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
AP-NORC Poll: Trump not boosted by strong American economy – WASHINGTON (AP) — The solid economy is doing little to bolster support for President Donald Trump. Americans give Trump mixed reviews for his economic stewardship despite the growth achieved during this presidency, according to a new survey by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.
Based on my research, Oregon can only call for a recall election for an elected official.
The result, a one percent poll increase for the Republican candidate for every 25,000 weekly re-tweets of IRA messages, raises two questions about the effect: one regarding the magnitude and one regarding its asymmetry.
Here we have tested prediction, not causality. It seems unlikely that 25,000 re-tweets could influence one percent of the electorate in isolation (Guess, et al., 2019; Allcott, et al., 2019), although this might be more plausible than presumed at first glance, given that only about four percent of viewed tweets result in re-retweets (Lee, et al., 2015), such that 25,000 re-tweets could imply about 500,000 exposures to those messages per week. It is more likely, however, that Twitter is just a subset of a larger disinformation campaign carried out on multiple social media platforms (Issac and Wakabayashi, 2017; Howard, et al., 2018), as well as spread through social contagion (Centola, 2010) and to other parts of the interconnected ‘media ecosystem’ including print, radio and television (Benkler, et al., 2018). In this way IRA disinformation can frame the debate, meaning many more people than those directly exposed can be affected (Jamieson, 2018).
Any correlation established by an observational study could be spurious. Though our main finding has proved robust and our time series analysis excludes reverse causation, there could still be a third variable driving the relationship between IRA Twitter success and U.S. election opinion polls. We controlled for one of these — the success of Donald Trump’s personal Twitter account — but there are others that are more difficult to measure; including exposure to the U.S domestic media.
The asymmetrical effect we observed could be because specific groups and media outlets were targeted by the IRA (Jamieson, 2018; Miller, 2019) and those media outlets were particularly susceptible to disinformation (Benkler, et al., 2018), leading to considerably more re-tweets from those targeted groups (Badawy, et al., 2018).
We use macro-level data to establish a link between exposure to IRA disinformation and changes in U.S. public opinion. However, using aggregated data means we cannot know the extent to which the participants in election polls were exposed to IRA disinformation. This may not matter once social contagion (Centola, 2010) and media ecosystem effects (Benkler, et al., 2018) are taken into consideration. Nonetheless, establishing individual-level causal mechanisms should be a priority (Gerber and Zavisca, 2016; Spaiser, et al., 2017).
Here we have presented evidence that social media disinformation can measurably change public opinion polls. Though we focused on a particular high-profile example in 2016, social media propaganda is a growing problem affecting voting populations around the world, regardless of affiliation, and ought to be given serious attention in the future. Our study motivates future investigation that seeks to establish the causal mechanisms of disinformation exposure on the opinions and behavior of individuals. These future studies should measure exposure to all media in the media ecosystem, not just social media.
I’m reading otherwise.
Right now I’ve just got a newspaper source but I’d be surprised if they’re making it up. [1]
Sadly it seems your faith in the Oregon legislator to take the logical option is misplaced.
Edit: Just checked and it’s right, though I’m also seeing that two thirds are what’s needed for a Quorum, so I’m slightly confused.
Just looked more into it, Dems don’t have a supermajority in Oregon, just a regular majority, so they can’t do squat.
I’d say they should still push for removal, use it to rally public backlash and hopefully get the supermajority they need to actually do anything.
Edited by Silasw on Jul 1st 2019 at 6:57:06 PM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranSo apparently Iran now exceeds the amount of enriched uranium that they'd agreed to under the deal
- however, the reason the they are genuinely allowed to do this is because of Trump withdrawing from it and hitting them with more sanctions. One of the stipulations of the agreement was that, so long as all parties abided by it, Iran would be constrained in how much enriched uranium they could have. But since the US broke the terms of the agreement first...
CNN has released its post-debate poll and it mostly backs up Wisewillow's article
.
6/28-30 (change from 5/28-31)
-Biden 22% (-10)
-Harris 17% (+9)
-Warren 15% (+8)
-Sanders 14% (-4)
-Buttigieg 4% (-1)
-Booker 3% (-)
-O’Rourke 3% (-2)
-Klobuchar 2% (-)
-Castro 1% (-1)
-de Blasio 1% (+1)
-Gabbard 1% (-)
-Yang 1% (-)
-[everyone else <1%]
So it was a big loss for Biden, a big win for Warren and Harris, and a moderate loss for Sanders.
