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
So this was from a few pages ago, and I honestly feel kind of weird bringing it up because I understand the sentiment, but I still feel compelled to point out this sentiment isn't the best.
I totally get why better representation in the government is important, but that is only one thing. If, say, Caitlyn Jenner became president, having a trans President would be huge, but also she would be awful because her beliefs are awful.
Just a point that the substance of policy should be the most important thing. And, yes, I'm aware that's a very similar argument to why the Right claims there's nothing wrong with things being disproportionately white and male. But the thing about that is they're blatantly arguing in bad-faith. I don't think we are.
Edited by LSBK on Apr 22nd 2019 at 2:36:23 PM
1/ Today Trump sued Oversight Committee Chairman @Rep Cummings to stop the enforcement of a subpoena against his longtime accounting firm for his financial records.
2/ Although the suit was brought by Trump "solely in his capacity as a private citizen," the suit is full of politically charged language and criticism of what the lawsuit calls the "Democrat Party." It's hard not to see this suit as, at least in part, a political statement.
3/ As noted above, one oddity about the suit is that Trump is trying to enforce his rights as a private citizen to ensure the privacy of his information, but of course he is the President of the United States. No court would view him like an ordinary citizen.
4/ That could impact his case in a couple of different ways. First, courts do not like to get involved in disputes between the other branches of government. To the extent the judge views this as a political fight, the judge could decide to stay out of it entirely.
5/ That could hurt Trump's chances in this particular suit, but it could help later on, if the accounting firm refuses to comply with the subpoena and the Oversight Committee seeks to compel compliance with the subpoena in court.
6/ The fact that Trump is president will have an even bigger impact if the judge is willing to consider the legal issues presented by the suit itself. The main question presented by the suit is whether there is a proper legislative purpose for the subpoena.
7/ Trump argues that there is no legislative purpose, and perhaps one reason his lawyers are filing the suit is to force the Oversight Committee to articulate a legislative purpose. It's hard to imagine that the Democrats would be unable to come up with one.
8/ But perhaps Trump gains something politically by forcing Democrats to state publicly that they are considering legislation regarding his finances.
9/ The way to view this lawsuit is as the first shot in a potentially long legal battle that could involve multiple court cases. In the short term, Trump seeks a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, which would stop the subpoena while the case goes on.
10/ He is unlikely to succeed in that effort because the bar is very high for a plaintiff to win for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. It is possible that the Democrats could withdraw the subpoena if it looks like the judge is concerned about it.
11/ It's too early to say how this will play out. But I'd expect this to be merely the first in a series of legal maneuvers by Trump's legal team meant to delay or limit House Democrats and/or to help Trump's legal or political position. /end
Edited by megaeliz on Apr 22nd 2019 at 3:33:40 PM
Mind you, Jenner made a public article in Newsweek about how her association with the GOP and Trump was a mistake.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/25/caitlyn-jenner-trump-941481
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Apr 22nd 2019 at 12:35:08 PM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.You know, speaking of representation ... I was reading a while ago this discussion
, which stated "But they’re also running scared after losing to Trump, which is perhaps reflected in the fact that three of the four top candidates in the horse race, according to the polls, are straight white men."
As a straight white man, I feel unqualified to point out that they seem less focused on the issues than they should. I support Warren primarily because the issues are the most important thing for me.
I think they're right that women as a voting block is making a lot of weird assumptions about class, race, and other things they'd vote over.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Apr 22nd 2019 at 12:46:13 PM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.Yes. Specifically, Kennedy cut taxes on the rich as part of a larger macroeconomic effort (including raising interest rates) to slow down the economy's growth rate a bit, because the economy was overheating a bit after a decade of exceptional growth and he wanted to reduce the nation's monetary velocity.
I'm not sure that really works as a justification. You can get the same effect by raising interest rates, and it doesn't set us forth on a slippery slope. That said, we didn't really run into trouble until top tax rates fell below 70 percent.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"So that Washington lawmaker mentioned a few pages back? It's worth reading the original article from The Guardian
, due to this part:
They also include some of the messages they'd sent which are... well:
Would make good attachment points for hoisting communists up flag poles. Especially the ones with nipple rings
But… if you cinch up zip ties enough, you don't even NEED nipple rings for hoisting.
