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
That's an argument if I supported Nixon and didn't hate the Republicans.
Insufficient. Mind you, I stated at the start of the last page I'm not really sure what we're arguing because "underwhelmed" by a candidate is a weird thing to have an argument over.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jul 20th 2018 at 11:49:28 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
"No chance of repealing Presidential powers expanded under Bush."
In what way?
"Continuing waging War of Terror policies I disagree with."
Which policies exactly?
"The economic stimulus package of Hillary benefits working middle class Americans and not the destitute."
As far as I could tell it benefitted both by creating jobs in regions which really needed an economic stimulus and also wanting to invest into programs to get people back into work…and she wanted to spend more on social services, too (while Trump cut down all of those programs)
"No plans on changing the current American drug, law, and crime policies."
Which changes did you have in mind.
"Continued support of corporatization of farming."
Yeah, good point...thing is, Trump not only does the same thing, he makes it even more difficult for farmers.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
We are arguing if there was a reasonable excuse to not vote for Hillary to keep Trump out of the White House...spoiler alert: There isn't one, everyone who didn't vote for Hillary basically supported Trump.
Edited by Swanpride on Jul 20th 2018 at 11:54:29 AM
I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out.
I... think Philipp is TRYING to talk about the primaries, voting for Democrat vs Democrat. That said, I still vehemently disagree. Always vote. Always. Always vote Better, whoever you prefer. Take it from someone who FORGOT TO REGISTER TO VOTE IN THE 2016 ELECTION. I deeply regret it, even though I know for a fact that my vote alone would not have changed the outcome. Always vote. Convince others to vote. Spread who you want to vote for.
I also disagree with the things he's saying about Sanders vs Clinton, but I'll let others who'd be better at it handle that. Just know that Bernie Sanders is a joke, and would've been a terrible president.
Jupiterian Local
The point is that Nixon was the first person to really lean into the Southern Strategy. The Democrats had racists in it prior to the Civil Rights Movement, but in throwing their support behind it, the racists stopped voting for them. The GOP then deliberately started appealing to those disaffected ex-Democrat racists. So going back to Nixon isn't going back to when the Democrats were racist, it's going back to when the Democrats purged their party of racists and the GOP snapped them up instead.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
@Charles Phipps Dude, you brought the southern democrat thing up to say "Well, if you use Nixon, Democrats are still Dixiecrats, checkmate."
And there we go: clinton's policies were insufficient. No telling what would be 'sufficient at all. It's a pretty good strategy, honestly: draw a line in the sand to quickly erase it and draw it down further so you never have to admit anything Clinton or the dems do is anything but insufficient.
Edited by Lightysnake on Jul 20th 2018 at 11:52:40 AM
Wait, does anyone actually think I voted for Trump or would vote Republican?
I thought I was pretty clear my problem with Hillary was she was insufficiently left.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jul 20th 2018 at 11:54:25 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
@Charles Phipps- Seems kind of weird that you are trying to use Dixiecrats against the Democrats/ posters given that your complaint against the party boils down to claiming they don’t care about rural white people/should center the party on them.
Also weird that you make no mention of Democratic social and racial policies and I almost get a feeling that you oppose them. Which doesn’t really surprise me as the pro-Sanders “insufficiently left” position.
Edited by Hodor2 on Jul 20th 2018 at 1:54:18 PM
The Dixiecrats are not part of the present Democratic Party. They're an illustration how going past Bill Clinton to rebuttal the claims the Democratic Party's law enforcement policies to Nixon is dumb. I was refuting the "Both sides" argument basically.
The Republicans and Democrats have changed.
The only thing which matters is what they support now. Which is Democrats=Sane Adults, Republicans=Fascist.
Which is notably when I realized the argument was pointless since I'd vote for Drake and Millie Cyrus over the republicans now.
If you're asking me if I think Hillary wasn't doing enough for black americans, absolutely I agree she's not.
Glad we're finally getting somewhere.
Sanders wasn't very good on racial politics but I was very much of the mind his economic policies would far benefit minorities in America over Hillary's.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jul 20th 2018 at 11:57:18 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Here we go:
- No chance of repealing Presidential powers expanded under Bush.
- Continuing waging War of Terror policies I disagree with.
- The economic stimulus package of Hillary benefits working middle class Americans and not the destitute.
- No plans on changing the current American drug, law, and crime policies.
- Continued support of corporatization of farming
And I got a President who is killing the poor.
The thing is, how much of that matters when the alternative was President Donald Trump? Seriously, Hillary Clinton's flaws, real or imagined, became irrelevant the moment she became the Democratic candidate.
They were irrelevant after the primary because she was the only viable alternative to something we knew going in would be awful. They're irrelevant after the election because she became irrelevant after the election.
