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 literally said the problem is the system AND the people in it. Multiple times.
No, it’s based on the class on the Civil Rights Movement I took in law school last spring, the Immigration Law class I took last fall, the class I took on section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act, the Criminal Law class I took, plus dozens of articles and studies on systemic racism in law enforcement. But thanks for assuming I’m uninformed and that journalists are “sensationalizing” law enforcement misconduct.
EDIT: Sorry, posted about detain issue before seeing mod comment. Dropping it.
I didn’t say you came out against it; I specifically quoted a post by another troper. Though I am disturbed by:
When those “rules” are to throw children into hieleras they absolutely shouldn’t be followed. Quit. Blow the whistle by going to the media. Collect evidence of all the atrocities. “I just brought them instant ramen and locked them in cages, it wasn’t my idea, I wish they got fed better but also I’m doing nothing to change that or to check on their health” isn’t a great defense.
Edited by wisewillow on Dec 17th 2018 at 8:39:30 AM
So, I just read this article, The Fallout.
It’s about the devastating effects of environmental contamination.
“In St. Louis, America's nuclear history creeps into the present, leaching into streams and bodies.”
“And?” she said.
“And, well, maybe you should look into that.”
Karen did look into it and learned that many of her classmates and neighbors and childhood friends had died of leukemias and brain cancers and appendix cancers—rare in the general population, but, again, apparently common among those who live or had lived near the creek. It couldn’t possibly be a coincidence.
I’d love to discuss.
It's not quite a US politics issue, and the article is from last year. It's definitely horrifying that the US's history of poor nuclear waste disposal and storage is killing people even to this day, but this is probably more of an Environmental Thread issue.
Edited by M84 on Dec 17th 2018 at 10:44:05 PM
Disgusted, but not surprisedUmm......
Also
Remember, Michael Cohen only became a “Rat” after the FBI did something which was absolutely unthinkable & unheard of until the Witch Hunt was illegally started. They BROKE INTO AN ATTORNEY’S OFFICE! Why didn’t they break into the DNC to get the Server, or Crooked’s office?
![]()
You sure he wasn't trying to make a Saw I reference?
Edited by sgamer82 on Dec 17th 2018 at 9:13:09 AM
The NYT obtained a new report on Russian information warfare in the 2016 election.
The report adds new details to the portrait that has emerged over the last two years of the energy and imagination of the Russian effort to sway American opinion and divide the country, which the authors said continues to this day.
“Active and ongoing interference operations remain on several platforms,” says the report, produced by New Knowledge, a cybersecurity company based in Austin, Texas, along with researchers at Columbia University and Canfield Research LLC. One continuing Russian campaign, for instance, seeks to influence opinion on Syria by promoting Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president and a Russian ally in the brutal conflict there.
The New Knowledge report, which was obtained by The New York Times in advance of its scheduled release on Monday, is one of two commissioned by the Senate committee on a bipartisan basis. They are based largely on data about the Russian operations provided to the Senate by Facebook, Twitter and the other companies whose platforms were used.
The second report was written by the Computational Propaganda Project at Oxford University along with Graphika, a company that specializes in analyzing social media. The Washington Post first reported on the Oxford report on Sunday.
The Russian influence campaign in 2016 was run by a St. Petersburg company called the Internet Research Agency, owned by a businessman, Yevgeny V. Prigozhin, who is a close ally of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. Mr. Prigozhin and a dozen of the company’s employees were indicted last February as part of the investigation of Russian interference by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel.
Both reports stress that the Internet Research Agency created social media accounts under fake names on virtually every available platform. A major goal was to support Donald Trump, first against his Republican rivals in the presidential race, then in the general election, and as president since his inauguration.
Creating accounts designed to pass as belonging to Americans, the Internet Research Agency spread its messages not only via Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, which have drawn the most attention, but also on You Tube, Reddit, Tumblr, Pinterest, Vine and Google+, among other platforms. Its attack on the United States used almost exclusively high-tech tools created by American companies.
The report says that while “other distinct ethnic and religious groups were the focus of one or two Facebook Pages or Instagram accounts, the black community was targeted extensively with dozens.” In some cases, Facebook ads were targeted at users who had shown interest in particular topics, including black history, the Black Panther Party and Malcolm X. The most popular of the Russian Instagram accounts was @blackstagram, with 303,663 followers.
The Internet Research Agency also created a dozen websites disguised as African-American in origin, with names like blackmattersus.com, blacktivist.info, blacktolive.org and blacksoul.us. On You Tube, the largest share of Russian material covered the Black Lives Matter movement and police brutality, with channels called “Don’t Shoot” and “Black To Live.”
The report does not seek to explain the heavy focus on African Americans. But the Internet Research Agency’s tactics echo Soviet propaganda efforts from decades ago that often highlighted racism and racial conflict in the United States, as well as recent Russian influence operations in other countries that sought to stir ethnic strife.
