Sanders working with the alt-right for single-payer was pragmatic even though that's not really what was happening.
It went downhill from there.
The weird thing is that the person who suggested that maybe Sanders should work with the alt-right was trying to defend Sanders.
As for the accusations that this is just Hitler Ate Sugar — it's not. Most of us still like the idea of single-payer just fine. We just don't think bringing a genocidal Neo-Nazi into the conversation is the best idea. Unless you think claiming "single-payer is such a great idea, even Neo-Nazis want it" is a good strategy.
Also, the notion that centrist Democrats are the main obstacle to single-payer — right from said article — is complete bullshit.
edited 16th Apr '17 6:04:49 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedSupreme Court, with Gorsuch, set to hear church-state case
Justice Neil Gorsuch's first week on the Supreme Court bench features an important case about the separation of church and state that has its roots on a Midwestern church playground. The outcome could make it easier to use state money to pay for private, religious schooling in many states.
The justices on Wednesday will hear a Missouri church's challenge to its exclusion from a state program that provides money to use ground-up tires to cushion playgrounds. Missouri is among roughly three dozen states with constitutions that explicitly prohibit using public money to aid a religious institution, an even higher wall separating government and religion than the U.S. Constitution erects.
Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Missouri, says its exclusion is discrimination that violates its religious freedoms under the U.S. Constitution.
If the justices agree, "the decision could have implications far beyond scrap tires and playgrounds," said Michael Bindas of the Institute for Justice, which is backing the church. "It has the potential to remove one of the last legal clouds hanging over school choice."
That prospect worries groups of public school teachers and others who oppose vouchers and other forms of public aid for private schooling.
Adding to the intrigue is the long delay between when the Supreme Court agreed to hear Trinity Lutheran's appeal, a month before Justice Antonin Scalia died in February 2016, and the argument. The span of more than 15 months suggests the justices were concerned they might divide 4-4. Indeed, the case wasn't scheduled for argument until after President Donald Trump nominated Gorsuch for the seat.
Missouri's new governor, Republican Eric Greitens, injected some uncertainty into the high court case on Thursday, when he directed state agencies to allow religious groups and schools to receive taxpayer money for playgrounds and other purposes. The court on Friday asked both the church and the state to tell it whether the governor's announcement affects the case.
The case arose from an application the church submitted in 2012 to take part in Missouri's scrap tire grant program, which reimburses the cost of installing a rubberized playground surface made from recycled tires. The money comes from a fee paid by anyone who buys a new tire. The church's application to resurface the playground for its preschool and daycare ranked fifth out of 44 applicants.
But the state's Department of Natural Resources rejected the application, pointing to the part of the state constitution that says "no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion."
A recycled scrap tire is not religious, the church said in its Supreme Court brief. "It is wholly secular," the church said.
Leslie Hiner, vice president of programs at Ed Choice, a school voucher advocacy group said, "It is difficult to understand that a little school could not participate in a safety measure determined by the state because somehow safety of children is conflated with religious purpose."
The Missouri church and some of the groups backing it have invoked what they describe as anti-Catholic bias that motivated the adoption of the Missouri provision and similar measures in other states in the late 1800s. They are similar to the proposed 1875 Blaine Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would have prohibited the allocation of public school funds to religious institutions.
"Both the Colorado and Missouri Blaine Amendments share discriminatory, anti-Catholic origins that make their contemporary use to compel religious discrimination particularly unacceptable," lawyer Paul Clement wrote on behalf of the Colorado county.
@M84: I wasn't trying to defend the notion of some sort of grand bargain with the alt-right, because I read the initial tweet and article and assumed everyone else did as well and was perfectly aware that ; I was arguing against simply writing off votes under any circumstances, because that's just stupid.
edited 16th Apr '17 6:09:28 AM by CaptainCapsase
- Assuming of course this doesn't come at the price of an unacceptable compromise on the far more numerous areas where our interests are totally incompatible.
Honestly, it's that second bolded statement that is...questionable.
edited 16th Apr '17 6:10:21 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedLet's put it this way: if I meet a member of the alt-right that genuinely believes in single-payer healthcare for everyone — including minorities and whatnot — I'll rethink my position on unicorn hunts. Because if you follow that through to its logical conclusion, including how you pay for it, how you manage/run it, who gets it, etc., then the person is no longer really a member of the alt right.
Remember that basic tenets of that political ideology include that:
- Men shouldn't have to pay for women's health.
