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 reality of the situation is irrelevant, it only matters that they perceive their situation as such. For example, this article in Politico about Third Way softening to her because it means Bernie isn't picked.
And this is why we need a good infrastructure bill.
Edited by TheRoguePenguin on Aug 27th 2019 at 6:37:39 AM
To be fair to Sanders, he no doubt knows the right-leaning nature of the US Overton window and thus as a socialist, it makes sense for him to support what are more or less social democratic policies.
I don't think Sanders is stupid enough to directly advocate for worker control of the means of production.
This belief that Bernie is scarier then Warren to the ultra-wealthy is entirely nonsense pushed by Bernie Stans, the reality of the situation is that both of them scare Wall Street.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 27th 2019 at 6:40:25 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang![]()
![]()
![]()
With climate change being so savage when it comes to summer and winter, at times like these, I always wonder how the hell people manage to live in the midwest USA, given how it's hot enough in southern Ontario, from a nation Yankees often believe to be polar and nothing else.
![]()
![]()
![]()
That's encouraging to hear and a good sign and indication of Warren playing her cards right to avoid burning bridges with the Democratic establishment to the extent that Bernie has. When you have a more radical platform like hers then it's to your advantage to take advantage of the established infrastructure where you can, and Warren seems to understand that better than Bernie's attempt to be independent to a fault.
That's the thing with coasts, a crap ton of humidity, but you are cooler than the further inland. This is coming from someone who lives in SE Texas where people joke about this sort of heat and humidity.
This is pretty much how it is, the coast is usually cooler during the summer, but warmer during the winter. The only time I've seen the opposite of this is the constant reminders of lake-effect snow off the Great Lakes when I watched the Weather Channel when I was younger.
Speaking of weather, Puerto Rico is going to be fine dealing with a Tropical Storm, but the NHC is predicting Dorian to become a Hurricane and slam into the Bahamas and somewhere on the east coast of Florida/Georgia coast in the next 5 days. This is from the NHC's 2 am AST advisory.
Edited by tclittle on Aug 28th 2019 at 3:45:23 AM
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."A note of caution about bad polls for Trump
There are a lot of stories about polls looking bad for Trump, and some talking about the drop in his support. There are at least two things to be cautious about though: most of the stories that talk about a drop in support compares current support to Trump's inauguration, which was easily when he was most popular. Second, as bad a s his favorability ratings look in key battleground states, just remember that the looked worse in November 2016.
Both the Drudge Report’s banner and recently self-appointed anti-Trump crusader Anthony Scaramucci on Tuesday lifted up new polling from Axios and the Morning Consult. “Trump’s net approval rating sinks in every battleground state,” read the Axios headline.
“TRUMP TROUBLE IN TOSSUPS?” reads Drudge’s headline, which has since been pushed below the banner.
Those shifts look pretty damning. He has lost 18 points off his old net approval rating (approve minus disapprove) in New Hampshire, 20 points in Wisconsin, 18 in Michigan, 18 in Nevada, 26 in Arizona and even 23 in Florida. What could account for such shifts?
The answer: because it’s being compared with the very beginning of his presidency, which was a high point of his presidency and many other presidencies. As Axios discloses (but other promotion ignores), his current numbers in these states are being compared with those from January 2017. That’s when he was inaugurated. Pretty much every president is popular upon inauguration, meaning that if you compare their later approval ratings to that, you’re likely to find some sort of regression.
Barack Obama’s approval rating upon his inauguration was in the mid-60s, for example, and he never reached that height again. George W. Bush’s was in the high-50s, and it’s not unreasonable to think it might never have topped that if not for the unifying effect of 9/11. Bill Clinton was around where Bush was to start, and he dropped below that for almost his entire first term. That means this chart would have looked fairly similar for him — right up until the 1996 general election, which he won.
The biggest problem is that this creates the appearance of change, when Trump’s numbers have shown very little of that. He has had some of the most remarkably static approval ratings for a president, in fact, and there is little reason to believe that has changed much in recent weeks, months or really since the start of 2018. His inauguration is about the only point in his presidency to which you could compare today and see much of a difference. There is simply very little utility in comparing his numbers to then, and much less in suggesting that these polls, which were conducted 31 months apart, present some kind of informative movement.
Next to other, more recent polling, the numbers aren’t even that surprising, and some of them are pretty good for Trump, if they’re accurate. Trump’s net approval is minus-10.4 (43.2 percent approve minus 53.6 percent disapprove) in the Real Clear Politics national average. So the fact that he’s minus-14 in Wisconsin, minus-11 in Michigan and minus-8 in Pennsylvania — the three key states he won very narrowly in 2016 — is hardly surprising. The idea that he’s just minus-4 in Virginia (which he lost in 2016) and minus-1 in Florida (which is hugely important) would be very good for him.
A better comparison than to Trump’s inauguration would be to his election, before he got the inaugural bump. His favorable rating on Election Day 2016 was minus-29 in Wisconsin, minus-20 in Michigan and minus-14 in Pennsylvania, according to exit polls — all worse than his new approval numbers in those states. Favorable rating isn’t completely analogous to approval rating, and he benefited in 2016 from a similarly unpopular opponent in Hillary Clinton. But as you can see, it’s hardly necessary that he be above-water in any of these states.
The caveat I'd add to the last paragraph I quoted is that exit polls are notoriously unreliable and violate several key rules of statistics, so exit polling alone should be taken with a massive grain of salt, if not disregarded entirely.
