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 know this is the US politics thread and this doesn't strictly have anything to do with the US, but why would the Saudis dump Khashoggi's body there, of all places? Why not somewhere inconspicuous, preferably in a place that has no connection to Saudi Arabia whatsoever? How is this going to unfold? Even if they had to take it there for whatever reason, couldn't they have at least kept it indoors, behind a locked door or something? This is basic international assassination squad operating procedures! :V
Those sell-by-dates won't stop me because I can't read!Let's face it,there are a million and one ways they could have destroyed traces of the body
Murderers usually go to great legenths to hide bodies because they know the punishment in store if they're caught,they clearly believe they are above such punishment that they just dump the body parts anywhere,their arrogance is astounding
have a listen and have a link to my discord serverIndications are that the Saudis didn’t expect Turkey to have a problem with what they did, if that assumption had been correct this entire thing could likely have been covered up.
The body double would have been serviceable enough to cast doubt on when he went missing without the CCTV, the drone footage wouldn’t have been released, the Turkish recordings would have gone unmentioned, the body would have been impossible to find inside a diplomatic compound, ect...
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranAaaaaaand.... This was the moment where I stopped finding the notion of a forceful overthrow of the current administration objectionable.
Don't get me wrong, I'm still not advocating for it, I still don't think it's the way for it to be done, but if it does happen, I'll no longer see it as a bad thing persee.
Angry gets shit done.The biggest stick up conservative asses always seems to be the idea that people are freeloading, or being undeserving of some kind of special treatment. One of my coworkers is kind of annoying about that, always on about communists.
Just today he was saying some BS about Stalin keeping his people happy by giving them all bread, and acting like it was some socialist scheme to keep the masses satiated. Or like how ineffective socialism is if it can only give people bread, or something. But you know, I bet there's millions of people even in America that would be thankful even for some bread.
I know as Americans we believe all are created equal, but we aren't born into equal situations, and that's something they can't seem to grasp. They don't see all the advantages they were given, and can't see when someone else does or does not have those.
And that's probably a factor into the self made billionaire myth so many buy into, they don't imagine someone just being born into money. And even then, self made millionaires can be liberal intellectuals or celebrities and artists. It's a double standard, and it only counts when it fits their narrow nareative. I mean, the so called liberal elite includes a lot of Hollywood, and as far as I know that's not something you're born into. But it's the entertainment industry, not a blue collar job, so it doesn't count.
I'm just trying to understand the mentality. I always come back to it being a mix of pride and greed, with pride seeming to take priority. They only feel proud when they have more money than someone else, and they feel shame and anger when they think it's being taken from them and given to someone who doesn't deserve it. Even if that person needs it to survive. So yeah, wealth is a mark of pride. Sharing wealth takes humility that they lack. And they would rather be poor than let someone have as much as them. So, maybe misplaced envy too.
It's about feeling special. They want to feel special for just being straight, white, normal working class people in a world where it feels like everyone is being praised for being black or transgender or smart, without seeing that those people are getting special attention because of all the challenges they overcame.
Weirdly enough, this coworker has said I'm the hardest worker there, and he knows I'm liberal. I know he's trying to get on my nerves sometimes. I think the guy has issues though, like he got screwed over in a previous job and is venting. I don't think he expects liberals to act the way I do at work.
Edited by StarOutlaw on Oct 23rd 2018 at 6:52:16 AM
I'm going to assume this is the neighbor pet on my lawn syndrome. Edrogan would have been fine/ambivalent if the killing had been done on Saudi or any other's soil, but get's pissed when it's on his.
x4 Forceful overthrows of a government should be the absolute last thing anyone should go after.
Edited by tclittle on Oct 23rd 2018 at 6:53:30 AM
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."Sandra Day O’Connor, First Woman on Supreme Court, Reveals Dementia Diagnosis
:
In a letter addressed to “friends and fellow Americans,” Justice O’Connor, 88, wrote that she was told she had early-stage dementia “some time ago” and that doctors believed it was most likely Alzheimer’s disease.
“Since many people have asked about my current status and activities, I want to be open about these changes, and while I am still able, share some personal thoughts,” Justice O’Connor wrote in the letter. “While the final chapter of my life with dementia may be trying, nothing has diminished my gratitude and deep appreciation for the countless blessings in my life.”
After she retired, she wrote, she made a commitment to spend her remaining years advocating for civic education. But her physical condition will prevent her from continuing that work, she said.
She said she would keep living in Phoenix, where she returned when she left the court in 2005. Her husband, John J. O’Connor III, died in 2009 after a battle with Alzheimer’s disease, and his diagnosis was a large factor in her decision to retire from the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said on Tuesday that Justice O’Connor was a “towering figure in the history of the United States and indeed the world.”
“She serves as a role model not only for girls and women, but for all those committed to equal justice under law,” Chief Justice Roberts said in a statement after the announcement.
