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 German American Bund (The original American Nazis) had an interesting display of something similar with Fritz Julius Kuhn, who was the leader of the organization. While Kuhn was a (air quotes) sincere (air quotes) Nazi, he was primarily interested in the perks that came with being a secular cult leader. This included embezzling large amounts of party funds and spending them on his mistress.
The thing was, despite the fact he constantly lied to his followers (including saying that Hitler had named him the American Furher—Hitler detested the man and thought he was causing America to become more interested in siding with the Allies), their ideology was the Furher could do no wrong.
So they had to ignore all of his blatant abuse of them.
I feel that's the case of Trump.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jul 18th 2019 at 11:58:47 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.You know it occurs to me that for all the policies warren it putting forward we are highly unlikely to get any laws passed. The Congress, at least the senate, will likely remain in Mitch’s hands. My fear is that if warren gets elected and is forced to use executive orders then as soon as she walks out those will be removed much like trump’s would be if he were removed from office.
Speaking of which, what will happen if warren wins and trump is a lame duck president? I guarantee that he’ll wreak as much havoc as he possibly can and get pulled out kicking and screaming(and trying to interfere or overturn the election results). It’s fairly likely at this point that he will be re-elected given the sheer voting suppression under Mitch’s regime, but hopefully the tides will turn.
Speaking of which, what will happen if warren wins and trump is a lame duck president? I guarantee that he’ll wreak as much havoc as he possibly can and get pulled out kicking and screaming(and trying to interfere or overturn the election results). It’s fairly likely at this point that he will be re-elected given the sheer voting suppression under Mitch’s regime, but hopefully the tides will turn.
This doesn't really have anything to do with Warren. If the Republicans manage to hold the Senate then no one is going to get anything done without executive orders. Warrens plans just mean that if she wins and we take the Senate then she'll do the most comprehensive reform.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangFuck... Iran has intercepted an oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz
, claiming that it was trying to smuggle 1 million liters of oil.
It's very unlikely that the Democrats will be able to hit the 60-seat mark they need to be able to override potential GOP shenanigans such as filibusters, and even less so that they could hit the 67 seats needed to impeach Trump on strict party lines (should he win reelection). But it's very much within the realm of possibility that they could reach 51 seats, which is all they need to regain control of the Senate and remove Mitch McConnell from his position as Senate Majority Leader.
It's entirely possible that the 2020 election could see the Democrats retaining the House and taking both the Senate and the presidency, which would let them govern essentially uncontested (except for the usual minority-party tactics like filibusters) for the first time since 2010.
Edited by NativeJovian on Jul 18th 2019 at 4:02:18 AM
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.![]()
Yes; there’s a solid chance.
My way of thinking is: if the best case scenario happens, who do I want to shove through as much legislation as possible in the first two years? And if the worst case scenario happens with the house and senate, which person do I think would use executive power effectively but responsibly? Finally, when they screw up, which candidate do I think will actually listen/adapt based on criticism?
That’s Warren for me. Biden fails on all counts, Buttigieg is an unknown quantity, Bernie is not super organized or good at handling criticism, and Harris doesn’t seem to have a deep passion for specific policies.
Edited by wisewillow on Jul 18th 2019 at 1:10:25 AM
It's also worth pointing out that Warren also supports abolishing the filibuster, so if she is President and we take the Senate then unlike the others she'll be a strong voice in favor of doing what's necessary to push through the kind of structural reform that's we deeply need.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jul 18th 2019 at 1:27:13 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangMy understanding is filibusters work by having someone basically talk before saying anything on a vote, or otherwise refuse to vote. You end filibusters with some sort of political version of a turn timer.
Leviticus 19:34Also, abolishing the filibuster does not involve a president in any way. It'd be Chuck Schumer's decision at the end, and historically Senate leaders do not take marching orders from the White House.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanThis is correct, Senate procedure states that if a Senator is recognized they're allowed to speak as long as they wish. Abolishing the filibuster would just be ending that rule.
Incorrect, the President is not dejure involved.
But that is not the same thing as not being involved "in any way". The President has a great deal of influence and if a President pushed for the Filibuster to be abolished then that would have an effect.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jul 18th 2019 at 1:42:15 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangNo.
Senate leaders historically do not show much deference to presidents when it comes to Senate procedure. Witness Evil Turtle telling Trump that he (Evil Turtle) won't scrap the filibuster. Remember, the "term" of a Senate leader is usually much longer than that of a president and that removing obstructionism tools is a "short term benefit at long term risk" proposition; any Senate leader is going to think in terms of how long their term runs, not a president's.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanSenate leaders historically do not show much deference to presidents when it comes to Senate procedure. Witness Evil Turtle telling Trump that he (Evil Turtle) won't scrap the filibuster. Remember, the "term" of a Senate leader is usually much longer than that of a president and that removing obstructionism tools is a "short term benefit at long term risk" proposition; any Senate leader is going to think in terms of how long their term runs, not a president's.
I said nothing about deference, I said it would have an effect.
Furthermore, Mc Connel said no to Trump because he realized that it would be idiotic for Republicans to remove the procedure that benefits them far more then it benefits us. Schumer, on the other hand, would have reason to at least listen to the President and the public pressure created by the President's words.
It's simply false to say that the President has no effect.
The longer reforms exist the more entrenched they become, that's why the ACA has been able to resist Republican sabotage. If Republicans undo everything then they'll face electoral consequences for that, it's well worth allowing reform to become possible.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jul 18th 2019 at 2:05:58 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang''Incorrect, the President is not dejure involved.
But that is not the same thing as not being involved "in any way". The President has a great deal of influence and if a President pushed for the Filibuster to be abolished then that would have an effect. ''
I am not sure how to interpret this w/o thinking of "deference" in some way. Besides, "Public pressure" does not by default arise from the words of a president, either, and if a Senate leader thinks "no, I don't wanna" they can take their case to the public as well.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

And now Trump is saying that he disavowed the "send her back" chant yesterday.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/18/politics/trump-disavows-ilhan-omar-send-her-back-chant/index.html
...He realizes that he was on international TV, right?
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.