Trump wants his damn border wall, he wants it now, and he wants aides and officials to act quickly and illegally to seize the land needed for it. He's also using one of his favorite tropes to try to convince them; promising to pardon them if they fall afoul of the law in the meantime.
He also has told worried subordinates that he will pardon them of any potential wrongdoing should they have to break laws to get the barriers built quickly, those officials said.
Trump has repeatedly promised to complete 500 miles of fencing by the time voters go to the polls in November 2020, stirring chants of “Finish the Wall!” at his political rallies as he pushes for tighter border controls. But the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has completed just about 60 miles of “replacement” barrier during the first 2½ years of Trump’s presidency, all of it in areas that previously had border infrastructure.
The president has told senior aides that a failure to deliver on the signature promise of his 2016 campaign would be a letdown to his supporters and an embarrassing defeat. With the election 14 months away and hundreds of miles of fencing plans still in blueprint form, Trump has held regular White House meetings for progress updates and to hasten the pace, according to several people involved in the discussions.
When aides have suggested that some orders are illegal or unworkable, Trump has suggested he would pardon the officials if they would just go ahead, aides said. He has waved off worries about contracting procedures and the use of eminent domain, saying “take the land,” according to officials who attended the meetings.
“Don’t worry, I’ll pardon you,” he has told officials in meetings about the wall.
“He said people expected him to build a wall, and it had to be done by the election,” one former official said.
Asked for comment, a White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Trump is joking when he makes such statements about pardons.
...
Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper is expected to approve a White House request to divert $3.6 billion in Pentagon funds to the barrier project in coming weeks, money that Trump sought after lawmakers refused to allocate $5 billion. The funds will be pulled from Defense Department projects in 26 states, according to administration officials who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the matter.
By the way, Trump is also planning to move hundreds of millions from disaster aid/funding to his wall too
. A little something to really put the pinch on his fans in the south the next time a hurricane rolls through their state.
The FEC (Federal Election Commission) now officially lack enough members to function. Don't expect anything in the way of enforcement on election law or campaign finance rules going into 2020. Transcript from an NPR story about this
:
The Federal Election Commission can't do its job. That's because one of its commissioners, Matthew Petersen, just resigned. It leaves the FEC with only three members instead of six, meaning they lack a quorum. And it's the latest challenge for the agency that's been hamstrung for more than a decade. Dave Levinthal is a senior reporter at the Center for Public Integrity. He joins us in the studio to explain.
Welcome to the program.
DAVE LEVINTHAL: Hey. Thanks for having me.
CORNISH: All right. First, remind everybody what the Federal Election Commission does.
LEVINTHAL: The Federal Election Commission was created in the aftermath of Watergate to be a cop on the beat, making sure that political committees and political candidates were abiding by federal campaign finance law. That always hasn't worked out in practice. There's a lot of gridlock. There's a lot of deadlocks, and the commissioners don't always agree on even what the law says. And of course, now we're facing the teeth of an election season. We have foreign influence issues, of course, that have dominated the headlines. And the FEC theoretically should be on the vanguard of that and is very much going to be on the sidelines going forward, at least for the next many weeks, potentially months.
CORNISH: And yet, one of the commissioners - as we said, Matthew Petersen - has resigned. Has he said why? And what does that mean for the work that this group can do?
LEVINTHAL: Commissioner Petersen, who's a Republican - he's been there for more than 11 years, and he hasn't given a specific reason as to why he is leaving. But he, along with the remaining commissioners - they've been there many, many years beyond the expiration of their individual terms. Now, the president of the United States, in conjunction with the U.S. Senate, are supposed to nominate and appoint new commissioners. And they largely have not done that for many years. This goes back to George W. Bush, Barack Obama and now Donald Trump. The ball is in his court. Basically, if you don't have four commissioners at the FEC, you can't do high-level business. And that means a lot of things. You can't conduct meetings. You can't enforce campaign finance laws. You can't punish anyone for breaking the law. And you can't create any new rules or regulations in order to make sure that all the political candidates and all the political action committees out there are abiding by the law as it's written.
CORNISH: What are the implications of this heading into an election season?
LEVINTHAL: The implications could be sweeping, and that largely depends on how long this sort of defacto semi-shutdown actually goes on. If we're talking months, then you basically have hundreds, thousands of different political committees and political actors who don't really have anyone monitoring their activity in the way that the FEC would be doing if the FEC was fully functional.
Mississippi election fuckery: reports coming in from across the state during the GOP primary runoff for governor claim touchscreen voting machines are not letting people vote for the underdog in the race.
trump seems to think that even if he can get the funding to make his wall then it'd be done quickly, even if everything goes smoothly it would take more years to build than even a second term would allow and there's no guarantee that his successor will want to continue buiding it.
Also if people try to illegally take the land, doesn't that mean other people are legally allowed to stop them.
Edited by Kaiseror on Aug 28th 2019 at 9:10:28 AM
Trump wants to end Birthright Citizenship by Executive Order. Seems like it doesn't work that way^^
Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% Scandinavian

Just had kind of a scary black-out for the last hour and a half. Why scary, you ask, isn't it the middle of the day? Well, I respond, that's precisely why it was scary. I live in Arizona, it's 110 degrees Fahrenheit outside (43.33 degrees Celsius). An hour and a half isn't too bad, our houses are pretty well insulated against the heat, but if it had lasted too much longer, it could have been really dangerous.
To bring this back around to politics, remember when the Republicans stated that air conditioning is a luxury that poor people can live without? Yeah, we literally can't.