- Whites shouldn't have to pay for minority "moochers".
edited 16th Apr '17 6:12:53 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@M84: These days I regard myself as having objectives, not principles; adhering to some inviolable standards simply puts you in a position where you can be outmaneuvered by someone prepared to do anything and everything to achieve their own objectives.
edited 16th Apr '17 6:14:57 AM by CaptainCapsase
I know. You're correct, and I should really just stop. There are times when I find myself more concerned with "winning" an argument than I am with debating in good faith. In normal circumstances, I don't really see any meaningful cooperation with the far right happening. Come the apocalypse maybe, but otherwise yeah, it's not going to happen.
That being said, I still think that this thread tends to use the terms alt-right and far-right, way to liberally, to the point where it basically has become synonymous with "somebody who voted for Trump." Which is another potential source of confusion, I suspect.
edited 16th Apr '17 6:33:37 AM by CaptainCapsase
This one is causing a bit of amusement (and not in a good way) on this side of the Pond. It's an article from yesterday:
Trump wants gold-plated carriage ride with Queen during UK visit: report
Trump's October state visit to the UK is controversial to begin with. We all know that. It's now being complicated by Trump demanding that he ride in the 'gold' coach with the Queen.
Obviously, carriage rides are a major security headache - for both the security forces of the visiting country and the British security forces. Carriages are a security nightmare at the best of times. So, you can imagine how both British and US security would be taking this.
So, lack of consideration for his own people (in this case, security) and an inability to comprehend that something with a bit of gold on it, isn't as important (symbolically speaking) as he thinks.
- He doesn't understand that a state carriage ride isn't an uncommon event, and therefore not a sign of being 'special' (globally speaking). It can be offered, or requested. If it doesn't happen, it's usually because security teams have decided among themselves that it's just not feasible (security-wise) and that the state visitor has listened to, and complied with, reason, practicality and good old common sense. In other words, state visitors who don't use carriages tend to get a thumbs up for having a good head on their shoulders. This is the decision most state visitors reach... and the limos they get to use make even the sparkliest horse-drawn carriage as out-dated as they indeed are.
- He demands a gold-plated carriage. Many Royal carriages are, at minimum, gold plated. It's what separates them from the carriages used by the Royal household or any state dignitaries of a lower ranking. However, some of the Royal carriages are not gold-plated. In fact, some of the most iconic and symbolic carriages are jet black
◊ and without any adornments at all (the Ivory-Mounted Phaeton
◊, for example, which is used by the Queen during the Trooping of the Colour, and which is a more popular carriage (symbolically speaking) than the Gold State Coach).
- The carriage most commonly used for state visits is the 1902 State Landau
◊ (the article shows a picture of this carriage, containing the Queen and Putin). That's if the weather holds for an open-top, of course. The Glass Coach
◊ is a common alternative for bad weather... it is gold-plated, but I suspect it wouldn't be to Trump's taste. The Diamond Jubilee State Coach
◊ has been used for state visits; Trump would probably like that one (lots more gold on it).
- The real 'golden' carriage is the Gold State Coach
◊. It is only used for coronations and sometimes for Royal Weddings. Trump will not get a ride in that. Even most of the Royal Family will never get a ride in that. And, yes, the Gold State Coach's appearance is indeed as over-the-top as the name implies.
Edit: Added links to show what the carriages mentioned look like.
edited 16th Apr '17 8:36:07 AM by Wyldchyld
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.![]()
I live with someone who supports Trump (but didn't vote because we're registered in California so he thinks "what's the point?") and is far from being alt-right. I know there's a difference.
Ah, Trump. Never stop being the national disgrace Colin Powell claimed you are.
Looks like you got
by Wyldchyld above.
edited 16th Apr '17 6:40:29 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedHas anyone seen this? Any British people on this thread I apologize for our crazy leader.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trump-demands-gold-plated-welcome-xjnffdq32
edited 16th Apr '17 6:39:17 AM by megaeliz
Stupid prick's Gold Fever and lack of actual class in full display for the entire world to see.
Disgusted, but not surprisedI think the Brits could get away with denying that by citing security concerns. Or not putting Her Majesty in close contact with an admitted rapist....(granted, she could probably take him in a fight).
Maybe Queen Elizabeth could make him look classier by being there? Or would the side by side comparison just make Trump worse?
edited 16th Apr '17 6:51:00 AM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.

Heck, where are they now? The AHCA wasn't anywhere close to single-payer.
Disgusted, but not surprised