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
Though apparently it probably doesn't have a chance in hell of getting passed. At least according to the article.
I can think of two reasons why he wouden't disclose these state's names.
- He's lying through his teeth.
- Or in a bit of party loyalty, he trying to protect the lawmakers that made the legislation from the wrath of the Blue Wave, knowing that democratic voters would find it another reason to vote out the GOP.
My bet's on the former, until we do find evidence that other states did attempt to silence Politically Motivated Teachers via legislature.
I have to say it's a testament to the rot that infects our nation that he felt comfortable suggesting it.
This is why I can't wait for the midterms, I want to help push back against the flock of degeneracy that is the Republican Party.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Sep 20th 2018 at 2:26:18 PM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangAnd on a different note, an article about why some Trump supporters don't want the GOP to win
during the midterms. If his viewpoint is right, it greatly disturbs me, and makes me think that democracy is, in fact, dead.
Even as Trump keeps telling his rally-goers and Twitter followers that the GOP might increase its advantage, the report asserts a need “to make real the threat that Democrats have a good shot of winning control of Congress.”
As Green reports:
The internal RNC study finds that complacency among GOP voters is tied directly to their trust in the president—and their distrust of traditional polling. “While a significant part of that lack of intensity is undoubtedly due to these voters’ sentiments toward the President, it may also be partly because they don’t believe there is anything at stake in this election,” the authors write. “Put simply, they don’t believe that Democrats will win the House. (Why should they believe the same prognosticators who told them that Hillary was going to be elected President?)”
It is not surprising that Trump’s most dedicated supporters are prone to believe what he says to be true or that doing so misleads them about reality—there has never been a more brazen or unabashed liar in the White House. Perhaps that is enough to explain the complacency that the RNC found.
But reflecting on my interviews and correspondence with strong Trump supporters during the 2016 election, it seems to me that a significant subset of them have reasons to be complacent about the 2018 midterms that are independent of the outcome that they expect in the contest. For that subset, placing so low a value on Republican victory that they stay home rather than bothering to cast ballots is a perfectly rational choice.
That analysis doesn’t apply to the most reliably partisan Republicans or voters mostly interested in the legislative priorities of the GOP. But recall that while winning most partisan Republicans and losing the popular vote, Trump got a boost from a constituency of nontraditional voters.
Consider the Trump voters who strongly gravitated toward him in the 2016 primaries because they felt so alienated by the rest of the GOP establishment; or who voted for him in the general election due to his celebrity, or his status as a political outsider, or faith that he would “drain the swamp” of a corrupt, bipartisan, establishment elite, or confidence that he would be a good “dealmaker” once in Washington, or a desire to “shake things up,” or to stoke and then revel in chaos, or because of an unusually strong or visceral dislike of Hillary Clinton.
Yes, some of those voters now worry that a Democratic majority would seek impeachment, representing a threat to a president that they want in office.
Still, if what you like most about the Trump presidency is watching him drive the media crazy; or reading his steady stream of combative tweets ostensibly “owning the libs”; or having a white man rather than a black man back in the White House; or seeing a president unapologetically attack Muslims, Mexicans, and NFL players; or following along to Sean Hannity’s sycophantic analysis of daily events; or believing that Trump is keeping North Korea or Iran in check? Well, all of that will continue regardless of the 2018 election.
For the subset of Trump supporters mostly in it for the “are you not entertained” spectacle, Democratic victory might even enhance their enjoyment, with their champion stepping daily into an arena filled with new villains. “Here’s the question facing the voters this fall,” talk-radio host Hugh Hewitt, a perennial Republican Party partisan, wrote recently in a Washington Post op-ed. “Do they vote to ratchet up this culture of conflict and chaos, or to return Republican legislative majorities that have figured out how to work with this most unusual of presidents?”
For at least some of the Americans who put Trump into power, revealed preference would seem to suggest their choice is: Ratchet up the conflict! As the reality-TV POTUS preps for a new season, fans want plot twists.
Meanwhile, the distinct subset that still believes what Trump said during the campaign may credulously expect a Democratic victory to allow their “master dealmaker” to win negotiations with a new set of congressional leaders, who they dislike no more than those they replaced.
Trump’s approval rating is around 40 percent among voters overall and substantially higher than that among staunch Republicans. In contrast, “just 18 percent of voters approve of Congress, while 75 percent disapprove. And worse for the lawmakers: Only 11 percent of those enthusiastic to vote in the upcoming midterm elections approve of Congress's job performance.” While that figure reflects dislike of congressional Democrats as well as Republicans, it does not portend an electorate that is motivated to turn out in the midterms to protect the status quo, regardless of the outcome that they would bet on if forced.
The RNC and establishment GOP partisans like Hewitt may be right that a Republican loss will stymie their agenda. But if their agenda excited GOP voters, Trump wouldn’t now preside over the Republican Party.
Speaking of degeneracy, from the Just Happened Today on the previous page:
How...how can they continue to become ever lower and more disgusting? And on top of what this will do to cancer and HIV patients, as well as the setback on education—neither of which is surprising, after what DeVos has been doing, the cuts to CHIP, *45 cutting off financial support to his own nephew, and that hospital cancer charity that Eric Trump's foundation stole from—if this goes through, and we have a new disease outbreak or epidemic we can't handle, it'll be on the Republicans' heads.
Edited by Ingonyama on Sep 20th 2018 at 11:55:37 AM
I'm pretty sure this has literally always been true though, considering that the South literally started a civil war over it and we survived that I think there is some room to go before our democracy is dead.
