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 do wonder if don's polls among republicans will start to sink.
Gorsuch dissents as Supreme Court upholds ban on big-money gifts to parties. Nice job proving all the negative opinions about you right, jerk.
After years of planning, California is likely to roll out its earthquake warning system next year. Good, although only useful if you are at a certain distance from the fault, which is the case for the southern San Andreas faul, but not for the Hayward, northern San Andreas or the recently married Newport-Inglewood and Rose Canyon faults (LA and San Diego).
Adelanto wants to be the 'Silicon Valley of medical marijuana'. No, I do not understand why a desert city would be suited for this. Yes, water flows uphill to money but this seems chancy.
A procrastination in of itself
The thing with Trump's numbers is that several different things keep getting conflated, thus the appearance of no change.
A couple weeks ago one or two polls had him drop below 40%, last week polls in general had him around 38%, this week the poll aggregators (who pay attention to polls in general and not just the latest ones) had him at an average of 38% but in a range that goes from 32% to 44%.
People keep quoting different numbers as if they're relative to each other. If you want a feel for how Trump's numbers are trending I'd suggest looking at one specific pollster or agregator and look at the trend.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Overall it seems his current floor is around 35%.
Well, if it gets to 35% and stays around there, Trump is probably done if he lasts to 2020 and runs again. And an incumbent president with an approval rating that low will drag down his own party by association.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
A real bad hombre
California's proposed single payer healthcare plan could cost up to $400 billion annually.
Republican gerrymandering is being struck down in courts. At least there's some good going on there.
About half of these 400 billion could be serviced by the presently available healthcare funds.
Um. I've thought about how difficult it'd be to obtain 100 billion dollars in California as part of a story of mine. Getting twice that - yearly - in the real world seems iffy.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
On the topic of North Carolina, though they narrowly went for Trump, they also narrowly elected a Democratic governor. In response that the Republican controlled legislator hurried to remove powers from the position of governor to essentially cripple him from doing anything, and they've outvoted any vetos he's done.
They seem pretty brazen in general. I'm pretty sure at least two law makers have more or less admitted that they're stacking the deck in their favor.
Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign?
Just Because: Sinkhole opens at Trump's Florida retreat
The town of Palm Beach, where Mr Trump's retreat is located, tweeted a traffic alert on Monday morning about the 4ft by 4ft (1.2m) road cavity.
City officials tweeted that the hole had formed "directly in front of Mar-a-Lago" and was close to a newly installed water main.
City construction crews were to carry out "exploratory excavation" of site.
Social media users have been poking fun at the cave-in, which comes in the middle of Mr Trump's first foreign trip as president.
I take it there's no way to convince someone opposed to the taken down of the Confederate statues if they think that disrespects their heritage or something?
Why are there still so many people attached to the Confederacy?
I liked it better when Questionable Casting was called WTH Casting Agency
That seems like a question that keeps getting asked over and over.
Long story short: for a lot of people it's just about plain old racism and supporting white supremacy while (thinly) disguising it as something else.
For some others it's about this genuinely held belief about a fabled Confederacy that never existed and the cult of the "Lost Cause of the South" were it really wasn't about slavery but "state's rights". This is ironic because in reality the Confederate government actually exerted much more direct influence and power in the economy and governments of its states than the Union, but again, what's being worshiped is dream, not the real thing.
But either way, Reconstruction went incomplete, and not enough, if anything was done, to prevent the rise of the cult falling. Like how Nazis generals and leaders were rebuked and depowered in Germany? That didn't really happen, and after Reconstruction a lot of Confederates were allowed into power.
That's a really rough around the edges account, but still.
edited 22nd May '17 1:57:51 PM by LSBK
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Let's see if we can spin that story as a Hellgate opening at the Mar-A-Lago, and then watch what the Religious Right does in response. ![[lol]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/lol2v12_4863.png "[lol]"){kind=small}
edited 22nd May '17 1:57:09 PM by TrashJack
They're probably deeply troubled and concerned about it.
I liked it better when Questionable Casting was called WTH Casting Agency
Because man wasn't it great when ordinary citizens could get away with murdering black people and exploiting them for free labor without having to suffer a lengthy trial you'll probably be acquitted for anyway?
edited 22nd May '17 2:00:25 PM by math792d
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.