This is exactly the sort of result I wanted
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jul 1st 2019 at 1:52:44 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangI'm pretty stoked for a hypothetical Warren/Harris ticket (or the other way around).
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Hmm, that could be a possibility.
Though I also like the idea of a Warren/Castro ticket, beyond giving a very good showing he also would be useful for attracting the Latinx community.
And that could be very useful in both the general election and down-ballot.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangI think Warren/Castro would be excellent.
I’m still quite cold on Harris; she spoke very well at the debate, but I have strong concerns on her record as a prosecutor, her history on sex worker and trans rights, and her moderate economic policy. To be fair, I’m rather cold on prosecutors on general; Klobuchar also has a bad record there, and I’m sick of how many prosecutors are in government. On a related tangent, here’s an article about how Judge Judy taught viewers to have contempt for poor and uneducated people.
I think a similar argument applies to the perspective of many prosecutors.
Edited by wisewillow on Jul 1st 2019 at 2:04:12 AM
Yeah, there's kind of a reason that the primary advice of any defending attorney - public or private - is for their client to wear their absolute fanciest clothing to the hearings. As soon as they're seen in "low" clothing (or especially a prison jumpsuit), the case is biased against them on a subliminal level.
Edited by ironballs16 on Jul 1st 2019 at 5:06:35 AM
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"And finally found the article about the Iran Nuclear Deal that I'd read that provision in
.
In early May, Iran said it would invoke Article 36 of the JCPOA. That's the part of the international accord that, according to Iran, gives it the option to boost its nuclear holdings if foreign governments don't deliver on the economic commitments they promised.
Iran made that announcement after the Trump administration canceled U.S. waivers that had allowed some countries to buy Iranian oil. Those sanction exemptions expired in early May, prompting Iran's response.
Rather than withdrawing from the JCPOA entirely, Iran said it would stop sending its low-enriched uranium overseas — a move that allowed the levels of uranium to accrue and surpass the limit set by the accord.
So yeah, it's on the US for reneging on the deal first - because of that, no one can take overt action on Iran doing this without looking like a massive jackass. And please, for the love of God, don't let that count as an Inadvertent Entrance Cue.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"One way or another, I do think our nominee should select their running mate from the primary competition pool.
It would help avoid the "Who the f*ck is this guy and why should I care?" dynamic that happened in 2016 with Tim "Some White Dude I Guess" Kaine. If Democrats are super excited for one person and super excited for another person, and then both names go on the ticket, that's double the excitement right there.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Jul 1st 2019 at 3:59:03 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
Unless the two candidates are different enough that it might end up curbing the enthusiasm.
Not that I'm saying any of the combinations of Warren, Harris and Castro would cause that, just thst it is a possibility that they might want to keep in mind.
Democrats put a lot of stock in, for lack of a better word, "ideological purity" after all.
They do also need to make sure it’s someone they can work with, we don’t need a power struggle occurring within the ticket.
I wouldn’t want Bernie or Biden as a VP pick, they’d cause to many issues.
I think Harris could work, but I’m not sure on the demographic impact of both a women only ticket and a coastal senator only ticket.
Castro apparently has a good relationship with Warren, he’s Hispanic, he’s from the south and he’s a man, he ticks a lot of boxes for me.
Edited by Silasw on Jul 1st 2019 at 6:04:26 PM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran"What plays better now?"
What plays better would depend on the presidential candidate and what demographics they still need to appeal to.
Assuming Warren, then balancing then ticket would involve the factors Silas mentioned. I'd add being black as a pro for Harris, though. That's a key demographic neither Warren nor Castro bring to the table.
