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
Standard stuff, economy's doing great, Mexico will kill us all and we need a wall, press is mean, etc. He'll probably announce a summit with North Korea in Da Nang.
You glazed over "Is he finally going to be presidential?!?" Can't forget that old chestnut.
Edited by Larkmarn on Feb 5th 2019 at 9:01:34 AM
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.He's going to talk for a bit while sounding semi-coherent. The news media will make note of the fact that he stuck to his teleprompter instead of going off on random tangents, framing it as one would applaud a toddler for eating without making a mess. His lies and misstatements will be debated on the political talk shows but largely glossed over by newscasters.
Oh, you mean what he will actually say? I don't know; I tune that stuff out.
Edited by Fighteer on Feb 5th 2019 at 8:59:05 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"AOC is a Rorshach fan.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
That's awesome.
Remember the stories a while back about how Trump's golf clubs and other businesses had a regular practice of hiring undocumented immigrants to work there and helping them conceal their legal status? It's notable in particular because of his harsh anti-immigration public stance. This came up again a week or so ago when we found out that the Trump organization has been firing these employees after an "audit" supposedly revealed their status.
Well, now it appears that they may come under legal scrutiny for this
[Maddowblog] (read towards the end of the story).
Also, it appears that Eric Trump drew the short straw to be the public face of the firings.
Edit: To clarify, the story about the legal inquiry is older than the firings. In fact, public disclosure of Trump's hiring practices may have been the cause of them.
If you don't want to go through Maddow, here are the primary articles:
- NYT - Dec. 6, 2018: Making President Trump’s Bed: A Housekeeper Without Papers
- WaPo - Dec 29, 2018: FBI, New Jersey investigators gathered evidence of undocumented immigrants who say they worked at Trump golf course, lawyer says
- WaPo - Feb 4, 2019: Purge of undocumented workers by the president’s company spreads to at least 5 Trump golf courses
Edited by Fighteer on Feb 5th 2019 at 9:46:48 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
It never ceases to astound me how relateable she is, we've had charasmatic and affable politicians take the stage before but I'm not sure many of them have had this kind of authenticity.
Every move Trump makes is a dick move.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Feb 5th 2019 at 9:54:33 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangEdited by windleopard on Feb 5th 2019 at 6:59:51 AM
Prostitution is one of these things that still raise hackles and are difficult to legislate about. I personally disagree more with Medicare For All as IMO it costs too much political capital - including opportunity cost - for its benefits.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
X3 She’s of the right age to be on here, it’s entirely possible that either she or some of the people in her circle use this site, that’s why she’s so relatable, she very well could be one of us.
Edited by Silasw on Feb 5th 2019 at 3:16:25 PM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI legit think that AOC has a shot at the Presidency once she's had time to gain some political experience. I don't know yet how good she'd be, but I do think she's electable.
She's snappy. That's something the Democrats have been sorely lacking. I've been saying for years that one of Trump's advantages is that he can summarize his terrible points and ideas into quick, easy to remember sound-bytes. He's a Twitter master, and that makes his ideas memorable to his audience in a way that a thirty-minute dissertation on the very important effects of man-made climate change does not.
Trump is a politician for the modern attention span, where ain't nobody got time to listen to a lecture. His campaign was built on advertising slogans. BUILD THE WALL. IT'S WHAT'S FOR DINNER. LOCK HER UP. EAT FRESH. He positioned himself as a relatable funny-man, the racist reactionary equivalent of Colbert or Trevor Noah, rather than a serious politician. And people responded to that, because it gave them a strong idea of what he was about.
The media reported on it and the voters remembered it. Hillary is unfairly remembered as never talking about policy, which isn't true at all. She talked about policy all the time. But nobody paid attention, because she talked like a politician, where Trump held people's attention via ranting like a stand-up comedian about his amateur interpretation of politics.
No one reported on Hillary's policies and no one remembered her policies once she was done talking, because modern voters get bored and wander off when your speech isn't filled with snappy hooks, goofy catch-phrases, and/or pop culture references. And that's stupid. It really, truly is. But that's life in the Digital Era, where people have an attention span of about six seconds before they go back to whatever mobile game they're playing.
Democrats have tried to replicate Trump's relatability and it's been a disaster. Watching Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer try to capture that magic has been very much what you'd expect to get from watching septuagenarians try and talk like radical teenagers. Though Pelosi has been upping her game recently in tragically politically relevant field of epic burns, so credit where it's due.