As a fan of nipple-rings, I really don't want to see them abused like that.
Well, yeah. The former abide by Safe, Sane, and Consensual - the latter don't.
Edited by ironballs16 on Apr 22nd 2019 at 5:04:47 AM
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"US threatens to veto UN resolution on rape as weapon of war, officials say
The US is threatening to veto a United Nations resolution on combatting the use of rape as a weapon of war because of its language on reproductive and sexual health, according to a senior UN official and European diplomats.
The German mission hopes the resolution will be adopted at a special UN security council session on Tuesday on sexual violence in conflict.
But the draft resolution has already been stripped of one of its most important elements, the establishment of a formal mechanism to monitor and report atrocities, because of opposition from the US, Russia and China, which opposed creating a new monitoring body.
Even after the formal monitoring mechanism was stripped from the resolution, the US was still threatening to veto the watered-down version, because it includes language on victims’ support from family planning clinics. In recent months, the Trump administration has taken a hard line, refusing to agree to any UN documents that refer to sexual or reproductive health, on grounds that such language implies support for abortions. It has also opposed the use of the word “gender”, seeking it as a cover for liberal promotion of transgender rights.
“We are not even sure whether we are having the resolution tomorrow, because of the threats of a veto from the US,” Pramila Patten, the UN special representative on sexual violence in conflict, told the Guardian.
In cases of disagreement in the security council, member states often fall back on previously agreed text, but the US has made it clear it would no longer accept language from a 2013 resolution on sexual violence.
“They are threatening to use their veto over this agreed language on comprehensive healthcare services including sexual and reproductive health. The language is being maintained for the time being and we’ll see over the next 24 hours how the situation evolves,” Patten said.
“It will be a huge contradiction that you are talking about a survivor-centered approach and you do not have language on sexual and reproductive healthcare services, which is for me the most critical.”
In a draft of the resolution seen by the Guardian, the contentious phrase is only mentioned once, in a clause that “urges United Nations entities and donors to provide non-discriminatory and comprehensive health services, including sexual and reproductive health, psychosocial, legal and livelihood support and other multi-sectoral services for survivors of sexual violence, taking into account the specific needs of persons with disabilities.”
A spokeswoman for the US mission said it “does not comment on draft resolutions that are under active negotiation”.
European states, led by Germany, the UK and France, have been resisting abandoning the language on access to family planning and women’s health clinics, as they believe it would mean surrendering the gains of recent decades in terms of international recognition of women’s rights.
“If we let the Americans do this and take out this language, it will be watered down for a long time,” a European diplomat, who asked to remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of the negotiations, said. “It is, at its heart, an attack on the progressive normative framework established over the past 25 years.”
“Until the Trump administration, we could always count on the Americans to help us defend it. Now the Americans have switched camp,” the diplomat said. “Now it’s an unholy alliance of the US, the Russians, the Holy See, the Saudis and the Bahrainis, chipping away at the progress that has been made.”
Diplomats at the security council expect a long night of negotiations on the wording.
The latest version of the draft resolution recognises the work of the informal expert group on women, peace and security, but Patten had argued that the current system does not provide a consistent channel to bring violations on sexual violence to the attention of the security council.
A formal mechanism, with a panel regularly assessing compliance and recommending sanctions, would have given her more leverage on states and non-state groups.
“In the current draft as it stands, the formal mechanism is gone,” she said. “It’s very, very weak.”
if you bribe them your breaking the law technically
have a listen and have a link to my discord server"I am not being political," the pastor says with a dramatic pose, while engaging in blatant political advocacy, calling Trump "strong" and his opponents "witches".
"I am not being political."
I think that's the bit that makes me blow my fuse.
And what the fuck does "it's time" even mean? What is he egging them on to do?
Edited by Oruka on Apr 22nd 2019 at 3:27:14 AM

Guess he didn't have enough good Pokemon quotes
Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% Scandinavian