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
![]()
![]()
On the one hand, if we do have a shutdown, that'll keep some of Trump's nastier tendencies and policies in check for a while if only because he won't actually have the means to carry them out. On the other hand, it's still a fucking shutdown. Again, mixed blessings if there ever were any.
edited 21st Apr '17 11:27:19 AM by kkhohoho
![]()
That's indeed a very interesting way to argue against Political Gerrymandering, and it might just work. Keep in mind, it might not.
![]()
![]()
![]()
Trump goes through with vetoing any spending bill that would not include money for the wall, the Blue Wave would be a guarantee. A Government Shut Down caused by the President himself would be a first, and it would be a negative for both Trump and Republicans.
My only worry is, knowing Trump, he may declare the Government Bankrupt if we do get a Government Shutdown under his watch...
edited 21st Apr '17 11:28:39 AM by DingoWalley1
Change is only a good thing when it's in the right direction.
If you don't like pickles on your cheeseburger and you order a burger and it comes with pickles, you might want it changed. If I proceed to slather mud all over it, then your burger has changed - but not in a way that solves the initial problem of it being unappetizing. If anything, it is now worse.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
Several Agencies, including Parks, won't be open. Government Workers who still work won't be paid, including soldiers. Federal Grants to Businesses and Organizations won't be paid for. The World Economy will tumble, and Credit Rating Agencies will probably drop us from AAA (which we only recently re-got) to AA+ or even AA.
The only Positive is that Trump and the Republican Party will get a huge depression in popularity and the Blue Wave of 2018 will be a guaranteed thing. I'm not sure that positive outweights the huge negatives, though.
Wait, why is this mutually exclusive?
Although I don't think Obama is a sellout. He's always been Establishment and he's been pretty open it.
Thing about Obama is that he talked a lot about hope and change. That pricks people's ears up. Tom Perez said it himself, when Democrats talk about hope and change, they win.
edited 21st Apr '17 12:03:35 PM by MadSkillz
![]()
OTOH, actually approving a budget plan with Trump's insane wish list would be awful as well.
Really, it's ridiculous that Trump has to strongarm the Democratic Party into helping him pass the budget. He's such a pathetic leader he can't even get his own supposed party that has control over everything to do it.
edited 21st Apr '17 12:05:01 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised![]()
![]()
Then it's a remarkably limp threat on Trump's part. "Support my policies or I'll blow up my own power base and take the country with me!!" Judging by Trump's record it's just empty talk with nothing to back it up. Democrats should stand firm, and just let Trump take the blame for his own actions if he goes through with it.
I think it would be worth it. I know a lot of vital services would be in danger, but they're already threatened by the Trump administration. We'll look like fools and idiots, but hey- we elected Trump.
![]()
![]()
![]()
That's probably the ideal course of action.
Sure as hell won't stop people from going "DEMOCRATS Y U NO STOP THIS?" Especially middle class whites.
Ivanka Trump is pushing organic food while conspicuously stating nothing about over chlorpyrifos being given a reprieve from a ban by the Trump admin
. Surprising?
edited 21st Apr '17 12:10:05 PM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotIt's honestly super pathetic that the GOP can't get anything done when they control all the branches of government. They shouldn't have to rely on the democrats for well, anything. This is a tacit admission of incompetence on their part.
I just hope that if the dems stand firm trump isn't successful at pinning blame on them for the government shutdown as the party that wouldn't cooperate for the greater good or whatever.
You think the Democratic Party is so innocent?
The problem with the main branch of the Democratic Party is that it doesn't want to make big changes because they're actually conservative with the Republican Party being regressives.
They won't alter the direction of the country and that's what we need and that's what Obama was promising.
Obama is similar to Trump in that he presented himself as something he wasn't. Obama wasn't a populist but he gave the impression that he was going to be one.
Having ridden into office partly on a wave of popular anger at the economic power elite’s staggering malfeasance, Obama called a meeting of the nation’s top 13 financial executives at the White House. The banking titans came into the gathering full of dread, only to leave pleased to learn that the new president was in their camp. Instead of standing up for those who had been harmed most by the crisis—workers, minorities and the poor—Obama sided unequivocally with those who had caused the meltdown.