Hours after the announcement, every sitting member of the court and three retired justices released statements honoring Justice O’Connor.
“She strived mightily to make what was momentous for women in 1981, the year she was appointed to the Court, no longer extraordinary, but entirely expectable,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said. “I am among legions of women endeavoring to follow her lead.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in a statement that Justice O’Connor’s ascension to the nation’s highest court inspired her to see a law career as a “calling that would welcome women in all its aspects.”
On the bench, she used “true wisdom” to inform her judicial decision making, Justice Elena Kagan said.
For nearly 25 years, Justice O’Connor was the swing vote on numerous social issues, including abortion and other polarizing topics, and her minimalist and moderate opinions placed her squarely in the middle of a sharply divided court.
But out of all her cases, her views on abortion thrust her into an intense culture clash, on the court and in politics and beyond, that has remained long after she retired. She voted to uphold Roe v. Wade, affirming a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and delivered the fifth vote to strike down Nebraska’s ban on late-term abortions in the last abortion case she heard, Stenberg v. Carhart.
She was also at the center of battles over affirmative action. She wrote the opinion for the 5-to-4 majority in Grutter v. Bollinger, the landmark 2003 case that upheld the University of Michigan’s use of race as a factor in its law school admissions.
“Effective participation by members of all racial and ethnic groups in the civic life of our nation is essential if the dream of one nation, indivisible, is to be realized,” she wrote.
When President Ronald Reagan nominated her to the court in 1981, she was plucked from a relatively obscure midlevel state judgeship in Arizona, where she was on the state’s Court of Appeals. Before becoming a judge, she served in the Arizona Senate for six years and assisted in the presidential campaign of a fellow Arizonan, Barry Goldwater.
She was politically savvy — and showed it off during her Senate confirmation hearings. She gracefully danced around politically dicey questions from senators but made a point, on national television, of noting their commitments to reduce crime and fix overloaded federal courts.
“Her performance as a politician was masterful,” The Washington Post wrote after two days of hearings.
Justice O’Connor viewed being the first female Supreme Court Justice as a tremendous responsibility that could affect how future women were judged in the job, said Lisa A. Tucker, an associate professor of law at Drexel University who wrote two children’s books about the justice. At the same time, Ms. Tucker said, Justice O’Connor did not want her gender to dictate her legacy.
“Being a woman didn’t define her in her job,” she said. “Being a justice defined her.”
And even if you overthrew the government, And Then What?.
Edited by Steven on Oct 23rd 2018 at 9:41:16 AM
Remember, these idiots drive, fuck, and vote. Not always in that order.You can be born into money in any circumstance, as long as your parents have money and are willing to raise you. Literally every child of a famous Hollywood actor or director was born into money, that's literally all that term means. Being "born into money" just means "a rich person had a child".
" So yeah, wealth is a mark of pride. Sharing wealth takes humility that they lack. And they would rather be poor than let someone have as much as them. So, maybe misplaced envy too."
I will said many of this belive america is this still virgin land were fortune can be done by just doing hard work and that it, that everyman is a island were making a frowing face can do stuff for you.
That of course and the idea of derserving it which eventually let to the idea that being a hard men making deserving of something.
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"Maybe we should differentiate between "overthrow of the government" and "overthrow of the government's current administration"... if that's even a meaningful distinction.
We just finished filling out our ballots. They'll be in the mail tomorrow. ^.^ We have a process for voting in our house. Since I'm the most legally-adept, the task falls to me to explain a given ballot item; the candidates, the judges, the amendments and proposals, etc. Then we deliberate on them as a family, and then everyone makes their vote. No one is obligated to share what they voted with the family. If someone does share, it has to be treated non-judgmentally. Family rules.
Election votes were easy. Normally, we try to diligently research every name on the ballot, but this election cycle, we all just sort of agreed that anyone still running under the R after everything that's happened in the last two years is a scumbag. One person in the family leans conservative but hates the Republicans; for her benefit, I explained the positions of the Libertarian candidates she was curious about.
Judges were trickier. I hate how the progress reports for judge retention are done. It's basically a professional job review. Are they nice? Did they seem cool? Is their writing quality up to par? Are they knowledgeable about law? Etc. etc.
I don't care about his handwriting. I don't care about whether the prosecutors like working with them. I care about how they preside over their court. So what we wind up doing on the judges is googling News articles with their name to see how they handled their cases and decide how we feel about the sentences they've handed down.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Judge should not be an elected position. The whole point of a judge is that they will judge things fairly and unbiasedly, while the way to get elected to a position is by getting your name out there and going "if you vote for me, I will do this and stand for this!" and that's exactly the opposite of what you want out of a judge.
Judges are an elected position because historically those who most need a fair and unbiased decision maker have not gotten one. The problem with getting rid of elections immediately runs into mind with the fact Trump can appoint them.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.

Their mistake was dismembering the body. Clearly, the Saudis have yet to discover the criminal masterpiece that is Weekend at Bernie's.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.