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
The hearings about the Iran Nuclear Deal prove that Republicans are not fit to lead the nation
When the hearings began more than a week ago, I was planning to write about the testimony of Secretary of State John Kerry and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. But the more I watched, the more I saw that the danger in the room wasn’t coming from the deal or its administration proponents. It was coming from the interrogators. In challenging Kerry and Moniz, Republican senators and representatives offered no serious alternative. They misrepresented testimony, dismissed contrary evidence, and substituted vitriol for analysis. They seemed baffled by the idea of having to work and negotiate with other countries. I came away from the hearings dismayed by what the GOP has become in the Obama era. It seems utterly unprepared to govern.
If you didn’t have time to watch the 11 hours of hearings conducted on July 23, July 28, and July 29, consider yourself lucky. Here are the lowlights of what you missed.
1. North Korea. In all three hearings, Kerry explained how the inspection and verification measures in the Iran deal are designed to rectify flaws that led to the failure of the North Korean nuclear agreement. He spent much of his opening statement outlining these differences. This made no impression. When the Senate held its next hearing a week later, Sen. John Mc Cain of Arizona, the presiding Republican, dismissed the Iran agreement with a quip: “How did that North Korean deal work out for you?”
2. Israel. As evidence that the Iran deal is bad, Republicans point to criticism from Israel. But they seem more interested in the rhetoric of Israeli politicians than in the judgments of Israeli security experts. At the July 23 hearing, Kerry read from an article that quoted supportive statements about the deal from the former leaders of two Israeli intelligence agencies. Republicans batted the quotes away. Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming scoffed, “That wasn’t even in the newspaper. That was a blog post.” Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina dismissed the statements as irrelevant because they didn’t come from elected officials. Why listen to experts when you can rely instead on quotes from politicians?
...
7. Bad guys. Republicans think that because Iran is dangerous, we shouldn’t negotiate with it. Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, one of the most outspoken critics of any deal, has consistently hammered this point. At the House hearing, Rep. Randy Weber of Texas repeatedly used the phrase “bad actor” to dismiss Iran and the idea of negotiating with it. Rep. Dave Trott of Michigan invoked a motto from his business career: “You can’t do a good deal with a bad guy.”
Have any of these men heard of Ronald Reagan? The Soviet Union? Red China? Do they understand that bad guys are exactly the sorts of people you end up negotiating with, particularly over nuclear weapons?
8. Indifference. Republicans think it’s weak and softheaded to care what Iran thinks. At the Tuesday hearing, Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania told Kerry we should demand a better deal, “and if the ayatollah doesn’t like it and doesn’t want to negotiate it, oh, ‘boo-hoo.’ We’re here for America.” Weber, speaking for others in his party, ridiculed Kerry’s concerns about Iranian distrust of the U.S.: “Me and my colleagues were up here thinking, ‘Who cares?’ ” When Kerry replied that the Iranians wouldn’t have negotiated on Weber’s terms, the congressman scoffed, “Oh, my heart pains for them.” These lawmakers don’t seem to understand that much of a negotiator’s job consists of understanding, caring about, and accommodating the other side’s concerns.
9. Winning. Graham is running for president as a foreign-policy expert. But three hours of testimony on Wednesday about the difficulties of using military force to stop Iran’s nuclear program taught him nothing. Wrapping up the hearing, Graham demanded that Defense Secretary Ashton Carter answer a simple question: “Who wins the war between us and Iran? Who wins? Do you have any doubt who wins?” When he didn’t get the prompt answer he wanted, Graham thunderously answered the question himself: “We win!” He sounded like a football coach delivering a pep talk. The differences between football and war—what “winning” means, and what it costs—didn’t enter into his equation.
Hillary Clinton apparently gets less donations from Wall St. than you'd think
(Image with a list of her top 25 sources of donations in article)
It's true that Clinton, a former New York senator, has strong ties to the titans of finance: Big banks and investors are generous donors to the Clinton Foundation; they've given to this campaign and Clinton's past bids; and some of Clinton's closest allies in politics have been through the revolving door between Washington and Wall Street. Similarly, many Clinton backers, including some former aides to her and her husband, lobby for a living.
