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
Very true - and a bit of digging shows that the first claim came from a Washington Post reporter
, rather than the Kim regime, so the credibility is better than I'd have expected.
Serious question for mods: we might want to strongly encourage citations with links and names going forward. It’s a little burdensome, but ensures more accurate discourse.
Here’s citations for the Biden gaffes:
Tweet from Liz Goodwin, a Boston Globe journalist on the campaign trail
that first reported the following:
Here’s an article
posted later on Business Insider.
Here’s the original tweet
from K.C., a queer activist (they/them) who asked Biden about repro rights, photo with his finger in their face included at the link.
Forgot how awful the quote was- that’s some spectacular unearned ego there. Ugh. Trying to remember what the other sexist gaffe was recently; I’ll post a cite when I remember.
Yeah... that first one's not great, but a lot of people would be willing to chalk that up to old-school Big Brother Instinct and/or Overprotective Dad territory, which would actually appeal to my brother.
![]()
![]()
Exactly. It's easy to see that he didn't mean it maliciously - and the type of paternalism he meant it as is still widely-accepted in mainstream society.
Edited by ironballs16 on Jun 12th 2019 at 5:53:02 AM
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"Biden is not unique in this line of thinking, certainly, and he probably didn’t mean any harm.
That said, it’s definitely pretty paternalistic and inappropriate, especially in regards to a minor.
Oh God! Natural light!It’s absolutely a gaffe, though.
In other news, Warren has a plan to pass her plans.
Excerpts from the transcript; it’s a very long, very substantive interview that I highly recommend to anyone who wants to get Warren’s measure.
It is Day 1 of the Elizabeth Warren administration. What comes first?
Elizabeth Warren
I’ll do the things that I can do as president on my own. So Day 1 I will sign a moratorium. No more drilling, no more mining on federal lands or national parks. No offshore drilling. A secretary of education who’s been a public school teacher, somebody who believes in public education. A head of the EPA who is not a coal lobbyist. This is how I think of this. Look at the tools in the toolbox. Right? What are all the tools? What are the ones that a president can do — I love this word — by herself? And what are the ones you got to get Congress for? And then what’s the plan to get Congress on board for that?
Ezra Klein
But you have proposed a bunch of big legislative projects. Of them, what comes first?
Elizabeth Warren
The best place to start is with the corruption package. And the reason for that is that the rich and the powerful have been calling the shots in Washington forever and ever and ever it feels like. I mean many, many decades. They’re not going to just say, “Oh, well, okay. Now you need a wealth tax. Now you want to make these other investments.”
So part of it is to disrupt the influence of money in Washington. It’s to push back against the lobbying industry. It’s to say to all those congresspeople and their chiefs of staff, “Hey, this is your job, and you’re not going to have an opportunity to lobby afterward so don’t be looking over the horizon at your next job and adjusting your behavior accordingly.”
I want everybody in the game right now for the people, not for the folks with money, not for the billionaires, not for the giant corporations, and I think going straight up the middle on the corruption plan is the first one. Knock them back, and while they’re all scrambling, then start passing the rest of it.
Ezra Klein
Do you need to start with the filibuster before you can do any of those plans?
Elizabeth Warren
That depends on whether or not we have a majority on our side in the Senate, and it depends on what Mitch Mc Connell does.
Ezra Klein
But you know what Mitch Mc Connell will do.
Elizabeth Warren
Yeah. Okay. I always want to say he is the one who will determine that. But I will say this for sure: This business that Democrats play by one set of rules and Republicans play by a different set of rules — those days are over when I’m president. We’re not doing that anymore.
Ezra Klein
What is the difference in the rules?
Elizabeth Warren
Oh, come on. I watched Mitch Mc Connell when the Republicans were in the minority in the Senate and President Obama was in the White House, and the Democrats obviously were in the majority in the Senate. He used every rule, every trick, every blue slip to delay, to hold back, to keep anything from passing, and Democrats largely respected that and said, “Well those are the rules.”
Then, when it flips and the Republicans are in the majority, it all starts to look different. They steal a Supreme Court seat. Now the Republicans have Donald Trump as president and they’re in the majority in the Senate, and the rules are entirely different from where they were before. Watch what’s happening not just with the Supreme Court, but with judges up and down the line. Mitch Mc Connell has made it clear that there is no point of principle. For him, it is all about power.