Edited by sgamer82 on Jul 20th 2018 at 1:02:48 PM
Would that it were so simple.
Hillary Clinton matters because the insanity that tore apart the Democrats hasn't gone away, it's just been muzzled until the next presidential election.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
I feel like this conversation is best summarized:
"I am a socialist who thinks the destitute in America, particularly minorities, need a huge boost from the government."
Poor blacks, poor whites, poor everybody.
The prison system and criminal justice system is horribly racist as well as broken. It needs urgent reform.
We also have a drug crisis fostered by megacorporations.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jul 20th 2018 at 11:58:39 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
The Republicans and Democrats have changed.
The only thing which matters is what they support now. Which is Democrats=Sane Adults, Republicans=Fascist.
Which is notably when I realized the argument was pointless since I'd vote for Drake and Millie Cyrus over the republicans now.
You tried to blame the crime policies on Clinton. I claimed it was part of a trend that began under Nixon. You brought up the Dixiecrats...which fails because Democrats pulled away from the Dixiecrats ever since Hubert Humphrey put Civil Rights on the platform. The Republicans ran down the road Nixon set and never looked back.
I...everything I've said has just made everything more confusing, hasn't it?
I brought up the Dixiecrats to talk about how discussing Nixon was irrelevant.
...
Also, why are you bringing up the Republicans? Who supports them in this conversation?
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jul 20th 2018 at 12:00:22 PM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Would that it were so simple.
Discussing Nixon is relevant in a historical sense since the present-day GOP is his brainchild.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
Yes, but my issue with the Democrats is they went Center during Clinton and contributed to the current situation which needs dire reform. There's a lot of severe racial and poverty based problems in America which I'd like to see fixed as a socialist.
I think Hillary dealt in half measures.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jul 20th 2018 at 12:04:17 PM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Why am I bringing up the Republicans? To refute the idea Bill Clinton is the father of mandatory criminal sentencing, as the War on Drugs was started by aRepublican and amped up more by a Republican and the omnibus crime bill contained a lot written by Republicans.
And I see here the notion only Democrats have agency in America. "The Democrats let it all fall down and the Democrats must fix it" in a nutshell.
Edited by Lightysnake on Jul 20th 2018 at 12:05:47 PM
Speaking only for myself, my own point was mainly that, the moment she won the Primary, Hillary Clinton's flaws, real or not, are irrelevant, either because the alternative was that much obviously worse, or because now she is effectively irrelevant.
Edited by sgamer82 on Jul 20th 2018 at 1:03:57 PM
I’m sorry, how does strengthening the social safety net, raising the minimum wage and boosting rural economies not help the destitute? Like I said, you’re pulling the words right out of the Republicans playbook here.
Additionally, what would you suggest we do about the Middle East? You seem to be implying that current and Obama-era policy don’t work, but unfortunately they’re our only and best option at this point.
They should have sent a poet.
The Republican playbook is we should give more money to the poor?
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Question: wasn't a point brought up frequently during the election and whenever the stray Bernie Bro pops in that Sanders's and Clinton's general platforms were basically identical?
If I'm understanding correctly, the arguments you're using to claim Clinton wasn't doing that nor going to are what's out of the playbook.
Edited by sgamer82 on Jul 20th 2018 at 1:09:01 PM
I remind people as a Bernie supporter that Bernie ordered his supporters to vote for Hillary Clinton.
Which I did.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jul 20th 2018 at 12:07:21 PM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
I don't think that it is in any way relevant that the Republicans used to be the "free slaves" party while the Democrats were less enlightened, to put it delicate. What counts is what the parties have done more recently.
So, let's see…I think we should start Bush, because he was in office when the wall went down and the world was reshaped (plus, I am not in a mood to discuss Reagan and his impact)...any way, Bush the first, not the worst president all in all, despite his war mongering in panama and the Gulf. I mean, he did sign NAFTA, he did pretty well with the four point agreement, as with all Republicans there were problems with him but overall he was still somewhat sane. But then, I compare him to Nixon, Reagan, Bush jr and Trump, sooooooo...not a big hurdle to jump.
Then Clinton, who actually managed to balance the budget of the US, though he was kind of lucky to reign during a period of peace and economic boom. But he also managed to install and health insurance Programm for children, passed welfare reform, his intervention in the Balkan wars was actually successful and he negotiated with North Korea about something and got it. Despite his scandals, he actually did a pretty good job.
Then Bush...the president about which I thought "well, it can't get worse". His intervention in Iraq hunts us to this day, the signed the damned Patriot act, cut taxes, and he managed to push the country in deep debt even before the financial crisis hit (which, I have to remind you, was caused by the US housing market).
And then Obama, who inherited the mess, spend his whole tenure to somewhat clean up and improve the standing of the US in the world again, and finally managed to install something like proper healthcare after so many presidents before him failed to do so.