But the issue is that if we want people to actually remember what we're about on Election Day, Democrats need people who are snappy and can make remarks that stand out against the ever-present background noise of the new Avengers movie and the latest season of The 100 and Taylor Swift writing a new song about her reputation for the billionth time. Shit you'll be quoting to your friends and cracking up over. And that's been a dry well.
But AOC is super-snappy, and that bodes well for her political career in the modern era. She just needs some experience, and then I think eventually she'll have a real shot to take the White House.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Feb 5th 2019 at 8:47:52 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.![]()
![]()
The Democrats are going to need to do something on healthcare. Simply shoring up Obamacare is not going to be enough and I’m skeptical if people will be satisfied with just a Medicare Buy-in.
To be honest I would be willing to put off Universal Healthcare in favor of Green New Deal/ Mass Anti-Climate Change program or Labor Rights reform (pie in the sky I know), but I don’t think the rest of the Democratic base would be so willing.
Edited by Mio on Feb 5th 2019 at 10:53:05 AM
There's no obvious reason why both problems (universal healthcare and climate change) can't be tackled simultaneously, as they involve and affect significantly different parts of the economy. There is a question of political will and focus, to be sure, but Congress has a lot of committees and a lot of members: it can multitask if it really wants to.
The big problem with Obamacare is that it required the expenditure of so much political capital and involved so much horse trading and maneuvering that there was no appetite left afterwards for tackling any more major issues.
Edited by Fighteer on Feb 5th 2019 at 11:19:55 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"No, what is much more likely to happen is another deluge of misinformation and anxiety and a looming midterm election and politicians who don't want to take any more risks. Which is exactly what happened in 2010 and scuppered cap-and-trade.
(Besides, that logic hasn't politically worked with free trade either)
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman@Robrecht: The right-wing disinformation machine is immensely powerful in our country. Obama catastrophically underestimated it, but what we also didn't see coming (but should have) was the complicit role the media played in giving credence to that disinformation.
The history of healthcare reform in the United States is immutably intertwined with our history of racism. We almost got it in the New Deal, but Roosevelt had to balk because of the intense resistance of Southern Democrats to desegregating their hospitals. The fear of the money of hardworking white Americans being stolen and used to provide "free stuff" for those lazy blacks and Hispanics and whatever is ingrained into that culture and has been parlayed into political win after political win for the Republican Party. It's our nation's original sin.
Edited by Fighteer on Feb 5th 2019 at 11:47:20 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Easy question has easy answer: One where:
- There are no national referendums.
- One where a general polling question is much less detailed than an actual bill, and consequently does not necessarily represent the popularity of a policy.
Also, another thing. 2020 may net a Democratic trifecta but almost certainly not a filibuster proof majority. Unless Evil Turtle - the mastermind behind the 2008-2010 obstructionism - isn't re-elected the Republican response to a Democratic administration will almost certainly consist of obstructionism (and even if he doesn't get re-elected it's not a given Republican strategy would change). Democratic candidates have been talking about scrapping the filibuster, sure. Apart from the fact that it's not necessarily a good idea
it is obviously not a president's decision to make. Most likely, the filibuster stays for the same reasons that Harry Reid and Evil Turtle didn't scrap it when .
That means that any legislation will either have to be bipartisan or passed through reconciliation, and that creates two issues:
- It's far from clear that Medicare For All can be passed through reconciliation.
- The rules say that only one reconciliation bill can be passed per year and there are "no offtopic" rules. You can pass a billionaire's tax or a carbon tax or both in such a bill, but you have only one shot.
![]()
I wouldn't mind the filibuster rules being modified so that someone actually has to hold the floor during them. Every single bill in the Senate having to pass cloture before going to a final vote is insane.
That's an incomplete picture. The Fox News propaganda machine did its absolute best to sow fear and disinformation about Obamacare from the minute it was introduced, with the rest of the media playing passive observer of the debate rather than acting properly to fact-check it.
Edited by Fighteer on Feb 5th 2019 at 11:52:54 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Actually, cloture votes can be filed even when there is no filibuster going on. They are often "testing the waters" votes, to gauge whether a bill has enough support to survive an actual filibuster. When people are talking about a "filibuster" without an actual debate they are talking about such votes.
A Majority Leader could call a bluff by proceeding with a debate despite a failed cloture vote, but in practice the few times it's been tried it turned out that the senators threatening a filibuster were not bluffing.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

He's probably verbally producing a stack of BS higher than the Washington Monument in terms of Brown Rapists, Border Security, Dem Obstructionism etc.
Think of it less as a speech Nd more as an hour long televised Twitter thread.
"You can reply to this Message!"