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
@President Stalkeyes: Jokes aside, here are some measures I'd take.
- Eliminate the filibuster. Nuclear launch detected, I know - but we need to ram stuff through.
- If necessary, pack the Supreme Court for the same reason.
- Impose a new Voting Rights Act on all states, including nonpartisan districting commissions and mandating that all citizens (including felons), in all states, be allowed to vote unconditionally.
- Repeal posse comitatus; that is, allow the use of federal troops to enforce federal law on states that resist them. (You know, when you get situations like the governor of Mississippi threatening to arrest feds coming down to enforce laws.)
- Create an easy path to citizenship for all current immigrants, preferably one that will vest them with voting rights before 2004.
- Admit Puerto Rico and Washington, DC as states.
Number 4 sounds... risky.
I mean, the rest are ambitious enough and likely to court controversy on their own. Including something that, frankly, looks really authoritarian thus majorly courting unnecessary controversy.
Any progress will involve dragging the reactionaries kicking and screaming with us, but I don't think calling in the military would be a good idea. That's like dumping gasoline on a decent sized fire.
Still, I like your boldness
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Sep 1st 2019 at 7:53:37 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangBesides, if we actually got a trifecta, we'd be able to explore a lot of options anyway.
6 is kind of iffy anyway, since it's still not clear if Puerto Ricans even want to become a new state.
Personally, I'd try bringing back the FCC fairness doctrine.
Edited by M84 on Sep 1st 2019 at 10:55:59 PM
Disgusted, but not surprisedFWIW, the Posse Comitatus Act does have some exceptions, e.g. the Enforcement Acts
that Eisenhower used to enforce desegregation of public schools in Little Rock, Arkansas against the segregationist governor's open defiance by sending federal troops.
![]()
They've said they want it. I mean, if they don't want it, we don't force them, but this time I'd make it a full-fledged referendum - "Puerto Rico, you want in? If so, you're in!" I agree about the Fairness Doctrine, though.
![]()
![]()
At some point, there's going to be resistance that has to be crushed by a display of force. It happened last time we told the South "no, really, we're serious about civil rights," as Marq noted.
Edited by Ramidel on Sep 1st 2019 at 8:27:02 AM
I mean, the rest are ambitious enough and likely to court controversy on their own. Including something that, frankly, looks really authoritarian thus majorly courting unnecessary controversy.
Any progress will involve dragging the reactionaries kicking and screaming with us, but I don't think calling in the military would be a good idea. That's like dumping gasoline on a decent sized fire.
Still, I like your boldness ![]()
My thoughts on that too.
#4 is especially risky when packed in with the other stuff. I shudder to think what the next election would look like after four years of "Democrats ended the filibuster, crushing the minority party's ability to represent their constituents. THEN they packed the courts, diminishing the Supreme Court's ability to serve as a check and balance. And if you have a problem with it? They made it legal to send federal soldiers to your home and make you fall in line."
Heart's in the right place, but taken all together, that stuff is gonna look really bad to the moderates. I can already hear them warming up the "BOTHSIDES BOTHSIDES" chants.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Sep 2nd 2019 at 7:21:43 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.California has a probable mass casualty shipboard fire going on. It was on a small ship, and while 5 crew members (who were above deck) managed to escape, the passengers were asleep and below deck... and considering the amount of time it took firefighters to get into the hull, it is not looking good. Fatalities are confirmed, but over 30 are still missing.
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/california-boat-fire/index.html
Now while the fire was apparently very intense, I suspect that those crew members might be in serious shit for not even attempting rescue or evacuation.
Edited by Rationalinsanity on Sep 2nd 2019 at 3:26:54 PM
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Just saw that on the news, but it's more appropriate for this thread
as it has nothing to do with US politics.
This is going to sound contrived but has anyone noticed how when they start applying cuts to police forces and crime goes up politicians start running on a 'tough on crime' platforms? Sometimes it's the same ones who applied the cuts in the first place!
have a listen and have a link to my discord server"Tough on crime" is a dogwhistle.
Whenever a politician talks about being "tough on crime", they're trying to get you to think about scary black/Hispanic drug dealers robbing you at gunpoint. They're never talking about tax evasion. Or spree shootings. Or opioids.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.I'd vote for someone claiming they'd be tough on white-collar crime, but anyone who actually would make that claim might as well just paint a target on their head.
My musician pageDirectly referencing Tough on Crime laws would be a horrid idea, it'd be like supporting desegregation with a set of policies that referenced Jim Crow or something.
Tough on Crime laws are something to move away from, not reference.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangHeck, I'm iffy on the prospects of making white collar crime laws harsher as well. Not only would it likely not be used on the big wigs, the simple fact is that retributive justice is a failed model for anything other than getting some sense of satisfaction from revenge.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.

For starters, you want to commit as little resources as necessary to an operation. State PDs handle a lot of different tasks all at once, so they don’t want to overcommit to something that turns out to be nothing. Add to that the fact that it’s hard to project the size and disposition of a mob, given that people tend to spontaneously join them, and the fact that even with a bunch of officers there’s no guarantee things won’t go south, and you can kind of start to see the calculus here.
I’m guessing that State PD sent down its tactical units first, and it wasn’t until things started getting out of hand even for those guys that other resources started coming in.
Edited by archonspeaks on Sep 1st 2019 at 2:47:54 AM
They should have sent a poet.