And now we got Trump.....
honestly, it is beyond me how anyone can NOT vote for the Democrats.
The Mod with the Migraine
In case anyone still wasn't sure, Trump's plan all along was to orphan as many Hispanic children as possible.
In the case of Ms. L v. ICE, Judge Dana Sabraw ruled that child separation was a violation of the due process clause of the Constitution, ordered it be brought to an end, and that the already separated families be reunitled. The government has yet to challenge this ruling and those reunifications are currently underway.
The ad hoc procedures the government has created to respond to this judicial decree have offered proof that it never intended for families to be brought back together. On Wednesday, Democratic members of the House Judiciary presented further such evidence. Ranking member Jerrold Nadler—along with Reps. Elijah Cummings and Bennie Thompson—released a joint statement saying that the Trump administration told them there had been no plan to reunite the children prior to the judicial order by Judge Sabraw last month.
“[During a Wednesday meeting], Trump Administration officials made a startling confession—they had no interagency plan in place to reunite children with their parents when Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced President Trump’s ‘zero tolerance’ policy in April,” the trio of Congressmen announced on Thursday. “Even if they believed their new policy was the right one, how could they have been so heartless not to have planned to reunite these children with their parents?”
This is a question that should haunt this country for years: Did our government plan to make effective orphans of thousands of children who came here with loving parents?
Again, the plain answer seems to be: “Yes.”
Here’s what happened when the Democratic Congressmen raised the issue with Commander Jonathan White, the Deputy Director for Children Services, Administration for Children and Families at the Office of Refugee Resettlement.
[W]hen asked whether a reunification plan was in place on April 6, 2018, Commander White answered: “There was not at that time a specialized plan.” Commander White acknowledged that the Trump Administration began more detailed planning for reunifications only when forced to do so by court order.
This is as much official information the public has been given by the administration on how its child separation came to be and what exactly it was intended to do.
While Judge Sabraw had initially indicated appreciation of the government’s efforts to craft a reunification plan, even at this late date, he has recently seemed to lose patience with these efforts. Only 57 of the more than 100 children under five were reunited near Judge Sabraw’s deadline, with the government claiming other children didn’t fall in the class group, or had parents who had gone missing after being deported or released into the United States. Earlier this week, the government acknowledged that there were 2,551 children between the ages of 5 to 17 who potentially fell within the class group and needed to be reunited with their parents by the judge’s July 26 deadline. Judge Sabraw said the government was “failing” to look out for the welfare of these children by reuniting them in a timely fashion. He also dismissed an excuse that the government was running out of space to house families together. “That is not an option,” he said. “The government will have to make space.”
With the next deadline just one week away, only 918 of those children have been cleared to be reunited. The government hasn’t been able to locate parents for 71 of those children. The government was set to update those numbers ahead of a hearing on Friday for Judge Sabraw to determine the schedule for reunification and if he would continue to bar immediate deportations of reunited families. The government had initially given the separated parents a form offering the binary choice of deportation with or without their children, with lawful asylum seeking together not presented as an option. The judge mandated the government stop using that form, and instead use one that notifies parents of their right to be reunited regardless of deportation status. But the ACLU sought a temporary restraining order halting any such deportations, because it argued that it believed the government was planning mass deportations once reunifications had taken place, potentially based on the initial, now discarded form. The judge granted the TRO pending Friday’s hearing.
As further details emerge of the horrors perpetrated on these children, the trio of Democratic House Judiciary members called for public hearings with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, and Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar. It seems like such hearings are the only way we’re going to learn the full extent of what child separation meant and continues to mean. Given the Republican Party’s reluctance to hold this administration accountable for anything, a change in the majority party seems to be the only way the public is going to get any such hearings.
I used to believe Americans were voting because of fear of money.
But no, it was racism.
You guys showed me that and so have recent events.
I have never been more ashamed of my country except maybe when we legalized torture.
In case anyone hasn't read the other posts, I voted for Hillary and think discussion of why I didn't care for her that much are irrelevant since it's a could have, would have situation versus our present actual fascist crisis.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jul 20th 2018 at 12:11:33 PM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
"Yes, the Democrats were progressive except for the South but they don't count."
So, um...not bothering to address how Nixon helped to bring those southern Democrats in as Republicans? And how Republicans only embraced the path Nixon laid for them?
No chance of repealing Presidential powers expanded under Bush. Continuing waging War of Terror policies I disagree with. The economic stimulus package of Hillary benefits working middle class Americans and not the destitute. No plans on changing the current American drug, law, and crime policies.
Some of these are outright blatantly untrue. Especially as Clinton was in favor of expanding the social safety net, and absolutely in favor of rolling back criminal issues. What do you think universal voter registration or restoration of rights to felons would be?