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 wasn't comparing anyone to Gabbard, aside from the sense that they spoke at the same event (well, one after the other) and both of them almost certainly don't have a shot unless multiple unthinkable events happen in quick succession (frontrunners becoming non-viable due to scandals, death, sickness, etc, and then the same happening to the middle of the pack).
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.The Senate was set up to protect small states, not slavery. In fact, one might argue that it was set up to restrain the power of the southern slave states, if Wikipedia's not tip-top article is to be believed
.
Yeah, I read that too, that people at the time kinda expected the Southern States to expand and grow their population over time, but the reverse kinda happened in the end, so it's funny in hindsight to think of the populous Northern States arguing for States' rights and the Southern ones arguing for proportional representation
As much as we want to talk about the unchecked power of slave states, that does forget a lot of heroic individuals did want to stop slavery's spread and would repeal it if they could.
It's important to remember the people in Kansas who flat out shot at slavers when they came to try and make it a slave state.
Mind you, we still have people claiming John Brown was mentally ill and a psychopath because he wanted to start a slave rebellion.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Mar 11th 2019 at 10:16:49 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.His budget would also propose a major overhaul of Medicaid, the health care program for low-income Americans run jointly with states, by turning more power over to states. This would save $241 billion over 10 years.
Democrats need to pounce on this and hammer away at it relentlessly for the next two years.
Edited by speedyboris on Mar 11th 2019 at 12:18:44 PM
Whatever its intent was at the time of inception, the Senate did become the bastion of the slave states, to the point that the slave states, led by the ancestor of Emperor Palpatine, John C. Calhoun, threatened rebellion every time a potentially new free state was about to enter the Union and upset their stranglehold on the Senate.
This was just another indication that their "States Rights!" spiel was a blatant lie. It didn't matter that a state wanted to be free if it upset the Slave Power.
Edited by Parable on Mar 11th 2019 at 10:57:27 AM
This was just another indication that their "States Rights!" spiel was a blatant lie. It didn't matter that a state wanted to be free if it upset the Slave Power.
Quite, another indicator of the bad faith nature of "States Rights!" was how its supporters also supported the Fugitive Slave Act. Directly trampling on the rights of the free states.
"states' rights for me but not thee", I guess some things never change
someone on reddit
made this helpful post for buttigieg's policies
- His priorities, namely democratic reform. Pete has outlined his priorities for the “honeymoon period” of a presidency. Some candidates don’t seem to want to address this because it reminds voters that presidents are mortals and probably won't fulfill every single promise. But Pete has outlined what he would do with this political capital and, though acknowledging climate change as an existential threat, he appears more intently focused on aggressive democratic reform. I agree with this because neither climate change nor universal healthcare nor any other progressive goal can be fully tackled (or upheld) if minority rule can be entrenched. These priorities include enshrining voting rights, establishing a national holiday for elections, DC statehood, reforming SCOTUS, pushing Senate leadership to nuke the filibuster, and reforming the Electoral College. He seems acutely aware of the limitations that he’ll face against people like Mc Connell, and has expressed interest in acting unilaterally (that is to say, very aggressively) to push through some of this reform.
- His policy preferences. Pete is the perfect marriage of pragmatic and progressive. He combines Bernie’s arguments for re-centering the debate (P.S. as an 18-year-old, he wrote an award-winning essay extolling then-obscure House member Bernie Sanders) with more evidence-based approaches to policy. Despite coming from a conservative area, he isn’t afraid to run further left than other midwestern players (e.g. Klobuchar) but seems to have the policy smarts to pursue those goals in a sustainable way that mitigates collateral damage. After democratic reform, he’s identified climate change and healthcare as two of the most important policy priorities. He defends Medicare For All but is running on “Medicare For All Who Want It” as a “glide path” to help sell it to skeptical voters who don’t want to lose their current plans.
- His executive experience. I admit his experience is a weak spot, but I disagree that a few terms as a legislator is more compelling experience than carrying the burden of being the primary decision-maker at any level. I feel his experience as mayor actually does translate to running the executive branch; also, I’m not exactly a war hawk, but I appreciate that he’d be the first POTUS with military experience since the 90s.
- His moral leadership and fusion of economics + identity. Pete has rightly identified that not all Americans have benefited from automation and globalisation, but that we have to give them a new vision, not empty promises to return to “the old days” or just shifting the problem via tariffs. But this also doesn’t mean just callously telling them to learn a new skillset, either. He stresses that bold economic redistribution and support are necessary but not sufficient - we have to also find a way to help displaced workers address the loss to their identity and purpose. Because I’m already writing a lot, I will say you should check out his work in South Bend, a former “dying city,” to understand what kinds of projects he’s talking about.
- His ability to win a conservative area without hedging. Without giving an inch on his principles and ideological lean, Pete was able to win a purple race. Even considering how local this race was, this track record is still more than a majority of "top tier" presidential candidates can say. No disrespect to them, but I care about this a lot and winning as a Democrat in CA or MA (even though they're state-wide races) is not as persuasive to me. In fact, he made the brazen move to come out as a gay man in Indiana in the middle of his re-election campaign. And he still won with 80% of the vote.