Renee Di Resta, one of the report’s authors and director of research at New Knowledge, said the Internet Research Agency “leveraged pre-existing, legitimate grievances wherever they could.” As the election effort geared up, the Black Lives Matter movement was at the center of national attention in the United States, so the Russian operation took advantage of it, she said — and added “Blue Lives Matter” material when a pro-police pushback emerged.
“Very real racial tensions and feelings of alienation exist in America, and have for decades,” Ms. Di Resta said. “The I.R.A. didn’t create them. It exploits them.”
Of 81 Facebook pages created by the Internet Research Agency in the Senate’s data, 30 targeted African-American audiences, amassing 1.2 million followers, the report finds. By comparison, 25 pages targeted the political right and drew 1.4 million followers. Just seven pages focused on the political left, drawing 689,045 followers.
While the right-wing pages promoted Mr. Trump’s candidacy, the left-wing pages scorned Mrs. Clinton while promoting Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate. The voter suppression effort was focused particularly on Sanders supporters and African-Americans, urging them to shun Mrs. Clinton in the general election and either vote for Ms. Stein or stay home.
Whether such efforts had a significant effect is difficult to judge. Black voter turnout declined in 2016 for the first time in 20 years in a presidential election, but it is impossible to determine whether that was the result of the Russian campaign.
The New Knowledge report argues that the Internet Research Agency’s presence on Instagram has been underestimated and may have been as effective or more effective than its Facebook effort. The report says there were 187 million engagements on Instagram — users “liking” or sharing the content created in Russia — compared 76.5 million engagements on Facebook.
In 2017, as the American news media focused on the Russian operations on Facebook and Twitter, the Russian effort shifted strongly to Instagram, the report says.
The New Knowledge report criticizes social media companies for misleading the public.
“Regrettably, it appears that the platforms may have misrepresented or evaded in some of their statements to Congress,” the report says, noting what it calls one false claim that specific population groups were not targeted by the influence operation and another that the campaign did not seek to discourage voting.
“It is unclear whether these answers were the result of faulty or lacking analysis, or a more deliberate evasion,” the report says.
The report suggests a grudging respect for the scale and creativity of Russian influence operations. But the Russians were not eager to take credit for their own efforts.
After the election, the report says, the Internet Research Agency put up some 70 posts on Facebook and Instagram that mocked the claims that Russia had interfered in the election.
“You’ve lost and don’t know what to do?” said one such post. “Just blame it on Russian hackers.”
Great interview with form US Ambassador to Vietnam
Ted Osius discussing Trump's plan to deport Vietnamese refugees that have been convicted of a crime and why it's so damn stupid.
I mean, stupid enough to resign from your ambassador position. The example he mentions is pretty telling: Some committed crimes. Some of them were not violent crimes. For example, there was a guy - Tuan (ph) from San Jose. He came to the United States as a teenager. He got in trouble. He stole a car. He spent three years in jail and then 18 years without any problems with the law at all. He got married. He started up a successful business, pays half a million dollars in taxes each year. He has 45 people working for him. He has grown-up kids. And he's been in detention for two years under threat of deportation.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.Given we're currently in mid-December, that strongly implies that he was arrested in the very early days of 2017, right after Trump took office in January 2017 at the latest and between then and Election Day in November 2016 at the earliest (i.e. the immigration officers who arrested him were emboldened by Trump's victory).
Edited by MarqFJA on Dec 17th 2018 at 8:58:21 PM
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) will not seek re-election in 2020.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/17/politics/lamar-alexander-retirement/index.html
![]()
![]()
Due process only counts for criminal trials, and, well, he served his time for the conviction that's getting him deported.
Also, fun reminder is that these are people who have, at the bare minimum, been living in the US for 23 years. Going to a country that does not want them and that they don't want to be in.
And that this country is one of the few that actually views Trump favorably and the deportees are from a demographic that is aggressively pro-Republican.
Seriously, this is an astoundingly Stupid Evil move.
Like... it would be one thing if they were deporting them if they committed a crime now. I would at least understand the logic. Might not agree with it, but I would understand the train of thought. This is just hurting yourself in hopes that it hurts non-white people more. Which it might at an individual level, but on a national scale...
Edited by Larkmarn on Dec 17th 2018 at 1:12:09 PM
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.It’s kinda hilarious to watch Trump voters realize what a horrible mistake they made.
I voted for Trump. Now his wall may destroy my butterfly paradise.