Honestly the selection of Donald Trump should've demonstrated the cancerous nature of their ideology rather clearly thus the fact they want the nation to be harmed is merely icing on the cake, so all this shows is that Republicans are getting complacent which could very well mean greater odds of the Democrats taking Congress in its totality.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangSpeaking of which, isn't it strange how the same preachers who would blame liberal policy for every natural disaster that befell the U.S. haven't yet drawn a line between Trump's election and the hurricanes that are flooding entire cities and states? I wonder why that could be...
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |This logic doesn't really hold out, logically if God uses natural disasters to punish people for sins then just because Trump was elected and several natural disasters have occurred does not mean that they were aimed at Trump. After-all I'm sure they would argue that there are many sins in American society that Trump has not addressed.
Now obviously (natural disasters are caused by god to punish sinners) as a priori assumption is extremely illogical and unfounded but that doesn't mean that this argument is especially strong.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangConspiracy theorists are some of the most gigantic morons on the planet.
(This isn't a sudden realization, I just feel the need to say it considering the discussion)
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangSpeaking of weather, today and one year ago Hurricane Maria made landfall on Puerto Rico
at 10:15 UTC time.
Just for fun, and if you want a good idea of just how inane conspiracy theory can get, give a listen to this
recitation on the intro page of a website about the Government's Secret Space Program, courtesy The Last Podcast on the Left.
Not sure if this has been posted already, but there was another shooting spree in Maryland
. The fact that it was perpetrated by a woman might get the chauvinists to finally make some moves on gun control, but it probably won't.
This is something to consider (from NYT)
Senate Republicans assume, correctly, that if they can hold the party line, his installation on the Supreme Court is a sure thing. This is certainly true — even if the Democratic caucus in the Senate holds firm against Mr. Kavanaugh, they simply lack the votes to block him. But the Republicans’ calculus contains a significant error — namely, the assumption that if Mr. Kavanaugh is confirmed to the Supreme Court, that’s the end of the discussion of whether he is fit to serve.
The Constitution does provide that federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, “shall hold their Offices during good Behavior.” The settled understanding of this phrase is that so-called Article III judges enjoy lifetime tenure. But the Constitution also makes both judicial and executive officers subject to impeachment. And, as it happens, the House of Representatives holds “the sole Power of Impeachment.” If the Democrats win back the House in November, they can exercise that power.
Impeachment proceedings in the House are investigative in nature and come with a full panoply of quasi-judicial powers, including aids to investigations, such as the power to subpoena witnesses to compel them to appear and testify (subject, of course, to constitutional privileges, if applicable, such as the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against self-incrimination).
If a simple majority of the House decided to proceed with impeachment, the House Judiciary Committee would be empowered to conduct a thorough and careful investigation of the sexual misconduct allegations that Professor Christine Blasey Ford has made against Mr. Kavanaugh involving a drunken sexual assault when both were high school students in suburban Washington, D.C.
Nor should the Democrats wait to formally take control of the House in January. The House Democratic leadership should pledge now that if they win a majority, they will conduct an impeachment investigation, to get to the truth. Doing so today would make clear to the Senate Republicans that if they rush to judgment, in the absence of a full and fair investigation, there will still be an investigation.
To be sure, the impeachment of a Supreme Court justice is a rare thing in our democracy. The last member of the Supreme Court to face a credible threat of impeachment was Associate Justice Abe Fortas, whom President Lyndon Johnson had nominated to replace Earl Warren as chief justice. Credible allegations of financial misconduct involving a lifetime paid consultancy with the Wolfson Foundation were made against Justice Fortas — Wolfson was facing federal criminal charges that could easily have found their way to the Supreme Court.
Under withering bipartisan criticism, Justice Fortas withdrew his nomination, and ultimately resigned from the Supreme Court. Had he not resigned, however, there’s a good chance he would have been impeached. (The only justice to be impeached was Samuel Chase, who was accused in 1804 of allowing his partisan views to affect his decisions, but the effort to oust him failed in the Senate.)
Of course, even if the House impeached Mr. Kavanaugh, it would still take a two-thirds majority in the Senate to convict and remove him from the Court. But the Senate vote would surely have at least something to do with the merits of the House’s case: If a full and fair investigation shows that Mr. Kavanaugh has lied regarding the incident — he has denied it categorically and says nothing even remotely like it ever occurred — Republican senators may find it hard to vote “no” in the #metoo era. It would be a terrible blow to the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, of course, but this is the risk that Senators Mc Connell and Grassley seem willing to take.
Moreover, an impeachment investigation could also encompass allegations that Mr. Kavanaugh has committed perjury before the Senate, twice, related to his work on the nomination of District Judge Charles Pickering to be a judge on the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Under oath, both in 2006 and in 2018, he said he had no involvement with the White House strategy sessions associated with Judge Pickering’s nominations. Subsequently released emails, involving these sessions, suggest that these answers were at best misleading and at worst totally false.
Attending a strategy session as a White House staffer is not a crime. Lying under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee, on the other hand, is. Perjury would be a perfectly justifiable, and constitutional, basis for impeachment.
An important caveat: Congress must take care to maintain the constitutional convention that has existed since the failed impeachment of Justice Chase. Federal judges, including members of the Supreme Court, should not be impeached based on their judicial rulings or philosophy. Accordingly, if the House were to initiate impeachment proceedings against Justice Kavanaugh in 2019, such proceedings should be strictly limited to questions associated with his alleged intentional and deliberate efforts to mislead the Senate about his character and fitness to serve.
We do not know the truth of the troubling allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. But, before someone is confirmed to the Supreme Court, good faith efforts to discover the truth should be made. And if the Senate won’t conduct a credible investigation now, the House should offer its assistance next year.
Edited by megaeliz on Sep 20th 2018 at 5:39:25 AM