https://whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com/2019/07/01/day-893/
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/30/us/child-migrant-detention-center-doctors-federal-judge/index.html
2/ Inspectors warned Homeland Security in May that conditions at an El Paso migrant detention facility were so bad that border agents were arming themselves against possible riots. According to a report by the Homeland Security Inspector General's office, there were only four showers available for the 756 immigrants, more than half of the immigrants were being held outside, and there were five times as many people being held in cells beyond the maximum capacity allowed. One cell was so overcrowded that the men inside could not lie down to sleep, and temperatures in the cells were often higher than 80 degrees. "With limited access to showers and clean clothing," the report said, "detainees were wearing soiled clothing for days or weeks." Acting DHS Secretary Kevin Mc Aleenan, meanwhile, claimed that reports of poor conditions at the facility were "unsubstantiated." (NBC News)
3/ A federal judge blocked Trump from using $2.5 billion in military funding to build a wall at the southern border. The permanent injunction halts border wall construction at different sites in New Mexico, California, Arizona and Texas. Trump declared a national emergency earlier this year in order to divert roughly $6 billion in Defense Department funds toward border wall construction, arguing that the use of the military funds was lawful under the scope of the national emergency, because the need for funding was "unforeseen." (NPR / The Hill / Mother Jones)
4/ A new study correlates Trump's rise in popularity during the 2016 campaign with social media activity by the Russian trolls and bots of the Internet Research Agency. While the study does not prove that Russian interference swung the election, researchers at the University of Tennessee found that for every 25,000 re-tweets by accounts connected to the IRA, Trump's poll numbers jumped 1%. [Editor's note: Correlation does not always mean causation.] (NBC News / Axios)
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/29/us/politics/fake-joe-biden-website.html
5/ Trump Jr. shared – then deleted – a tweet questioning if Kamala Harris was black enough to discuss the black American experience. Harris is the biracial daughter of a Jamaican father and Indian mother and during the Demcratic debate, Trump Jr. shared a tweet that falsely claimed that Harris was "not an American Black," because "She comes from Jamaican Slave Owners." Spokesman Andy Surabian said "that folks were misconstruing the intent of [Trump Jr.'s] tweet." (New York Times)
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/28/us/politics/donald-trump-jr-kamala-harris.html
6/ Trump became the first sitting U.S. president to set foot in North Korea. Trump spent 53 minutes privately talking with Kim Jong Un at the demilitarized zone. The two agreed to set up teams to "work out some details" and resume negotiations to eliminate North Korea's nuclear arsenal. (Washington Post / NBC News / Associated Press / New York Times)
https://apnews.com/0697162d26414f5fb06649a1fcb1844e
7/ Iran exceeded the maximum amount of low enriched uranium allowed under the 2015 nuclear deal. Iran's stockpile of about 660 pounds of low enriched uranium does not give the country enough material to produce a nuclear weapon. (New York Times / Axios)
https://www.axios.com/iran-uranium-stockpile-nuclear-deal-33374084-e9ed-4357-9cdb-fd5c29614bf2.html
8/ The House Ethics Committee is investigating Rep. Matt Gaetz for threatening to release embarrassing personal information about Michael Cohen on the eve of Cohen's testimony to the House Oversight Committee. (Politico)
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/28/ethics-panel-matt-gaetz-investigation-1389113
9/ Trump requested tanks as a prop for his planned "Salute to America" Fourth of July address to the nation. Trump also requested an F-35 stealth fighter and Marine Helicopter Squadron One in addition to the planned flyover by other military aircraft, including Air Force One. (Washington Post)
poll/ 47% of Americans approve of Trump's handling of the economy, while 51% disapprove. 26% said Trump's tariffs have helped the economy, down from 40% in August 2018. (AP-NORC)
So, uhm, Pro Publica reports that CBP agents are fucking violent.
Members of a secret Facebook group for current and former Border Patrol agents joked about the deaths of migrants, discussed throwing burritos at Latino members of Congress visiting a detention facility in South Texas on Monday and posted a vulgar illustration depicting Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez engaged in oral sex with a detained migrant, according to screenshots of their postings.
In one exchange, group members responded with indifference and wisecracks to the post of a news story about a 16-year-old Guatemalan migrant who died in May while in custody at a Border Patrol station in Weslaco, Texas. One member posted a GIF of Elmo with the quote, “Oh well.” Another responded with an image and the words “If he dies, he dies.”
Created in August 2016, the Facebook group is called “I’m 10-15” and boasts roughly 9,500 members from across the country. (10-15 is Border Patrol code for “aliens in custody.”) The group described itself, in an online introduction, as a forum for “funny” and “serious” discussion about work with the patrol. “Remember you are never alone in this family,” the introduction said.
...
Several of the postings reviewed by Pro Publica refer to the planned visit by members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, including Ocasio-Cortez and Rep. Veronica Escobar, to a troubled Border Patrol facility outside of El Paso. Agents at the compound in Clint, Texas, have been accused of holding children in neglectful, inhumane conditions.
Members of the Border Patrol Facebook group were not enthused about the tour, noting that Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat from Queens, had compared Border Patrol facilities to Nazi concentration camps. Escobar is a freshman Democrat representing El Paso.
One member encouraged Border Patrol agents to hurl a “burrito at these bitches.” Another, apparently a patrol supervisor, wrote, “Fuck the hoes.” “There should be no photo ops for these scum buckets,” posted a third member.
Perhaps the most disturbing posts target Ocasio-Cortez. One includes a photo illustration of her engaged in oral sex at an immigrant detention center. Text accompanying the image reads, “Lucky Illegal Immigrant Glory Hole Special Starring AOC.”
Another is a photo illustration of a smiling President Donald Trump forcing Ocasio-Cortez’s head toward his crotch. The agent who posted the image commented: “That’s right bitches. The masses have spoken and today democracy won.”
The posts about Escobar and Ocasio-Cortez are “vile and sexist,” said a staffer for Escobar. “Furthermore, the comments made by Border Patrol agents towards immigrants, especially those that have lost their lives, are disgusting and show a complete disregard for human life and dignity.”
The head of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Joaquin Castro, reviewed the Facebook discussions and was incensed. “It confirms some of the worst criticisms of Customs and Border Protection,” said Castro, a Democrat who represents San Antonio. “These are clearly agents who are desensitized to the point of being dangerous to migrants and their co-workers.” He added that the agents who made the vulgar comments “don’t deserve to wear any uniform representing the United States of America.”
Vicki Gaubeca, director of the Southern Border Communities Coalition, said the postings are more evidence of the sexism and misogyny that has long plagued the Border Patrol. “That’s why they’re the worst at recruiting women,” said Gaubeca, whose group works to reform the agency. “They have the lowest percentage of female agents or officers of any federal law enforcement agency.”
In another thread, a group member posted a photo of father and his 23-month-old daughter lying face down in the Rio Grande. The pair drowned while trying to ford the river and cross into the U.S.; pictures of the two have circulated widely online in recent days, generating an outcry.
The member asked if the photo could have been faked because the bodies were so “clean.” (The picture was taken by an Associated Press photographer, and there is no indication that it was staged or manipulated.) “I HAVE NEVER SEEN FLOATERS LIKE THIS,” the person wrote, adding, “could this be another edited photo. We’ve all seen the dems and liberal parties do some pretty sick things…”
For reference: there are 9,500 current and former CBP agents in this group.
The total number of current CBP agents is 20,000.
This was a poll
done by Crooked Media and Change Research the week before the debates and while they asked the usual questions like, "who do you support?" and "who's your second choice?" they also asked some follow-up questions I thought were interesting.
Joe Biden led with 29%, Sanders with 20%, Warren with 19%, and Buttigieg with 14%.
People's second choice? Warren with 20% percent, Biden with 18%, Sanders/Buttigieg with 15%. Kamala Harris with 11%
Then it gets into the issue of perfectibility. 22% of people picked their first choice candidate over their second because the felt the first had a better chance of beating Trump. Of those, 45% said "they worry that average Americans won’t like their second-choice candidates as much as their top choice, and this is especially true of people who chose Warren, Harris, and Buttigeg as their second choices."
Note that this applied especially applied to a woman, a black, woman, and a gay man. For people who chose Sanders as their second choice, they felt he wouldn't to as good because he's too far to the left.
"Among the most-aware voters, Warren leads with 25%, followed by Biden with 23%, Buttigieg with 16%, and Sanders with 14%." Moreover, about half of those polled said Biden was the most electable, but the more a voter paid attention to the race, the less likely they were to support Biden and Sanders and more likely to support Warren, Buttigieg, and Harris.
83-86% of all polled said they would vote for any of the top seven candidates should they win the nomination.
Warren polled highest or tied for highest for different voter enthusiasm categories. Ex: Who would you knock on doors for.
Biden had the largest number of African American supporters at 62%. Harris was second at 11%. Despite his otherwise high polling, Buttigieg had only 1% of support from African Americans.
Remember, this was done before the debates. I'll be very interested in seeing what the numbers say now that the first debates are over.
![]()
Holy shit, that is a significant fraction. Somehow, also not surprised that CBP has a sexism problem in addition to a racism problem. Cleaning shop is going to take monumental effort, and doing so should be a serious priority for any potential Democratic President. Chances are it will entail structural changes too.

That's not how the law works. If just being expelled was an option they wouldn't have run away in the first place.
Nor would've their action shut down the legislature.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jul 1st 2019 at 11:44:43 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang