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
Michael Scheuer is back, telling that all Republicans should be ready to kill Trump's opponents.Twitter link, so you can avoid the actual website.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
He should be immediately arrested for calls to incite violence. Why do I get the feeling he won't?
Edited by speedyboris on Jul 18th 2018 at 1:45:46 PM
Because "It's Okay if You're a Republican"?
Somewhat related, I'm reminder of the Republican lawmaker in (I think) North Carolina who basically said "I think Republicans are better for the country, so I try to make laws that make Republicans being elected more likely."
The various issues with that aside, I was somewhat impressed with the honest.
Trump is looking into classifying Canadian uranium imports as a security threat.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/uranium-national-security-1.4751659
Have fun with pricier energy.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Student of Story
Why Democrats can’t consistently defeat Republicans, Exhibit A.
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |.gif_100.jpeg){kind=avatar}
I still need to send in my absentee ballot (my last US residence was in Washington, which has its primaries next month).
You don't vote, you revoke the right to complain.
Yes young voters are less likely to vote, often because they're stupid and/or poor.
Doesn't really invalidate all the other evidence that a Blue Wave is probable.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jul 18th 2018 at 4:24:45 AM
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
if you're poor, that should give you all the more reason to vote.
Republicans screwing it up for everyone by making voting as inconvenient as possible for people who have to actually work. Can't afford to take time off work to go vote when you need every hour's paycheck.
Call me Stick
You want people to vote, make sure you give them options. Somehow having more than two viable candidates would help.
That too.
Edited by TroperOnAStickV2 on Jul 18th 2018 at 4:49:04 AM
Hopefully I'll feel confident to change my avatar off this scumbag soon. Apologies to any scumbags I insulted.
Reason, sure. But opportunity? A large portion of the country is working very hard to make voting literally not worth it.
The Democrats are responsible for the present day "tough on crime" policies which we face and a lot of the trade agreements which benefited some as well as not others. Many of the desperately poor and young voted for Obama because he promised change but the malaise on voting is not just out of thin air.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good.
If one candidate is a fascist and the other isn't, you already have options. If you then don't vote, you're complicit.
Call me Stick
Give people choices beyond horrid and (at least perceived to be) mediocre. Also it'd help if we shifted towards a system that made it more common for a state's electoral votes to split. Give people a reason to vote for a candidate who's not their state's normal colour, some way for that to make a difference outside of a fluke or a tremendous swing effort. I think that last sentence made sense.
Edited by TroperOnAStickV2 on Jul 18th 2018 at 5:19:03 AM
Hopefully I'll feel confident to change my avatar off this scumbag soon. Apologies to any scumbags I insulted.
If you're poor all your efforts are focused on survival, especially in states that have limited social safety nets. It's simply not realistic to expect them to think about the long term when the short and mid are so dire.
This too.
This is some interesting revisionist history, tough on crime laws were a Republican invention. It's nonsensical if you're going to give responsibility to one party to blame the Democrats.
The people who expected Obama to snap his fingers and magic a better system where ignorant and delusional, which simply shows the danger of over-promising things.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jul 18th 2018 at 5:22:14 AM
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
Let's put it this way: It was the Republicans which removed the controls on the finance market which could have prevented the crash (and for the record, the few restrain Obama was able to put on them, Trump just removed again). It were the Democrats which introduced the first step to proper healthcare.
Democrats are sometimes influenced by their donors but as a general rule, you have a way better chance that they make a decision which actually benefits the country than the Republicans who make policies for the rich because they believe in this strange idea that poor people are simply lazy.
Well said.
The Democratic Party isn't perfect and we're still haunted by the specter of Third Way politics but it's improved massively and done some very real good. The Party certainly has some responsibility for things like Tough on Crime laws but it's ridiculous all the same to list them before the Republicans.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jul 18th 2018 at 5:35:37 AM
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
Also you can't run more then two canidates in FPTP due to the spoiler effect.
Running two progressives or two conservitives just fractures there votes and hands the win to the other party even if no one wants them.
Call me Stick
Ergo, change the system. Granted, that's much easier to say than do.
Hopefully I'll feel confident to change my avatar off this scumbag soon. Apologies to any scumbags I insulted.
Asgore Adopts Noelle
Mark Zuckerberg, head of Facebook, said that while Facebook is trying to fight fake news, it will not be going after 'unintended' conspiracy theories... like Holocaust denialism.
What the hell is going on with the Tech industry? All of a sudden its being led by little Trumpeteers!