- His ability to communicate. He can break down policy and proposals in a smart yet accessible way, plus he is an insanely charismatic speaker. He’s Beto O’Rourke but with a better record and a more aggressive form of progressivism. He’s reminiscent of Obama, but with a millennial’s clear-eyed distrust of the GOP.
Lastly, as an example of his charisma, he gave a speech in my rural, southern hometown and my dad (who is a Christian blue collar worker, former Bush voter, and a guy who used to shake his head and say “I just don’t get it” whenever homosexuality would come up) insisted on shaking Pete’s hand and thanking him for his military service. He was really moved by Pete’s speech – a speech that included openly discussing his gay marriage – and left the event saying that Pete was the kind of young leadership we needed.
Since I saw mention of him a few pages back,and by the way his name doesn't bother me
have a listen and have a link to my discord serverRE: Trump Budget - he also has a plan to reduce the National Science Foundation's budget from $8.1 billion to $7.1 billion
, a roughly 12% gouging. Thankfully, Congress has a history of ignoring his requests on this type of stuff, so hopefully they repeat the pattern.
As for Israel, Wonder Woman star (and 2004 Miss Israel winner) Gal Gadot took a swipe at Netanyahu
over his statement that "Israel is not a state for all its citizens. According to the nation-state law that we passed, Israel is the state of the Jewish people — and belongs to them alone."
And yes, that is an actual law
that was passed last July, which states, in part, that "The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people."
Seriously consider how insane that is. That'd be like the US declaring outright that we're WASP-only.
,![]()
Which is why I think the broad-brushing of "if you're criticizing Israel, you're anti-Semitic!" is doing more harm than good - there's shit that Israel absolutely needs to get called out for, and the US remains complicit in it instead... which I think was largely the point Ilhan Omar was making with her criticism.
Edited by ironballs16 on Mar 11th 2019 at 3:02:56 PM
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"Since it's a topic that's come up here before
‘Court packing’ ideas get attention from Democrats – Anger at the GOP’s handling of Supreme Court nominees spurs restructuring talk.
Former attorney general Eric H. Holder Jr., who recently decided against running for president, became the latest figure to embrace an expansion of the nine-member court in recent talks at Yale Law School and Columbia University.
He questioned the validity of the current court, given Senate Republicans’ refusal to vote on Judge Merrick Garland after President Barack Obama nominated him to the Supreme Court in March 2016. The seat was ultimately filled by President Trump’s nomination of Justice Neil M. Gorsuch.
“Given the Merrick Garland situation, the question of legitimacy is one that I think we should talk about,” Holder said. “We should be talking even about expanding the number of people who serve on the Supreme Court, if there is a Democratic president and a Congress that would do that.”
His comments come as activists launch an organized effort to prod the presidential contenders to say publicly they’re open to such ideas. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) has called adding justices — or imposing term limits on them — “interesting ideas that I would have to think more about.”
Pete Buttigeig, the mayor of South Bend, Ind., who is exploring a presidential campaign, has responded to questions by inviting consideration of either adding justices or rotating them on and off the court. He has also discussed a new 15-justice structure for the court — five Democratic appointees, five Republican appointees, and five chosen by the other 10.
I'm watching Cory Booker's interview with Colbert.
One thing that immediately stands out is that he says we need to come together and love and respect each other across the aisles. He notes that he was taught never to hate anyone and, in fact, that he refuses to even hate Donald Trump. And he asks for a return to "civic grace" between the parties.
...
So.
The worst mistake Obama made was thinking that the Republicans would treat him with dignity and respect. He assumed that they would negotiate with him in good faith and that if we just play nice, then we can get along and all work together towards the mutual benefit of this country. He was terribly, terribly mistaken and sorely underestimated the sheer lengths of depraved madness they would sink to just to screw him over.
I'm getting that same vibe from Booker.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Mar 11th 2019 at 1:13:58 PM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Obama was a case of Good Cannot Comprehend Evil and that the most radical accusations against the Republican party's kleptocracy behavior and cronyism were understatements.
Basically he should have paid attention to how much they hated Bill Clinton.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.Booker didn't show much love to the people laid off of Bain Capital, did he?
Sorry to keep posting the same thing whenever he is mentioned, but the contrast strikes me as so hypocritical that I feel the need.
To make up, here's a 538 article on the current wings of the democratic party.
I identify with the very progressive group.
Edited by Grafite on Mar 11th 2019 at 8:10:23 AM
Life is unfair...On the voting age thing I’d note that people would react with horror if we suggested raising the voting age back to 21, likewise the reaction if an upper limit to the voting age was suggested would be madness. If it’s about mental capability than an upper bond shidul exist alongside a lower one, or outside of a set age range a test should be required to be able to vote.
Why shouldn’t children be able to vote? It’s their future at stake. Because we’ve failed to teach them about responsibility and how to properly consider their actions, that’s on us not them.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

Something totally different but I really, really don't want to let this fall under the table: Have the vanished children which were separated at the border from the parents found yet?