But a close look at Clinton's first campaign finance report of the 2016 presidential campaign shows that she raised $46 million with limited backing from the nation's top financial institutions and lobbying firms.
Instead, as her campaign has long maintained, Clinton's war chest is being stocked by a wide base of supporters. The richest sources of cash for her include federal workers, lawyers, media company employees, Hollywood agents, and California state workers — and, yes, a handful of Wall Street investment houses and prominent Washington lobbying firms.
At a time when Clinton is trying to counter the narrative that she's beholden to Wall Street and corporate America — represented in Washington by K Street lobbyists — the numbers show that she doesn't yet depend on their contributions. That, coupled with the pressure of rising populism in the electorate, may explain why Clinton feels she has plenty of political latitude to propose tightening financial industry regulations, raising capital gains taxes, and punishing corporate executives whose companies break the rules.
As Vox's Matthew Yglesias has written, Clinton was known for her relative antipathy toward Wall Street during her husband's administration — telling Bill Clinton that he wasn't elected to help Wall Street, pushing him to rail against CEO pay, and successfully lobbying him to veto a bankruptcy bill favored by big banks. When she represented New York in the Senate, Clinton became more of an advocate for the Big Apple's marquee industry, reversing course on the bankruptcy bill and opposing any increase in taxes on capital gains. But now, in concert with the rise of left-wing economics in the Democratic Party, Clinton is returning to her more liberal roots.
edited 3rd Aug '15 5:40:41 AM by TheWanderer
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
They could as well reduce the USA to the loud boy in the back of the class - making a lot of noise, but the other guys will just ignore him at some point. I think if a Republican government would really try to torpedo a deal with Iran, the other countries would just go ahead without them - because the rest of the wold (well, except Israel's government) is interested in a solution, not in some arbitrary concept of "winning".
But hey, knock yourselves out, Republicans. Just wait outside, be quiet. We're trying to find a solution over here.
![]()
It's hard to understand the effects of constant warmongering if you've never been to war. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/by-the-numbers-veterans-in-congress/
edited 2nd Aug '15 9:48:13 PM by Artificius
"I have no fear, for fear is the little death that kills me over and over. Without fear, I die but once."That's good to hear about Clinton. I have been informed that she's too pro-Wall Street which is probably the biggest negative about her.
Anyway, if you're interested in a candidate who can continue or finish what Obama has started, she'd be the one I rec as I've heard that Obama's behind her. If she wins, her administration can more or less continue off what Obama's admin has already set into play.
Plants are aliens, and fungi are nanomachines.Check out a A Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin. It details the inner workings of Abraham Lincoln's cabinet throughout the Civil War. All the senior positions were filled with his rivals for the Republican nomination. Some ended up as close friends and together they would work wonders, others never stopped trying to unseat him, but for the sake of national unity and the fact that they were really good at their jobs, he kept them around.
Fixed, thanks for the tip. Slate isn't one my usual news sources so I think this is the first time, or at least the first time in a while, that I've posted an article from them.
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
Now now, don't call it invading; we never invade! We just lend a helping hand, is all.
edited 3rd Aug '15 7:43:58 AM by kkhohoho
Unless you're a cishet, white, rich guy? Yes.
This is why I'm kind of nervous when it comes to the people that love Sanders but despise Clinton. I don't care how much she angers them. Unless they're prepared for 4-8 years of dystopia and fascism they'd better support her if Sanders doesn't win. We don't need another repeat of 2000's election.
edited 3rd Aug '15 9:32:18 AM by Kostya
Still, we cannot afford to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, not when so much is at stake here. If you are willing to let a Republican be elected to spite Hillary Clinton, you are part of the problem.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"All I'm saying is: vote for Sanders in the primary, but if Clinton wins, you'd damn well better still show up at the polls.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"That's the bigger threat, not that disaffected leftists will vote elsewhere, but that they won't vote at all. Although this is an issue on both ends of the spectrum (again, the "missing white voters" question). For the left, missing voters are mostly poor blacks and hispanics who can't be asked (or aren't allowed) to take time off from work to go vote, and a small slice of idealists who protest by staying home if they don't get their way. For the right, the missing voters are a large slice of low-information citizens who are socially conservative but think "it's all crooked anyway."

edited 2nd Aug '15 7:24:22 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.