From what I understand, the Union (or at least, parts of it) actually tacitly encouraged this fantasy since they saw it as a way to bury the hatchet. Only, it was a white man's peace - the rights of black people or their history didn't figure into it.
From what I understand, the idea of the South's secession being about "states rights" was a narrative spread mostly during the 20th Century to avoid offending people. The Civil Rights movement is when it began to change.
edited 22nd May '17 2:19:27 PM by megaeliz
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
The State's Rights angle came about during the Civil Rights Movement. It was a dogwhistle of the era.
If you actually read things like the Cornerstone Speech the Confederate leadership spells it out pretty bluntly that it's about slavery and racism.
Oh really when?
Lost in Space
"States' Rights" has been a thing since the founding of the nation. A lot of folks back then didn't trust the idea of a strong federal government, so the Constitution has language designed to give the states significant power over it. There was also a deep distrust of "city folk" among the Jeffersonian crowd, which is why the Senate and the Electoral College give more per-capita representation to less populous states.
Even around the Civil War, a lot of the rhetoric used at the time to sugar-coat the slavery motive was focused on states' rights.
For a while, the nastiness of the idea was quiescent, since even though blacks had to be paid for work and whatnot, they could still be legally discriminated against. But when Civil Rights started taking that away, it came back big time. It has always been a smokescreen for racism.
edited 22nd May '17 2:24:28 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Wasn't there a Confederate general who was actually named "States' Rights"?
Still, look at any speech from a political CSA leader, and you know damn well that it was about slavery.
edited 22nd May '17 2:29:18 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Though States' Rights was a bit of a misnomer up through about 1820-this country was essentially 13 separate countries welded together by necessity, and most people of the first 40-50 years identified first as hailing from a particular state, then as an American. Structurally, one of the biggest problems was reserving rights to the states by default, instead of the federal government like almost every other functional nation.
I often wonder if, had Lincoln survived or Grant had the support he needed, they could have pushed an amendment to fix that-one of the 'original sins' of the Articles of Confederation carried over as compromise to ratify the Constitution, like kicking the can down the road for slavery.
edited 22nd May '17 2:31:33 PM by ViperMagnum357
Student of Story
But reports indicated that his new budget, set to be unveiled Tuesday, will violate this promise in a rather flagrant fashion. Axios's Jonathan Swan reports that the 2018 budget proposal will include $1.7 trillion in cuts to mandatory spending programs over the next 10 years, "from programs including SNAP (food stamps), CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program), and SSDI (Disability Insurance)." But Swan obfuscates the issue by saying the plan, "won't reform Social Security or Medicare — in line with his campaign promise.”
Let’s be extremely clear about something: SSDI stands for Social Security Disability Insurance. It is part of the Social Security program. While in the public mind, “Social Security” usually connotes payments you receive in retirement based on your prior earnings, Social Security also encompasses a program compensating past workers who develop disabilities that prevent them from participating in the workforce. That’s disability insurance, the program that Trump’s budget is set to cut.
The DI program is more politically vulnerable than Old-Age and Survivors’ Insurance (OASI), the retirement component of Social Security. The elderly are extremely well-organized through the AARP and other groups, and have impressive voter turnout, whereas disabled people tend to be low-income and, because they are incapable of working, lack political voice through unions and other groups.
Due primarily to demographic factors, the program grew in enrollment in recent years. It’s since leveled off, but the growth has led to the program being targeted for cuts, with some mainstream news outlets like This American Life and the Washington Post issuing stories arguing that it’s become a magnet for abuse. Former Social Security Administration commissioners, who actually ran the program, have strongly challenged this narrative, noting that fewer than 40 percent of people who apply get benefits, and many people who do have disabilities are rejected; many rejected applicants spend years appealing and reapplying until they can get help.
Benefits are typically quite modest. In March 2017, the average monthly benefit for a disabled worker was $1,171.52, or little over $14,000 a year.
So anyone want to keep a running tally? From what I can remember, the republicans hate:
-Poor People
-Disabled people
-Undereducated people (unless your name happens to start with T and end with ump)
-Older people who use Medicare
-Black People
-Muslims
-Mexican people
anyone think of anyone else?
-Scientific experts
-Atheists and secularists
-Public servants
-Veterans (when not being used in propaganda)
edited 22nd May '17 3:10:14 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Two other lawmakers and the chief of the state's highway patrol liked it, apparently. Oy.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman