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
Haven't found an article that isn't hard paywalled, but we now know where half of Trump's 1.2 billion dollar warchest went.
Kushner setup a shell company and paid ~614 million to Trump family members, according to Business Insider.
I really hope state laws were broken here, but knee capping your own campaign to make a buck is so brand for Clan Trump.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Kushner was a law student and graduate of NYU who was able to buy the New York Observer at the age of 25 in 2006. Maybe that's why Donald is relying on him for everything business-related.
"Wow, no Mega Togekiss in Legends Z-A. Or any non-Froslass new Sinnoh Mega Evolutions. Round of applause, everybody." - DawnI suppose my question is "what does a good faith attempt at bipartisan lawmaking even look like in the current political setting?"
I mean, our discussion of it is being framed in terms of "this tactic of attempted bipartisanship will hopefully help us in the 2022 election" suggests that we suspect that any efforts by the Democrats are ultimately not in good faith; so we really shouldn't be surprised if the Republicans come to the same conclusions.
I don't think there is enough common ground to try anything remotely contentious like health care reform. Nor is there enough trust to work behind closed doors and thrash out a compromise that the Republicans won't immediately regress on.
The only thing I can think of is to actually implement Infrastructure week. Make it clear that whilst there would be an emphasis towards green and sustainable development, nothing would be off the table. Such that the only reason why a given state would not benefit is if the congresspersons from that state refuse to get involved.
Yes, it's pork barrel politics. But if you can't get agreement on the federal government funding projects that congresspersons could take personal credit for then there is no point trying anything else. This is the bare minimum that Congress should be able to pass in a bipartisan fashion. Maybe if it works we can build upon this foundation but let's not get ahead of ourselves.
From today's WTF Just Happened Today:
The Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit against the Trump administration’s plans to exclude undocumented immigrants from the final census count. The unsigned opinion said it would be “premature” to rule on the case, because it is “riddled with contingencies and speculation” and that the Trump administration doesn’t know how many undocumented immigrants there are or where they live. It’s not clear, however, if Trump will receive final numbers from the Census Bureau before he leaves office next month. The census is used to determine how many members of Congress each state gets in the House of Representatives.
I mean, our discussion of it is being framed in terms of "this tactic of attempted bipartisanship will hopefully help us in the 2022 election" suggests that we suspect that any efforts by the Democrats are ultimately not in good faith; so we really shouldn't be surprised if the Republicans come to the same conclusions.
This doesn't work on two levels.
Firstly, you're conflating this thread with the Democratic Party. Even if we just wanted to fuck the Republicans over that would not say anything about Biden's motivations.
Furthermore, that's not what we mean when we say it may help us later. Most of us if not all of us would accept compromises if they meant getting things done. But we rightfully know that Republicans aren't going to do it because they're awful, that's not bad faith it's just understanding reality.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangIt's not really about a lack of good faith on the democrats' part, but rather an acknowledgment of two things.
The first being that the GOP isn't really a party that wants to work in good faith with the democrats anymore. Even if some of them want to (and honestly I could buy that for a handful of them), they are ultimately hamstrung by their own base that demands more and more extremism. When you get to the level that your voters will literally not accept anything but their guy winning as legitimate and scandals and conspiracy theories have to be fabricated to justify a loss, then there's not a whole lot you can do short term.
The second is that unfortunately, most people are low information voters and they really only care much about the surface or appearance of something rather than what it actually is. The GOP and the right-wing media establishment have conditioned the GOP base to accept pretty much anything, so they have a fair amount of leeway to be hypocrites and do objectionable things as long as they "stick it" to the people the GOP base doesn't like. But the democrats don't really have the benefit of that because they have a much more diverse voterbase so they have to juggle a lot of balls at once, and they unfortunately get subjected to a double standard where they're expected to take the high ground continuously, thusly they have to care at least somewhat about how things appear on a surface level because that's the only thing many people will look at.
So generally, actions that make the democrats appear reasonable and bipartisan but without actually compromising anything substantial or giving the GOP any real ground are beneficial.
Edited by Draghinazzo on Dec 18th 2020 at 9:01:10 AM
Something that is missed in this conversation about bipartisanship is that Republicans have no incentive to participate in it and attempts to shame them for being partisan have never been effective, particularly not when they are they opposition.
I don't understand why people keep defending Biden's position as necessary, when history tells us that Republicans will only respond top complete capitulation, not compromise.
People are defending Biden’s position because they view his position as “we must do the political theatre of wanting bipartisanship so as to sway public opinion” rather than “we must compromise with the GOP and surrender to them like Obama often did”.
I don’t think anyone has defended the later position, just said that they think Biden is taking the former position.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranHere's the thing:
Biden isn't a progressive
Biden isn't a leftist
If you're either of those things, you have very real reasons to disagree or even dislike him. Now that Trump's history (and by Jove I don't want to see his dumb face for at least another 4 years) it doesn't mean that you can go to brunch if you want meaningful change in America.
I strongly disagree with that, Biden isn’t a conservative, he’s not particularly ideological at all, he’s not got some fixed ideal version of the world that’s different from that of progressives, because he doesn’t have a fixed ideal version of the world.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran^ I never claimed he's a conservative. Not having an ideology can be just as bad as being too into an ideology, especially if you're a politician. "Not being particularly ideological" as a politician means you're part of the status quo, which progressives and leftists are, by varying degrees, against.
So I'll say it once more with even more conviction: Biden is not a progressive, he's not a leftist, and people with beliefs in either camps have real reasons to disagree with him and dislike him.
Edited by Makir on Dec 18th 2020 at 2:05:00 PM
There's a difference being not having an ideology and being a centrist. Centrists have a specific agenda, whereas people who have no ideology do not. Centrism is not nihilism.
I would typically call Biden a progressive, though I typically think of progressivism as centrist ideology rather than a leftist one.
It is accurate to say that Biden is not the most leftist candidate and is a rather moderate pick. If you're a leftist or more left of him, this is a legitimate complaint. Personally, I'm not a leftist, so I'm actually pretty happy with Biden specifically because he's not very left-leaning.
Leviticus 19:34"I would typically call Biden a progressive, though I typically think of progressivism as centrist ideology rather than a leftist one."
Well that's just...wrong. Progressivism and leftism have always gone hand-in-hand. A lot of Civil Rights activists were socialists or socialist-leaning for a banal example. You can be progressive without being a full-on socialist (and vice versa), but to say that progressivism isn't left-leaning is not really accurate.
Also I'd argue not having an ideology and 'going with the political flow' as a politician is just being a Centrist with extra steps, the results are the same.
Edited by Makir on Dec 18th 2020 at 2:17:30 PM
No it means you’re mailable, it means you’re not fixed, you’ll go with the flow. If the flow of political discourse is regressive then you’ll support regressive policies, if it’s conservative you’ll support conservative policies, if it’s progressive then you’ll support progressive ideologies.
Biden currently supports progressive policies and ideas (because that’s the direction of the Democratic Party), so I see no reason for people who hold such beliefs to dislike him right now. Sure consider him a fair-weather friend, but I don’t accept this weird insistence that Leftists should dislike Biden when he’s currently allied with them.
Biden just ran on the most progressive Democratic platform ever (because that’s the direction of the party), how the hell is that “the same” as him being an ideological centrist?
Edited by Silasw on Dec 18th 2020 at 1:20:56 PM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

EDIT: Never mind.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Edited by clemont107 on Dec 18th 2020 at 4:07:15 AM
"Wow, no Mega Togekiss in Legends Z-A. Or any non-Froslass new Sinnoh Mega Evolutions. Round of applause, everybody." - Dawn