“My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks,” Obama said. “You guys have an acute public relations problem that’s turning into a political problem. And I want to help. … I’m not here to go after you. I’m protecting you … I’m going to shield you from congressional and public anger.”
For the banking elite, who had destroyed untold millions of jobs, there was, as Suskind put it, “Nothing to worry about. Whereas [President Franklin Delano] Roosevelt had [during the Great Depression] pushed for tough, viciously opposed reforms of Wall Street and famously said, ‘I welcome their hate,’ Obama was saying, ‘How can I help?’ ”
“The sense of everyone after the meeting,” one leading banker told Suskind, “was relief. The president had us at a moment of real vulnerability. At that point, he could have ordered us to do just about anything, and we would have rolled over. But he didn’t—he mostly wanted to help us out, to quell the mob.”
The massive taxpayer bailout of the super fat cats would continue, along with numerous other forms of corporate welfare for the powerful and parasitic super-rich. This state-capitalist largesse was unaccompanied by any serious effort to regulate their conduct or by any remotely comparable bailout for the millions evicted from their homes and jobs by the not-so-invisible hand of the marketplace. No wonder 95 percent of national U.S. income gains went to the top 1 percent during Obama’s first term.
Come on now.
edited 21st Apr '17 12:41:32 PM by MadSkillz
So you complain that the Dems are either conservative or simply not allowing liberal policies to go through fast enough.
And yet you think that Sander's idea of catering to a voting block so conservative, they don't even want to learn new job skills, will move the Dems to the LEFT?
edited 21st Apr '17 12:46:08 PM by NoName999
To the surprise of absolutely no one, Trump expresses Support for French Presidential Candidate Le Pen
And you think that Sander's idea of catering to a voting block so conservative, they don't even want to learn new job skills, will move the Dems to the LEFT?
Not all Democrats but the majority although they've been drifting back left to some extent which I see as a good thing.
I'm primarily talking about economic issues btw.
The voting block that Sanders is catering to is ignorant. You probably won't change them on social issues but they're open to going for leftist ideas on economic issues.
And many of the ones you want to win over in the Rust Belt are pro-union.
edited 21st Apr '17 12:50:59 PM by MadSkillz
x5 And it's great he wasn't. Go ask in the Venezuela thread if they think a left wing populist is a good idea, or through the Latin America thread (since I'm here, my opinion: Generally not but I'll keep the socially progressive policies they sometimes bring if they implement those well, might as well take advantage of the few good things that may come of it).
![]()
Hopefully that backfires.
For the banking elite, who had destroyed untold millions of jobs, there was, as Suskind put it, “Nothing to worry about. Whereas [President Franklin Delano] Roosevelt had [during the Great Depression] pushed for tough, viciously opposed reforms of Wall Street and famously said, ‘I welcome their hate,’ Obama was saying, ‘How can I help?’ ”
“The sense of everyone after the meeting,” one leading banker told Suskind, “was relief. The president had us at a moment of real vulnerability. At that point, he could have ordered us to do just about anything, and we would have rolled over. But he didn’t—he mostly wanted to help us out, to quell the mob.”
- That's not necessarily indicative of where his sympathies lay. He was, after all, chief politician, and probably wanted them kissing his feet rather than rallying opposition against him. Tis not like the anger against them lasted (in a meaningful sense). Eight years later they're back in the saddle.
- That's just a difference in style. FDR got political mileage out of being a traitor to his class. Obama went with No-drama-Obama. Plus the issue of the country's different overton window from the 30s. Of course style has practical effect but, it doesn't mean there was a secret conspiracy in the works.
- And that can be taken two ways. One the risk of any negotiation is that you lose out on potential gains, because no one can read minds. Or two, he gave them the impression he wanted, and these stakeholders were too busy relying on President Obama to keep armies of sans-culottes from their gates to rally opposition to what he did help reform.

NYT: ‘Pivotal Moment’ for Democrats? Gerrymandering Heads to Supreme Court
. I had not heard the argument presented in the Maryland case:
It's a very interesting argument.
1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KV