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
Does Mattis count? He was technically a Trump appointee.
As far as I remember, it wasn't a certainty that the Biden administration would hire Republicans, just that they were under consideration. And if I also remember correctly it was made before all the so-called "moderate" Republicans went forth and confirmed Barret to the Supreme Court.
If I recall correctly Obama appointed James Comey, a moderate-Republican, as head of FBI. If Biden appoints a Republican, it's gonna be someone moderate as well, like Anthony Fauci.
"Wow, no Mega Togekiss in Legends Z-A. Or any non-Froslass new Sinnoh Mega Evolutions. Round of applause, everybody." - DawnDepends on whether Republican only includes the self-declared kind or if it encompasses officials who are not explicitly partisan but were technically hired under a Republican administration. If it's the latter then I think they have a lot more leeway, because the former is going to piss a lot of people off without much tangible gain.
Unless they try to poach a couple of RINOs like Charlie Baker (and he's doing an alright-enough job that I'd rather he stay at his post).
Yeah, IMO a more prominent example would be Obama hiring Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense.
Edited by AlleyOop on Nov 11th 2020 at 6:14:56 AM
Question: do we know how Manchin feels about admitting D.C. and Puerto Rico as states?
Because thinking about it, it might be that our best case scenario now would be to win both Georgia seats (odds probably against, but probably duable) and use that to get those two as states. Then, even though Puerto Rico probably won't be as safe as some people assume, D.C. would definitely be two Democratic Senators.
From there, we might be better talking about things like getting rid of the filibuster, court-packing, etc.
Nah, it was Robert Gates who was Obama's token republican.
He was George W Bush's Defence Secretary after Rumsfeld. Hilariously he wrote a memo to his successor in 2008 that they need to challenge the military industrial complex that has bloated the Pentagon in the years following 9/11.
Guess he didn't expect for his successor to be himself.
Yeah, I personally associate anti-vaxxing with extreme lefts like the Green party.
I don't have the data on hand but I recall reading that anti-vax sentiment is fairly evenly distributed amongst the far right and left.
Ironically one of the few times in which the Horseshoe hypothesis isn't garbage.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Nov 11th 2020 at 3:22:44 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangHonestly that's fine? Having bonus D Senators is definitely a boon, but Puerto Rico's progression to statehood should be done anyway as a matter of principle rather than partisanship. It happens to work out, and not so coincidentally, that the most democratic step forward align with the interests of the Democrats over the Republicans.
Manchin is one of three Democrats who haven't sponsored the DC statehood bill, but I can't tell if it's a hedging their bets moment or actual opposition (after all, Senators have voted for bills they don't sponsor).
There's no bill on Puerto Rico statehood in the Senate at the moment, so I can't tell his stance on that, but with such a narrow House majority, it feels much iffier. IIRC, the 6 House Democrats who are Puerto Rican are somewhat divided on the matter of statehood. So that might complicate things.
Although, historically, Republicans have supported Puerto Rico becoming a state, so maybe there's room for crossover (of course, post-Trump, they've changed their tune, but Rubio was still on board, last I checked).
Edited by nova92 on Nov 11th 2020 at 3:31:04 AM
Boomers get longer because they're kind of the last generation defined after the fact, rather than pro-actively as the generation was coming into the world. Boomers and previous are defined more by certain events than by various stretches of time. Also, nobody even really bothered naming generations before the Lost Generation.
The Lost Generation is defined by WWI and the generational trauma the war inflicted. The Greatest Generation is defined basically as "the people who fought in WWII". The Baby Boomers are then defined basically as "the kids of returning WWII veterans". Meanwhile, the Silent Generation is basically everyone before Boomers who was too young to fight in WWII. Then after that we just kind of started assigning generation names to fixed periods of time, starting kind of with when the Boomers were really starting to have kids, and then just assigning them by roughly 15 year blocks.
I suppose if I had to pick an event that defines generations since, Gen X would mostly have the fall of the USSR as their first major world-changing event that they'd recall, while for Millennials, it's 9/11, and for Zoomers, it's probably the COVID-19 pandemic and the modern civil rights protests. There's also the accompanying atmospheres of Gen X still remembering the looming threat of nuclear annihilation and the early days of person computers, while Millennials don't but have known the Global War on Terror most of their lives, economic collapse right as they entered the workforce, and the chaotic early days of the internet, and Zoomers have always known the GWOT, mostly know the more curated and regulated modern internet, and never even expected to enter the workforce in a stable economy.
I should note we're not talking about a hypothetical situation anymore. There was a referendum on the status, and a majority voted to petition for statehood. In that event, I would say whatever personal feelings those six Puerto Rican house members have are a bit irrelevant to just going along with the fair democratic processes.
That referendum and this being less hypothetical is why I brought the subject up to begin with.
Edited by LSBK on Nov 11th 2020 at 5:39:51 AM
"Nah, it was Robert Gates who was Obama's token republican."
A number of Obama officials have really soured on Gates staying on as Secretary of Defense, as they feel the hand extended in the name of bipartisanship was only rewarded with a hawkish Republican cabinet member and his hawkish Republican staff who did everything they could to not wind down the wars overseas.
They felt that if Biden has to name a Republican cabinet member then put someone like Ray La Hood in there. A Republican who was Obama's Secretary of Transportation.
Edited by Parable on Nov 11th 2020 at 3:43:39 AM
Question: do we know how Manchin feels about admitting D.C. and Puerto Rico as states?
Because thinking about it, it might be that our best case scenario now would be to win both Georgia seats (odds probably against, but probably duable) and use that to get those two as states. Then, even though Puerto Rico probably won't be as safe as some people assume, D.C. would definitely be two Democratic Senators.
