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
So is anyone aware of this whole #Boycott ABC thing?
Evidently, during the debate, they showed a Republican political ad that featured a picture of AOC being burned, along with messages about the "dangers of socialism" and whatnot.
Did anyone else see this? It's pretty bad
The hardest thing in this world is to live in it.Apparently, it was run on an affiliate of ABC that's owned by Sinclair, so I don't think the matter was just not reviewing the ad content.
My musician pageI'm unclear if ABC is even legally allowed to reject a political ad like that. There are rules around political advertising specifically intended to prevent channels from supporting one side over another.
Also, if the ad aired nationally, then it's not the fault of the specific affiliate hosting the debate. They only control their own airtime in their own market. A nationally aired ad has to come from the national ABC people.
Edited by NativeJovian on Sep 13th 2019 at 1:14:18 PM
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.What does AOC stand for? EDIT: Oh wait, I remember now, that's a person's initials.
Edited by Protagonist506 on Sep 13th 2019 at 10:57:26 AM
Leviticus 19:34It's absolutely irrational and wrong.
Fact: The filibuster will stop the next Democratic President from acheiving anything domestically for at least four years, if not longer.
Fact: Climate change is approaching and similar systemic issues need to be addressed lest they result in unimaginable human cost.
I understand why Senators would be leery of removing the filibuster, but that doesn't make it any less cowardly and wrong. We need to take extensive action to protect society and if they stop that then they're doing the Republicans job for them. This isn't about incrementalism vs revolution, it's about any kind of progress vs gridlock consuming years we don't have.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangThe thing with the filibuster is that, frankly, what it's designed to do is not something that I consider especially desirable. Namely, it's designed to slow down the lawmaking process, something that ideally should be fast.
Leviticus 19:34Ivanka tells donors she got her moral compass from her dad – Trump’s family and allies are getting personal with donors, dishing out morsels about life in the White House
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/13/ivanka-trump-donors-1488704
Immediate thought from just the headline: This Explains So Much.
Editing to add:
Appeals Court Revives Seth Rich Lawsuit Against Fox News – The network exploited the Democratic National Committee staffer's murder and spread false conspiracy theories.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/fox-news-seth-rich-lawsuit-murder-dnc_n_5d7ba5e4e4b077dcbd5ce8cc
Rich’s parents, Joel and Mary Rich, sued the network after it published unverified claims in 2017 that linked Rich to Democratic National Committee emails leaked by Wiki Leaks during the 2016 presidential election.
The lawsuit seeks damages for the “emotional distress” caused by the right-wing fixation on their son’s death.
A lower-court judge threw out the lawsuit last year, saying that the suit’s claims were not “sufficiently outrageous” and “fail to adequately allege essential elements of the causes of action asserted.”
But on Friday, a panel of federal appeals court judges in New York said the judge erred in dismissing the suit.
“The Riches’ complaint plausibly alleges enough facts to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress — for extreme and outrageous conduct by [Fox News],” the judges wrote in their ruling. “We have no trouble concluding that — taking their allegations as true — the Riches plausibly alleged what amounted to a campaign of emotional torture.”
.....
Fox News responded to the lawsuit’s revival in a statement Friday:
The court’s ruling today permits Mr. and Mrs. Rich to proceed with discovery to determine whether there is a factual basis for their claims against FOX News. And while we extend the Rich family our deepest condolences for their loss, we believe that discovery will demonstrate that FOX News did not engage in conduct that will support the Riches’ claims. We will be evaluating our next legal steps.
Edited by sgamer82 on Sep 13th 2019 at 12:20:13 PM
No one's saying that laws should be passed in a few days or something, rather the filibuster makes lawmaking absurdly slow and results in an inefficient and ossified institution.
Which is bad enough at the best of times but is absolutely disastrous when we're talking about 1) existential threats to our civilization and 2) one side of the political spectrum going absolutely insane and rejecting all compromise.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangAnd ideally, the lawmaking process should actually be able to, you know, make laws. Especially ones that might be contested more than "Kicking puppies is now illegal".
My musician pageThe filibuster carries the weight, thanks in no small part to Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, of the cultural idea that an unjust law may be protested to exhaustion by a single, brave lawmaker and stopped with that noble sacrifice. It has become part of the American ethos of the value of the individual.
It occupies the same part of the emotional spectrum as John Wayne facing down the bandits at High Noon, of John McClane killing the terrorists while the police and FBI stand helpless, of Davy Crockett defending the Alamo. We all imagine ourselves as the hero, and the hero's job is to square off, all alone, against impossible odds and implacable forces, regardless of whether they win or lose.
One can argue about the value of this ethos — whether it has done more net harm or good in the long term — but it is indisputably there, and that's what you're going to run into if you try to kill the filibuster.
Edited by Fighteer on Sep 13th 2019 at 2:46:32 PM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
Except fast is relative, a legislature that is capable of passing laws without a supermajority is fast in comparison to ours. But its speed shouldn't come at the expense of the quality of the legislation in question.
Frankly, I think we're arguing about semantics at this point.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang![]()
![]()
There's just so much about the US legal system that would have been so much easier to stop before it started, thanks at least in part to some sort of stockholm syndrome that keeps the public from supporting a change for the better, isn't there? The filibuster, gun ownership, first past the post...
Isn't that what Stockholm Syndrome is? I was not of the impression that considering yourself a captive is a requirement of Stockholm Syndrome.
Edited by ShinyCottonCandy on Sep 13th 2019 at 2:57:54 PM
My musician page

To position yourself as the voice of reason, you kinda need to prove the others aren't. By attacking them.
It's a tactic anyway.
Edited by GoldenKaos on Sep 13th 2019 at 4:40:08 PM
"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."