Edited by DingoWalley1 on Jul 18th 2018 at 6:21:21 AM
A procrastination in of itself
Nothing sudden about it.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
In the name of being honest
Mark, no. "[Un]intentionally getting it wrong" is when you say that crab sticks are made from crabs, not when you deny that Hitler murdered 11 million people in concentration camps.
Echoing hymn of my fellow passerine | Art blog (under construction)
The GOP's attempt to take back the North Carolina state supreme court may have backfired
thanks to local democrats counter-playing the system for all it's worth. Let's hope it succeeds.
The North Carolina Supreme Court plays a major role in the state’s politics due largely to the sharp split between the governor and legislature. Republicans hold a super-majority in the North Carolina General Assembly thanks to a racial gerrymandering that has been ruled illegal, while Democrat Roy Cooper serves as governor. Since Cooper won in 2016, Republicans have passed a series of laws stripping his office of power and entrenching GOP rule. (Cooper has attempted to block these extreme measures, but the legislature can easily override his veto.) The state Supreme Court, however, has managed to strike down Republicans’ more egregious power-grabs by consistent 4–3 votes, ruling that they violate the state constitution.
These rulings pit the court’s Democratic majority against its Republican minority. And North Carolina Republicans are convinced that Democrats’ majority is an accident: When Morgan ran in 2016, the party affiliation of state Supreme Court candidates did not appear on the ballot. But Morgan’s name was listed first, due to a random drawing by the state Board of Elections. After he won, toppling the incumbent GOP candidate, Republicans became convinced that he only triumphed because his name was listed first, and included no partisan affiliation. They speculated that many voters assumed he was a Republican, since Republicans were listed first in other races.
In response, the GOP’s legislative supermajority fundamentally altered the mechanism by which state Supreme Court candidates are nominated, eager not to repeat this ostensible mistake in 2018. First, they added partisan markers to the state Supreme Court ballot so no Republicans would accidentally vote for a Democrat. Second, they abolished judicial primaries for both parties on the theory that a free-for-all in the general election would benefit Barbara Jackson, the Republican incumbent up for reelection in 2018. Jackson, Republicans assumed, would draw no GOP challengers, while Democrats would compete against each other for the spot, canceling out Democratic votes.
Third, Republicans ensured that, this time around, the Democratic state Supreme Court candidate, Anita Earls, would appear last on the ballot. Here’s how: In February, Republicans hatched a plan after a state agency held a random drawing to determine the order of candidates in legislative primaries. It selected the letter “F”—meaning that candidates whose last names began with that letter would be listed first. Then came G–Z, and finally, A–E.
The agency was scheduled to hold another drawing for the general election. But the legislature quietly canceled that drawing and applied the primary rules to the general election ballot—including judicial candidates. Thus, candidates with a last name beginning in E would be listed last in the general election, too. The last-minute change was almost certainly designed to ensure that Earls, the Democratic candidate, will be listed last. This so-called “position bias” could detract from her vote total, and, in a close race, tip the election away from her.
Up to this point, the Republican scheme was going as planned. But in June, everything fell apart. Shortly before the registration deadline, a 32-year-old Raleigh attorney named Chris Anglin jumped into the state Supreme Court contest—as a Republican. Anglin was a registered Democrat until June 7, just before he entered the race. He insists that he is not a Democratic plant, instead declaring himself a “constitutional Republican” running to “stand up for the independence of the judiciary.” Anglin also implied that he was running to protest the GOP’s cancellation of judicial primaries, which he considered an assault on “the judiciary as a coequal branch of government.” He has hired a Democratic strategist, Perry Woods, to run his campaign.
North Carolina GOP executive director Dallas Woodhouse has already called Anglin “the enemy,” seemingly acknowledging that there is a very good chance he will siphon votes from Jackson, the Republican incumbent. (It certainly sounds like Anglin is, at the least, an irritated Democrat who decided to exploit Republicans’ manipulations for liberal gains.) If he does split the GOP vote, then Earls—an unapologetic progressive and civil rights attorney—will have an easier time winning the seat, giving Democrats a 5–2 majority on the state Supreme Court. And Republicans’ endless intrigue will have backfired.
There is, alas, still time before the November election for Republican legislators to pass another law targeting Earls—a new rule that no one named “Anita” may appear on the ballot would not be surprising given the GOP’s increasing lack of subtlety. But for now, it appears that Earls has a better shot than ever at winning. If Republicans hadn’t intervened, Jackson might have coasted to reelection on incumbency advantage alone. Now her seat is in serious jeopardy. And if she loses to Earls, Republicans will have only their own buffoonery to blame. [[/quoteblock]]
And I'm going to assume we don't have any tropers from Michigan, since no one cares about their state court enforcing gerrymandering.
That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw