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
Warren has released her plan on immigration reform.
It is VERY detailed. I’ll try to find a good summary unless someone else finds one first. My initial impression is very positive. Addresses a path to citizenship for those already here, getting rid of the (racist) caps that cause 10-20 year waits for people from Mexico and other countries, closing the camps, and expanding aid to Central America.
Edited by wisewillow on Jul 11th 2019 at 11:46:23 AM
@Tobias: As much as I love the man, the camps were already there under Obama, cells too. The only new situation under the Trump administration is the family separation policy, which was already pushed back on. Let's not revise history to clear Democratic presidents of all blame.
Life is unfair...
Well, also the sheer volume of those detained/refused, as previous administrations had a "catch and release" policy, which had most of them reporting independently to court rather than forcing them into prison. The equivalent of "Released on Own Recognizance" for domestic offenses. They also allowed people to actually request Asylum by crossing anywhere, rather than restricting it to official ports of entry, and treating those that did otherwise as criminals.
I'll agree that a number of the problems already existed, but Trump's antics have both exacerbated them and shown a spotlight on them because of that exacerbation.
Edited by ironballs16 on Jul 11th 2019 at 3:11:30 PM
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"Good news; Trump has backed off on including a citizenship question on the US Census. He is directing the Department of Commerce to somehow gather citizenship data using exiting sources, but that is probably less effective, and doesn't have electoral or federal funding implications.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/11/politics/trump-census-executive-action/index.html
Barr and Ross are facing a Contempt vote in the House (not Committee, the entire chamber) over refusing to give answers on internal discussions on the census questions (ie; they don't want to admit that racism is their motivation).
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.So this is interesting - in the wake of Trump being told he couldn't block people on Twitter, Ocasio-Cortez is being sued for the same reason
by Dov Hikind (former NY Assemblyman) and Joseph Saladino (YouTuber and congressional candidate), stating that "I have officially filed my lawsuit against AOC for blocking me on twitter. Trump is not allowed to block people, will the standards apply equally?"
I think that, unless they're both constituents of hers, they'll be rejected because they lack standing on it. Alternatively, unless she's relied on Twitter to speak about public policy in the way Trump has, it'll be thrown out because she's not using it as a means of making policy.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"Much as I like her, I think they probably have a case here. AOC is politically active on Twitter. She's even created her own hashtag events from time to time, like the tongue-in-cheek #WheresMitch. And she is a public official.
She might have to abide by the same First Amendment rules that govern Trump's Twitter usage. Frankly, as more of the younger generation inevitably steps up to replace the outgoing Baby Boomers, a lot of people probably will. The rules being hashed out right now regarding politicians and Twitter will likely only become more relevant as time progresses, not less.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Jul 11th 2019 at 2:57:25 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.I would not necessarily gamble on the rules being "politicians may not block other people on Twitter", though. Such a definition of free speech sounds like it'd invite more abuse than good use to me.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanIt’s a weird situation, I suspect that many politicians block people who abuse them on twitter, they should be able to block people who tell them to go die and such.
But also I do wonder if having to be subject to raw twitter would perhaps thrive politicians away from it, which would seem like a huge positive to me, as if politicians leave Twitter it will hurt twitter and hopefully take it a step closer to shutting down completely.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI think if you want to use Twitter, you should either use it solely for business or solely for personal use. If you want to have both, than you need two Twitter accounts. If you're a politician, you should not be allowed to block people from a business Twitter, but you should be able to from your personal Twitter.
The problem with personal and business accounts is that when you're a politician, that line gets very blurry.
If Senator Bob tweets, "Hey guys, check out this article about climate change from the Washington Post," is he using his account for personal or business reasons? Regular people tweet things like that all the time, but part of the professional expectation of him is that he has an opinion on this so....
As a politician, your job is to a) have opinions, b) try to convince people of those opinions, and c) write those opinions into law. So how do you determine which opinions are professional opinions that have to be kept to the Official Senator Account and which ones are personal opinions that can be shared on the Totes Normal Dude Account?
Edited by TobiasDrake on Jul 11th 2019 at 4:00:11 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Full ruling here
.
The case being made against AOC will likely warrant further hammering out of what, exactly, constitutes "official purposes" versus "wholly private". The floodgates have been opened for a lot of legal deliberation as to the nature of political versus personal discourse in an online format.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Jul 11th 2019 at 4:12:15 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
As I said, though, something that would likely be considered is whether they're denying constituents access by blocking them. Someone from a neighboring state isn't being denied access to their representative - the President inherently represents everyone in the US.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"Also there’s a defence of the ban not being because they “expressed views with which the official disagrees”, an actual threat to a person seems to still be a legitimate reason to block someone, I don’t know if calling for someone to die/be killed counts as a “view” or not though.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranSo had this article pop up courtesy of one of Sanders' posts on Facebook - a Philadelphia man robbing a convenience store actually stopped and gave the money back when the take was too small
, because he was (as claimed by the attempted robber) trying to get money for his daughter's kidney transplant. He even gave the money back, though he's still wanted for armed robbery because of it.
That’s when, out of the blue, the suspect said he wasn’t going forward with the robbery because it probably wouldn’t help his daughter’s kidney transplant operation.
At that point, the worker said the robber became friendly and left without taking the money or hurting anybody.
Even though he didn’t take anything, police say he still is in “violation of the law.”
“I don’t know what he’s referring to, don’t know if he has a daughter who has some sort of medical need, but he still is in violation of the law for committing a robbery even though he didn’t walk away with anything,” Philadelphia Police Capt. Sekou Kinebrew said.
Police sources say they may be onto who this guy is. They are trying to track him down and learn more about the story he briefly shared.
If nothing else, pretty sure the guy just guaranteed a successful crowd-funding campaign for the medical bills.
Edited by ironballs16 on Jul 11th 2019 at 8:06:33 AM
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"So, about the subpoenas for Mueller's unredacted report and the threat of contempt votes from the House over them... what's the most recent update?
Edited by MarqFJA on Jul 11th 2019 at 6:13:24 PM
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Yeah if the situation did happen I’d expect democrats to vote down Trump nominees rather than refuse to hold a vote.
Though I wouldn’t objecting to blocking a vote one time, turnabout is fair play.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran