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
How much support would an ex-felon have to have to even be a serious contender?
How much are they likely to ever get from the general public without having a good record of acting like model citizens of rehabilitation long before their campaign?
I mean, I could maybe see Dave Dahl
getting into some small-time local seat, and I wouldn't put it past Portlanders to vote him in on novelty and local celebrity regardless of any credentials he had. But you can't exactly pick a random ex-con fresh out of the dungeons and expect them to do well in an election.
And again, the politicians who are doing the most damage don't really have criminal records beyond a bit of 70's drug possession or traffic tickets. They're almost all lawyers or businessmen, and the damage is being done by business that is either skeezy and sociopathic but totally legal, or (occasionally) illegal but obfuscated and impossible to pin on anyone.
edited 17th Feb '13 12:53:51 AM by Pykrete
I'm not 100% positive, but believe that during the '70s and '80s, there were several elected Democrats with felony records—mostly ex-radicals (or at least toned-down radicals) who'd fallen afoul of the law during anti-Vietnam protests, campus uprisings, Black Panther/Weatherman-type activity, and the like. Ron Dellums and Tom Hayden come to mind, and there might have been others.
On the more defensible side, several civil-rights veterans acquired criminal records during anti-segregation protests and sit-ins. I don't have any use for John Lewis as a Representative, but certainly don't hold any arrest record he might have accumulated in the '60s against him, and am glad that it hasn't been allowed to affect his Congressional career (no matter how much I might deplore the latter).
Initial Draft of Immigration Reform leaked
Feels more like an unofficial press release than a "leak", though.
White House response to the "leak".
edited 17th Feb '13 10:08:06 AM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!![]()
Anti-Vietnam protests were less defensible? *raises eyebrow.
![]()
There is a school of thought among some military historians that what really sunk US involvement in Vietnam was not the deficiencies of the US Military in Vietnam but the way in which the left ran a highly successful anti-war campaign on US soil, which sapped the will of US politicians to continue the war and take the decisive action needed to end it. This, coupled with the shock of seeing the war much closer than anyone was used to on TV, and the media's need to present a sensational story, made the war politically rather than militarily unwinnable. For instance, the Tet Offensive was a military disaster for the NVA and the VC, but a political coup, because the media and the left presented it as crushing US/ARVN defeat.
This is not a universal view and it is often, though not exclusively, a right-wing one. This isn't the place to discuss it, nor do I wholly subscribe to it - I'm just filling you in on where I assume Jhimmibob is coming from.
edited 17th Feb '13 1:09:57 PM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiYeah, I'm aware of that school of thought. It flies in the face of- ah screw it, that's a debate for another thread.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.Remind me how Walter Cronkite convinced draftees to frag their own commanding officers. The grunts knew the war was unwinnable. And don't tell me that hateful hippies drained the morale - it was the anti-war left who ran stuff like the veteran's coffee houses after the war was over and stepped in to listen to those guys while the DVA couldn't figure out how much psychological damage they'd taken.
How many Nam vets do you know?
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.GOP: Leaked White House immigration plan "counterproductive"
Tiger Woods Joins Vacationing Obama for Golf Round
Senator Schumer (D-NY): Dems hold 'high ground' in sequester debate
Senator McCain (R-AZ) expects broad support for universal background checks
Senator Rubio (R-FL): Reported Obama immigration plan ‘dead on arrival’
I not so sure the Vietnam War was unwinnable. Perhaps South Vietnam could have won if Congress hadn't cut funding to support South Vietnam's military in the wake of Watergate. Or maybe if Nixon hadn't sabotaged the 1968 Peace Talks
Still all people like Cronkite did was accurately report on the war. Even if that played a large role in changing America's views on the war; you can hardly blame him for doing his job.
edited 17th Feb '13 7:05:48 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Then again, Cronkite clearly showed bias even back then. The "Most Trusted Man In America" often got away with things that would never fly in today's marketplace (long before Watergate, he bugged Republican committee meetings under the guise of "being good for democracy"). He had power over the people, and he often used that, under the guise of being honest and completely truthful.
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!Senator Rand Paul (R-KY): Voters ready for Libertarian Republican in 2016
The only way Paul could have been less subtle of his motives is if he had said "Hint, Hint. Wink, Wink." at the end of his statement.
Press Corps expresses ‘frustration’ over lack of access to Obama
edited 17th Feb '13 4:29:43 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Everyone's saying that someone wants to be a presidential candidate in FOUR YEARS time. There are seriously people who think Ted "Even John Mc Cain thinks I'm insane eight weeks into the job" Cruz is a serious Republican candidate for President.
I don't disagree with the thought of a conservative Libertarian as a Republican candidate, but I don't think Rand Paul is that guy and I still think it's too soon to be getting prepared right now.
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!Todd Akin says GOP bigwigs ‘kill grassroots heart’ of Republican party
I legitimately believe their is a dartboard with Akin's face on it located at the Republican National Committee's headquarters.
Paul Ryan on run for president: 'I don't know'
edited 17th Feb '13 4:53:39 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

Representatives are up for election every two years; at the pace congress moves, that's really not too long to wait to make a change.