Ezra Klein
If you are lucky enough to have a majority, it’ll be 51, 52, on the outside 53 seats in the Senate. Then you get into the filibuster. You were the first senator to call for its abolition this time. Even your Democratic colleagues are not there. What argument would you make to them to get rid of it?
Elizabeth Warren
I think this is one of the reasons to run on plans because if I get elected on those plans, it gives me the capacity to turn around and say to my colleagues, “Hey that’s what I ran on, that’s what the majority of the American people voted for, that’s what they got out and fought for. So as the Democratic Party, that’s what we got to do.”
Ezra Klein
There’s an argument that you hear a lot lately that before anything else happens, the next president needs to focus on climate change because climate change has a ticking clock attached to it. What do you think of that?
Elizabeth Warren
I think there’s a lot of truth in that. That’s why I’ve said on the first day that I am sworn in, I’ll put a moratorium in place so that there will be no new drilling, no new mining on federal lands, no offshore drilling. That’s something within the capacity of the president of the United States. It’s a difference to make from Day 1. Remember, that’s pretty significant — putting all our federal lands, it’s nearly a quarter of our land mass, on the side of helping the climate instead of being a source of more carbon in the air.
Oh yes, no question there.
Damn, Warren’s going all out. Has anyone else put out any interesting policy lately?
Oh God! Natural light!Julian Castro put out a bold plan for fixing lead poisoning nationwide.
Really impressive. Lead is still everywhere and it’s a major public health hazard, especially in communities of color.
Pod Save America did an interview with the pollster in Iowa who showed Warren was gaining ground. They asked her was the "highlights" were of the poll and these were her responses:
Biden is in the top tier all of his own, but there are some underlying weaknesses to his campaign: Only 29% of his supporters are extremely enthusiastic, compared to to an average of 40% extreme enthusiasm for the others.
Bernie Sanders supporters were the most recorded as "Probably" going to participate in the Iowa caucus as opposed to "Definitely" which could be an issue for him.
Kamala Harris didn't make it into the double digits for first choice, but she is a very popular second choice candidate for many people, which could translate to her getting a surge of support on caucus night when the supporters of candidates who fail to get 15% switch to her.
The majority of likely Iowa caucus participants favor some listing of Biden, Buttigeig, Harris, Sanders, and Warren. Everyone else is getting left behind.
Trump was also appealing to the Republican base, considering that no Democrat is going to be appealing to them I don't think this is a good comparison.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jun 12th 2019 at 5:47:43 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangI'm thinking that, with his willingness to come up and want to implement a plan like that, Castro should be put in charge of HUD. He'd do a hell of a lot better than Carson, though that's possibly Damned by Faint Praise - ditto for basically every other Trump cabinet member. I know there's an exception here or there, but for the most part...
As for Warren's interview, this part is by far the most encouraging.
That's far more appealing than the tepid "We'll reach out to them, and if they don't agree... well, what can we do?" mentality that sandbagged Obama.
Oh shit, I kinda forgot about that. God, it feels like a freakin' decade since Obama was President sometimes.
Edited by ironballs16 on Jun 12th 2019 at 9:08:52 AM
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"Or worse, Biden.
At least Obama had the excuse that the fanatical intransigence of the Republicans wasn't entirely clear at that point, Biden has no such justification and yet he still talks about how the Republicans are going to come around once Trump is gone.
He can't possibly be that stupid. I don't see how that's possibly a useful strategy.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangAnd in other news, Trump said in an interview with ABC that "There isn't anything wrong with listening" to a foreign government offering dirt on a political opponent
, nor would he necessarily inform the FBI about it. That said, Clinton allegedly accepted information from a Ukrainian investigation into Paul Manafort
, so... gotta admit, this particular one is a tad harder to parse, as it hinges primarily on how the information was obtained, at least in my view.
The latter was obtained through a lawful investigation within Ukraine into the financial dealings of Manafort-as-lobbyist, while the information Russia gained was done through hacking - which is kind of illegal.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"I don't know if this is really accurate, but his rhetoric to me sounds like an attempt to appeal to voters who aren't overly invested in politics but sick of the political enviroment and "everyone hating each other". Or I guess as MLK put it, "[people] who would prefer a negative peace which is the absence of tension over a positive peace which is the presence of justice".

What was being discussed with Biden's gaffes was that he's deliberately kept something of a low profile compared to other candidates in an effort to avoid making them to begin with, this time around.
As for Un's brother being a CIA spy - is that according to the CIA, or to Kim Jong-Un?
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"