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
Me, I am wondering if the allegation made here
that this scandal is mostly rooted in sexist double standards about how employers are "supposed" to behave has any legs. Especially since from what I've seen so far it sounds just like dickery and not actual abuse or mistreatment.
Pod Save America talked about how Congressional staffers, including the hosts, frequently move from one boss to boss and everyone quickly learns which politicians to avoid for being hard to work under. Klobuchar was high on that list and it was confirmed a while ago that she has a really high turnover rate. Multiple former staffers have said she can throw things or write very nitpicky emails blaming them for something or another.
Edited by Parable on Feb 14th 2019 at 6:26:31 AM
Yeah, and meanwhile Booker is directly in the pocket of Wall Street and most definitely wouldn't be strong against climate change.
In other news, there's a group of people legitimately coming out against Omar for going after Abrams, saying it's because he's Jewish. And just fuck off with that talk. Everyone calling Omar an anti-Semite for not being pro-Israel is seriously just moving the conversation from actual Islamophobia and anti-Semitism on the right to party infighting.
"If you spend all your heart / On something that has died / You are not alive and that can't be a life"I've read an article on that once, where the author pointed out that the American-Jewish community has, thanks to its overzealous efforts to shut down any criticism of Israel, helped put an actual anti-Semite on the White House.
After all, the political ideology of those who wholeheartedly support Israel (the right, particularly the Bible Belt IIRC) are also the ones more likely to be preudiced themselves, or so it argued.
I do wonder how much political support for Israel among the U.S. right wing is based less on liking Jews and more on hating Muslims.
Edited by Fighteer on Feb 14th 2019 at 9:53:52 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Well, in this Vox article
, the data shows that Usonians always supported Israel over Palestine, but the number of people neutral over the issue dropped rather sharply post-9/11, while those in favor of Israel have risen once again.
Support over Palestine seems much the same as it has ever been.
I think it’s important to remember that zionism isn’t inherently bad. Yeah, Israel has shitty leaders, so do a lot of countries. They should be held accountable for the bad things they do. But all zionism means is that you believe in the idea of a Jewish homeland, and want one to exist.
Plus, there’s a hell of a gap between “this country is doing bad shit” and “we need to get rid of this country and cause an exodus of the people living there.”
But that always gets ignored in conversations about Israel.
EDIT: In regards to the primaries, I’ve got my eye on Harris, Gillibrand, and Warren. Booker is too pro wallstreet for my tastes.
Edited by smokeycut on Feb 14th 2019 at 10:18:56 AM
My comment:
Kamiccolo's response:
My comment:
Kamiccolo's response:
The ultimate question is, is it worth the additional money to help people rather than just help "the environment" in the abstract? I'd say yes. You may disagree. But to complain that the GND tries to help people, not just the environment, is missing the point if the GND, which was explicitly and expressly intended to do both from the start.
We have a whole economics thread for this kind of discussion, as it gets off into the weeds rather quickly. But tldr, the idea that a government with a sovereign currency and all its debts issued in that currency can just print money to cover its debts rather than default isn't a whackjob radical left ideology — it's just straight literal fact. The concern when printing money is inflation — but pretty much only happens when an economy is supply-capped (that is, unable to ramp up production to meet consumer demand, which causes prices to rise as the supply-demand equation changes). And that pretty much only happens in the face of economic infrastructure being physically destroyed (such as after a war or natural disaster) or financial system collapse (such as a banking crash). Neither is relevant to the GND.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Oh, Israel as it currently is isn't so bad. For a state that is increasingly using the Apartheid playbook on how to subjugate and dismiss the dreaded Other (be they Arabs, Palestinians or any other political opponants) to keep its highly biased 'democracy' floating...
You can tell because it doesn't shut political discourse down by claiming the oppressed victim card every time.
There're a lot of reasons the GOP tends to get along with Likud. Corruption being a big one, too.
Edited by Euodiachloris on Feb 14th 2019 at 3:48:52 PM
"I do wonder how much political support for Israel among the U.S. right wing is based less on liking Jews and more on hating Muslims."
A few years ago, there was an effort to get Jews to move down to Georgia and 11 families moved down there. Last I had checked, only three were left. The casual prejudice and willful ignorance drove the rest to leave.
Re: Primary candidates
My answer is the same as last time in that I have no particular preference one way or the other. I have no special issues that are big hot buttons for me to make one or another more attractive. The single most important trait for me is general competence, which the majority of candidates seem to possess. The only one I'd hesitate on is Klobuchar if there's anything to her Bad Boss tendencies. Trump is already amply demonstrating the damage a Bad Boss in the White House can cause with what I can't imagine isn't an unusually high turnover rate in his own cabinet.
You're right. I corrected that.
Edited by sgamer82 on Feb 14th 2019 at 9:18:02 AM
McCabe says he ordered the obstruction of justice probe of President Trump – The former FBI acting director tells 60 Minutes about the measures taken to ensure investigations into President Trump wouldn’t "vanish."
Edit: An op-ed in each McCabe describes his initial days in office in his own words.
Edited by sgamer82 on Feb 14th 2019 at 10:35:23 AM
A few pages back it was mentioned that some of the points in the GND seem somewhat protectionist. I was actually under the impression that it was to prevent companies from trying to bypass the US GND regulations by building pollution-heavy factories in other countries without those regulations. Like, yeah it comes off as protectionist, but its actual purpose is to try to prevent companies from trying to bypass one of the main purposes of the GND, which is to make companies cut down on pollution. Keep your enemies close, in a sense.
Right, it's protectionist because if companies move their factories off-shore, then they won't be held to the same standards.
It's less about protecting American business (TM) as "we can't regulate Chinese factories."
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
x11
I'm pretty much an MM Ter, plus or minus a few bits. As far as I can tell you've got things about right.
The USA "prints money" already, the deficit adds net financial assets to the private sector. The only major difference between the dreaded money printing and the current system of bond issuance is that you pay interest on the bonds, which is either a much-needed subsidy that provides safe assets to the financial sector or just a free lunch for banks and rich people depending on who you ask. Personally I lean more towards the latter.
The fearmongering about inflation is just not borne out by the evidence
(long, boring report with lots of stats, in essence "you can get high inflation with money creation, money creation with no inflation or inflation with no money creation, there doesn't appear to be much of a correlation"). If monetising government debt was so dreadful then dumping £400+ billion into the UK money supply probably would have done more than boost the Footsie a bit.
No MMT proponent is saying "we can print money and have infinite stuff", but the key point is that nothing is stopping the UK, the USA or any other currency-controlling nation from mobilising available resources as far as possible. If you want to spend past that point you need to lower demand so that resources stop being used by the private sector and you can buy them for use in government projects, so raise taxes, make credit harder to get or some other such method. The Green New Deal is big enough that it will almost certainly need some inflation offsets, but there's no reason they have to be 1:1 or that the particular numerical change in the deficit is of particular importance beyond the effect on the real economy. To quote Keynes, whatever we can do we can afford.
Edited by DeathorCake on Feb 14th 2019 at 5:29:10 PM

But seriously, has any of that been confirmed, or is it just rumors at this point?
Edit: My page toppers are always so enlightning!
Edited by HailMuffins on Feb 14th 2019 at 11:20:20 AM