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
The theory is that going against your word just pushes your established base away, and doesn’t actually score any points from the other side, right?
My musician pageI mean, I expect that a hypothetical President Biden (assuming he has a Democratic Congress for at least two years) acts (at least on domestic policy) like Obama, maybe further to the left given the general pull of the party.
As for Biden's campaign, he's the frontrunner over half a year away from the first vote. He gains very little from doing anything aside from raising money and holding his ground.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Looks like it's time for the stick, I suppose Pelosi has lost patience with them.
The resolution will allow for House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) to go to court to force the subpoena for Barr to turn over Mueller's unredacted report as well as forcing Mc Ghan to give public testimony and documents.
It would also give any committee chair the power to go federal court to seek the enforcement of subpoenas, both present, and future, so long as they are granted approval by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group.
So yeah, they had their chance and now the Dems are getting serious.
I honestly think this is the best compromise and I'm thrilled to see it happening. Pelosi doesn't want any part of this. Barr's contempt charge has been sitting on her desk for weeks. She's a great peace-time politician, but she just doesn't have the nerve for the pushback against the Trump Executive that needs to be happening right now.
Nadler, on the other hand, has been the one responsible for really pushing this fight. Nadler's been pushing hard in favor of delivering Trump that bloody nose I talked about before. Hit his team of law-breakers hard with real legal consequences and make clear to the rest of his supporters that they no longer enjoy the privilege of congressional invulnerability.
So this is a good way to do it. By taking this action, Pelosi can wash her hands of the actual Trump battleground and just focus on what she's good at: litigate leadership. Nadler, meanwhile, is charged with the ability to take the fight to Trump without needing Pelosi and the full House to stamp their names on it.
I've been frustrated with Pelosi's reluctance and this is basically a tacit admission that Pelosi wants nothing to do with the Trump fight. But it's an admission that passes the sword to someone chomping at the bit to use it, so I can be satisfied with this.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
Which is why I'm encouraged by that Warren's message seems to be picking up speed
, especially with her taking direct shots at Biden's record RE: the Bankruptcy bill that he helped get through as a Senator
that made it far harder for individuals to actually file for bankruptcy. That vote, incidentally, is precisely why she took a stronger interest in politics.
The Daily Show played a clip from the hearing in the run-up to that bill, incidentally.
And for those interested, here's the full exchange between them, and Biden is rather confrontational with Warren right off the bat, and is well-worth the watch. Though as forewarning, Biden takes a good 7 minutes to actually ask his question of her, then cuts her off when she attempts to clarify it a bit.
Edit: and after watching the full clip, Biden enters into a very disingenuous argument at the 11 minute mark, as he tries framing it as "the guy that owns the corner drugstore is paying for that bankruptcy protection" - which generally isn't the case, as the debt accrued tends to be credit card debt, not personal debts. Unless there's some major exemption I'm not aware of, pharmacists do not dispense drugs without getting paid first. Her impassioned reply at 12:30 or so is the highlight for me, though, as she implores him to not cut out bankruptcy protections for people until after fixing the Healthcare system.
Edited by ironballs16 on Jun 6th 2019 at 10:57:03 AM
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"But aside from actually having a plan where Sanders is hot air, do Warren and Sanders really clash on anything? My impression is that they mostly cover the same base because they agree on their broader goals. What would she confront him on? With Biden there's a clear disagreement of both goals and method where she can point to the flaws and describe what she'd do differently.
Funny, I did read that as “somehow managed to unseat” for a moment.
It’s like the Berenstein Bears, for but a single instant.
Oh God! Natural light!I'm glad Pelosi has done this. If she doesn't want to be in the fight against Trump's people on the imprisoning side, she should give it to someone who is. I don't have any problem with her personally but Trump's people are savage fascists and need to be torn into by hook or by crook.
If you can't arrest him then his armies.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.

Cynical and I’m even more disgusted by his lazyass campaign.