I work at the National Butterfly Center — which is along the U.S.-Mexico border — documenting wildlife and leading educational tours. Many of our visitors are young students from the Rio Grande Valley. When they first arrive, some of the children are scared of everything, from the snakes to the pill bugs. Here, we can show them animals that roam free and teach them not to be afraid. We talk about how we planted native vines, shrubs and trees to attract some 240 species of butterflies, as well as dragonflies, grasshoppers and other insects. The bugs brought the birds — including some you can’t see anywhere else in America, like Green Jays and Chachalacas — and from there, the bobcats and coyotes. We want to teach kids what it takes to create a home for all kinds of animals.
President Trump’s new border wall — which he has threatened to shut down the government to fund — will teach them what it takes to destroy it.
The first section, funded by Congress in 2018 for construction starting early next year, will cut right through our 100-acre refuge, sealing off 70 acres bordering the banks of the Rio Grande. The plan that we’ve seen calls for 18 feet of concrete and 18 feet of steel bollards, with a 150-foot paved enforcement zone for cameras, sensors, lighting and Border Patrol traffic. On the south side of the barrier, flooding will worsen. On the north side, animals (including threatened species like the Texas tortoise and the Texas horned lizard) will be cut off from ranging beyond the wall for feeding and breeding. Flood lighting will disrupt the usual patterns of nocturnal species. We dread the destruction that will come when the bulldozers arrive, which could be as early as February. That loud, heavy machinery will cause irreparable damage to the habitat we’ve worked so hard to restore.
We’re not the only ones standing in the wall’s path. It will also slice through the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge, and in Bentsen-Rio Grande Valley State Park — which draws birdwatchers from all over the country and has hosted countless picnics and barbecues for local families like mine. The wall will cut through the park’s land that is behind its parking lot and visitor center. There isn’t much public open space in the Rio Grande Valley. What’s there is fragmented and precious to all of us: According to a 2011 estimate, ecotourism brings $463 million a year to our economy and supports more than 6,600 jobs.
I’m a lifelong Republican who voted for Donald Trump for president in 2016. I want our immigration laws to be enforced, and I don’t want open borders. But Mission is not a dangerous place. I’ve lived here all my life. Here at the National Butterfly Center, 6,000 schoolchildren visit each year. Girl Scouts come here when they camp overnight just a mile or so from the Rio Grande. When the president says there’s a crisis at the border that requires an action as drastic as building a massive concrete wall, he either knows that it’s not true or he’s living in an alternate reality.
Before this controversy, I voted, and sometimes I expressed my political views on Facebook, but this issue got me involved in activism for the first time. I had never gone to a protest in my entire life, but last year, I helped organize one: a four-mile march to the La Lomita Chapel, a historic church on U.S. soil that the wall will block. I also joined a group that succeeded in lobbying the Mission City Council to pass an anti-wall resolution. This is a mostly Democratic area, so these experiences were a little uncomfortable for me. Most of the people I worked alongside were anti-Trump from the start. I mostly kept quiet about my party affiliation and my vote in 2016.
People have asked me, “Didn’t you listen to Trump when he said that he would build a wall?” I didn’t take the idea seriously during the campaign. I knew he couldn’t get Mexico to pay it — that’d be like asking Hurricane Harvey to foot the bill for rebuilding Houston — and thought it was just talk: another candidate making big promises he couldn’t keep. I never thought it would actually happen.
By backing the wall, my party has abandoned the conservative principles I treasure: less government, less spending, and respect for the law and private property. The wall is expected to cost between $8 billion and $67 billion to build, and its rushed construction requires the waiver of 28 federal laws meant to protect clean air and water, wildlife habitat and historical artifacts. As I followed the news [last week], I was amazed to find myself agreeing with Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who called the project “immoral, ineffective and expensive.” Here was a Democrat telling a Republican that a policy would cost too much.
For now, it looks like construction will plow ahead. Even before Congress appropriated funding, government contractors illegally entered our property and started cutting down trees and clearing brush without permission or notice. [Recently,] I caught land surveyors on camera who had hopped our fence to mark off property lines. A second set of surveyors arrived a few days later, accompanied by armed federal agents to guard them from visitors who might approach with questions.
Still, I want to be able to tell my grandchildren and great-grandchildren that I fought against the wall. I worry that, if it goes up, their only experience of the Rio Grande Valley’s natural beauty will be through the photographs that I take today.
If Donald Trump runs for a second term, he will not get my vote.
Edited by megaeliz on Dec 17th 2018 at 1:24:51 PM

As far as terminology, you were the one who brought the issue into the discussion in the very first place by disputing my use of the word detainment. If you didn’t want to dispute terminology you shouldn’t have started a terminology dispute and then suddenly changed your mind about it.
The Nuremberg Defense isn’t absolute, as several people have pointed out above there are exceptions and specific cases. I would like to see where I “came out against” it as well, as I merely said I didn’t think it was relevant in this case.
Edited by archonspeaks on Dec 17th 2018 at 5:25:11 AM
They should have sent a poet.