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 certainly hope not, the worst thing they can do is underestimate Trump. Let's remember that Trump beat Clinton, and Clinton's political machine was formidable and well established. Trump is going to fight hard (and probably fight underhanded) to keep his power. While I don't doubt that it's winnable, I do doubt that it's going to be easy.
I agree that this is probably a factor.
But as noted, it is critical that we not underestimate Trump. His status as a "joke candidate" may have been one of his biggest assets. People were underestimating Trump all the way through election day 2016. Some were still underestimating Trump even after he won, saying that he'll probably resign in frustration by the end of his first year and that Congress will rein him in and make him ineffectual.
There was a sort of rhetoric going into 2017 of "Sure, Trump won, but the Republican Party isn't going to let him do anything too crazy. At the end of the day, Trump will bow to the Party's agenda, not the other way around. When push comes to shove, Trump will fall in line." Which was yet more underestimating Trump.
For 2020, we need to 100% treat Trump as the aspiring authoritarian that he is. It's very important that we go into this election seeing Trump not as "That reality show guy" but as "The Man Who Would Be Putin".
Edited by TobiasDrake on Mar 14th 2019 at 11:08:04 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Well let us keep the UK in our thoughts and prayers that isn't gun control related to eventually decide the whole Brexit thing is something they can back out of with their dignity intact.
And then remember that all their citizens generally know that anyway.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.@Parable: Good. I cant wait for his next tweet. Actually I can.
I dont think anyone still treats Trump as an easy to beat joke candidate. He is, if nothing else, the sitting president. I think a lot of Democrats see the rising backlash against the Replublicans and want to ride that train. Im not worried, the primaries will weed the nonserious candidates out.
Edited by DeMarquis on Mar 14th 2019 at 3:16:27 PM
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.![]()
![]()
Need 67 to override veto.
I just want to point out that the polls at this juncture are purely on name recognition and nothing else, they are in no way useful to discerning how viable a candidate is in the long term.
And that's all O'Rourke has, he's a substance-less empty suit. He admittedly did well in Texas but that was against an extremely hated politician, he will have no such advantage in the primary.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangHere were the GOP Senators that backed the Democrats on this one: Wicker Rubio Portman Collins Murkowski Toomey Blunt Alexander Romney Paul Moran Lee
Gotta admit, pleasantly surprised that so many were willing to actually stand by their principles of "small government" this time around. The rest not doing so? Well, Fighteer's tagline springs to mind.
And I just stumbled across this Op-Ed at The Hill
, which argues that Trump's National Emergency is indeed unconstitutional... but not for why we think so.
The Supreme Court declared the Line Item Veto Act unconstitutional in 1998 because it gave the president the “unilateral power to change the text of duly enacted statutes.” When a bill passes through both chambers of Congress, the Supreme Court held, the president has just two options. He can sign it into law or he can veto it. What the president may not do is approve certain parts of a bill while rejecting others. He may not tinker or proceed piecemeal even if Congress prefers that option. On this point, the Clinton opinion could hardly be clearer. It does not matter whether Congress had “anticipated that the president might cancel” some of the enacted items. Short of amending the Constitution, Congress is disabled from “altering the procedures” already set out in the legislative process.
In other words, the authority to determine the content of bills lies with Congress, and Congress alone. Even if Congress does want to give the president the power to override bills part by part, the Constitution forbids it. Thus, Congress was constitutionally disabled from giving the president a line item veto. If the president wants to change a particular item in a statute, he must do it through new legislation. There are no shortcuts.
If the National Emergencies Act really allows the piecemeal override of budgetary acts, as Trump claims, then it is unconstitutional because it is attempting the same thing as the Legislative Veto Act. One month ago, Trump signed into law the bipartisan Consolidated Appropriations Act, which capped wall funding at less than $1.4 billion. By using the National Emergencies Act to boost the figure to $8 billion, Trump is effectively rewriting the new law, just as Clinton, by using the line item veto power, was effectively rewriting the budget in 1997. That Trump is rewriting to spend more, while Clinton rewrote to spend less, federal funds is without constitutional significance. If anything, given the concern of the framers about executive profligacy, this could make this violation even worse.
I have to admit, that's a rather interesting take on the situation that hadn't occurred to me.
Edited by ironballs16 on Mar 14th 2019 at 3:24:12 PM
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"Let's not forget that a lot of these Republicans are probably just afraid that a Democrat will in the future take this particular gun and point it at them. A weapon can always be turned at you, after all, and some presidential candidates such as Harris and Warren have telegraphed that they might consider doing such a thing
.
Yeah I’m not convinced that Beto is doing this as a serious run, as opposed to as a way to raise his profile for either another senate run or being picked as someone’s VP.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
Two words - ground game. Laying the groundwork for a Presidential run is a wholly different beast from laying it for a Senatorial run, due in no small part to having to spend so much time in the other 49 States of the Union. So the only way for that plan to work would be if he lost very early on, and in that case, that's a lot of expended resources to just "raise his profile".
Edited by ironballs16 on Mar 14th 2019 at 4:06:13 AM
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"Trump's tweet in response
to the bill's passing is refreshingly straightforward:
I wonder if he now thinks he's already vetoed it.
Also, interestingly:
House unanimously passes resolution calling for Mueller report on Trump to be made public
Edited by sgamer82 on Mar 14th 2019 at 2:12:36 AM
Septimus: Which is probably why a lot of them are also working to amend the Emergency Powers Act to prevent something like this from happening again.
A bunch of Republicans even went to Trump trying to get him to support the amendment in exchange for not voting to kill his declaration, but he refused.
Edited by Parable on Mar 14th 2019 at 1:13:26 AM

I still cannot wrap my head around the fact that the President can veto a bill whose primary function is telling the President to eat a dick.
EDIT: Y'know, it just occurred to me that the overstuffed Democratic Primary is a case of "Be careful what you wish for."
For the last two years, people have been complaining that we have no idea who we can run against Trump in 2020 and that there's no candidates and we're all doomed. Well, congrats, y'all. Now we have all of the candidates.
I joke but for real, I do wonder how many of the people now running first started looking into the idea because they kept hearing the, "WHY IS NOBODY RUNNING?!" doomsaying rhetoric.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Mar 14th 2019 at 9:08:00 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.