From there, we might be better talking about things like getting rid of the filibuster, court-packing, etc.
Wasn't it said several pages back that this wouldn't work, because admitting a new state is something that can be filibustered? I.e. if Manchin won't support getting rid of it, there will be no way to admit DC or Puerto Rico even if we did win both Georgia seats. Catch-22 and all that.
x2: Also I think what they were getting at was that because the Dems now have a narrower control of the House, the feelings of those Puerto Rican reps could very well affect whether the House could pass PR statehood. (And
)
Edited by Ingonyama on Nov 11th 2020 at 3:46:31 AM
@LBSK The reason I brought up the referendum (probably should have elaborated in my post) is that those Representatives are not a fan of the referendum and how it was carried out in the first place. So it is relevant if, in a very narrow House majority, those Reps. decide the referendum doesn't represent the will of the Puerto Rican people.
Edit: Have found my old post on the article about the Reps. on statehood.. Foldering so it doesn't take up half the page.
There's an interesting article from The Hill
about a new bill by Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY14) and Nydia Velazquez (D-NY7) (their opinion piece
; the bill
) on how to decide Puerto Rico's status that also had a lot of interesting info on the subject.
The article has a bit of history/context on Puerto Rico's history with regard to statehood and how its politics relate to those of the mainland.
Territorial status is a sharply divisive issue in Puerto Rican politics.
The PNP, a collection of moderate Democrats and the territory's Republicans, is by design and vocation a pro-statehood party. The current governor, Wanda Vazquez Garced (R), as well as Resident Commissioner Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon (R) and Senate President Thomas Rivera Schatz (R) are all members of the PNP.
The PNP's nominee to succeed Vazquez, former Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, is a Democrat.
The territory's other large party, the left-leaning Popular Democratic Party (PPD), is a progressive party that for the most part eschews the idea of statehood, but has pushed for a review of the island's sovereignty status at the United Nations.
A third party, the Puerto Rican Independence Party (PIP), has historically garnered less than 10 percent support in elections.
Vazquez and Ocasio-Cortez's bill aligns most closely with the PPD position, which historically has confused many mainland Democrats.
This explains why before Donald Trump, national Republicans at least nominally supported Puerto Rico statehood, and why, of the 5 Representatives of Puerto Rican descent in the Democratic Party, some are in favor of statehood (Darren Soto and Jose E. Serrano) and some are opposed (Nydia Velazquez), while some have, AFAIK, not expressed a public opinion (Antonio Delgado and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez).
There is also some stuff about the upcoming referendum in November as well as the history of these plebiscites.
Puerto Rico is due to have a yes-no referendum on statehood on the ballot in November's general election.
That referendum, promoted by the ruling New Progressive Party, known as PNP, has not been approved by the federal Department of Justice, which would make it non-binding, like previous exercises of the kind.
Spurred by growing PNP electoral success, control of the statehood party by Democrats under former Gov. Ricardo Rossello and President Trump's attitudes toward the island, statehood gained traction among stateside Democrats before Rossello's resignation in 2019.
A 2017 referendum, held separately from the territory's quadrennial elections, showed 97 percent support for statehood, despite low participation due to the timing, an opposition-led boycott of the vote, and the DOJ's refusal to sanction the exercise.
The 2017 referendum was disavowed by the DOJ under then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions after the territory's government adopted the DOJ's suggested wording for the status question, but refused to change the date of the election.
The referendum followed a campaign promise made by Rossello and Gonzalez-Colon, then viewed as the future leaders of the PNP. Rossello was forced to resign his post in 2019, Gonzalez-Colon is running for reelection as resident commissioner.
Reps. Ocasio-Cortez and Velazquez are critical of past referendums, citing their low participation and non-binding status, and they remain skeptical of the November plebiscite's ability to accurately reflect the view of Puerto Ricans, especially in light of the recent problems in the primary.
Part of the problem with past referendums was the debate over how many options to include on the ballot, and the definition of each. Ocasio-Cortez and Velazquez's bill proposes that a convention of elected delegates would review the various proposals (statehood, independence, etc.). They would then choose a single option and create a transition plan that would then go to a popular referendum. If it passed, Congress could then enact it. Their view is that it would allow for greater self-determination by the Puerto Rican people.
"The legislation that would prompt Puerto Rico's Legislature to create a Status Convention whose delegates would be elected by Puerto Rican voters," wrote the two lawmakers.
"This body would develop a long-term solution for Puerto Rico's status, be that statehood, independence, free association or any option other than the current territorial arrangement," they added.
Under their plan, the territory's legislature would call on a semi-permanent statehood convention to analyze the available sovereignty options, and then present the chosen self-determination option for a referendum.
That plan would void an ongoing conflict over how many options should be present on the ballot on election day, an issue that was at least partially responsible for the opposition boycott in 2017, and gave Sessions an opening to withhold DOJ sanctioning of that vote.
However, pro-statehood proponents, including Gonzalez-Colon and Reps. Soto and Serrano, were critical of the bill, saying that the people's vote (the referendums) should be respected and rejecting a convention as being the "decision of a few" and saying that such a momentous decision shouldn't be taking place "behind closed doors"
Edited by nova92 on Nov 11th 2020 at 3:50:11 AM
Yeah, I don't even understand how there is a debate on this. Same goes for the other territories. How on earth the US menages to still have colonies and that is not a major issue?
Like, even if neither "statehood" or "full independence" are not desirable for whatever reason. How being a colony acceptable at all?
Edited by Heatth on Nov 11th 2020 at 8:47:39 AM

That reminds me, as much as its going to make everyone groan Biden is probably going to pick at least one Republican for his cabinet. Any ideas on who it will be and what job they're going to get?