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
Even if Trump does become vastly more popular than the other candidates in the base, is the Republican caucus required to make him their candidate over the other choices? I know that primary voting is a thing, but I don't think anyone ever told me if that was legally binding or just considered a good faith thing to do.
Technically, no. A good chunk of the delegates at the National Convention aren't theoretically bound by the primary votes, and even some of those that are supposed to vote the way their state's primary told them to can ignore that as well.
In practice, by the time the vote at the National Convention rolls around just about all of the possible candidates have withdrawn from the race anyway.
"Yup. That tasted purple."A Super PAC for Scott Walker just announced $7mil of ads
to support his presidential bid.
Of course, this doesn't bother Trump, who was proclaiming that Mexico
(and Ford) will pay for a giant wall to separate us.
The third time O'Reilly asked, Trump said, "I'm gonna say, 'Mexico, this is not going to continue, you're going to pay for that wall,' and they will pay for the wall. And Bill, it's peanuts, what we're talking about." Trump has been critical of Ford Motor Company for a proposed $2.5 billion Mexican plant and has said under a Trump presidency he would impose a tax on Ford parts imported from there to also subsidize the wall.
Surprisingly, our favorite Repubican hasn't commented on Huntington Park, CA, which appointed two illegal immigrants to city advisory posts
, considered unpaid volunteer positions.
"I am proud to appoint both Julian and Francisco to the Parks and Recreation Commission and Health and Education Commission, respectively," Pineda said on his website. "Huntington Park is a city of opportunity and a city of hope for all individuals regardless of socioeconomic status, race, creed, or in this case, citizenship. Both these gentlemen have accomplished a great deal for the city." Pineda emphasized that the two undocumented commission members would not get paid, as that would be a violation of federal law. They also won't have any power in determining city policy and will serve only advisory roles. He said according to a city ordinance, "Zatarain and Medina are eligible to serve on the city commissions as long as it is solely volunteer work and both individuals do not receive financial benefits from the city."
But the decision infuriated some residents who spoke out at a city council meeting this week. One woman told CNN affiliate KCBS/KCAL that the decision sets a terrible example. "We're sending the wrong message: You can be illegal and you can come and work for the city," she said.
![]()
![]()
![]()
By that logic, the court trying to stop the pro-life group from releasing undercover videos of Planned Parenthood is also a violation of the first amendment.
Moral of the story, don't give O'Reilly the run around
But really, Mexico and Ford Motors paying for the wall?
Yeah right.
Why not put the unemployed to work on the fence instead like FDR did with his public work programs?
So if someone is against Planned Parenthood they're against womens rights? Even if they disagree with it cause it was founded by a racsist eugenicist who spoke at a KKK rally and was admired by Hitler of all People?
Wow.
Also what's the difference between releasing undercover videos of an Agriculture company and doing the same to Planned Parenthood?
Its the same thing except ones a corporation, therefore its completely justified.
edited 5th Aug '15 7:20:03 AM by Skycobra51
Look upon my privilege ye mighty and despair.
If the videos were recorded illegally, then it's not a First Amendment issue. As I understand it, there is some question as to whether the recordings were made without consent in a setting where the parties in question could reasonably expect privacy.
That said, this is not in any way about truth or freedom. It's purely about hatred for women's reproductive rights.
edited 5th Aug '15 6:56:31 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"If I recall, the law varies state to state on who's consent is required to record conversations and such. It's legal to record a conversation where the other party doesn't know they're being recorded in a majority of the states as long as the one doing the recording is being addressed directly by the other party (without this law, companies that record data for marketing and such would be in deep shit). A quick search shows that the only states that require consent from both parties are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington.
I'd suppose that they could still probably go at them for the slanderous editing, or perhaps get the video ruled to be illegal if they get the establishment where it was recorded in to agree that they didn't authorize the recording on their premises.
For the record, pretty much any time I'm on the phone with a call center of any sort (whether it's a sales call, or a help desk/service center type call, or whatever) I get a "this call may be recorded" disclaimer, so that I'm technically informed about it. (Of course, the only alternative to consenting to being recorded is to hang up, which is Hobson's Choice
in a nutshell, so...) I just assumed that was a standard thing nationwide. But maybe not?
edited 5th Aug '15 7:20:37 AM by NativeJovian
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Well there's the tiny fact that the Planned Parenthood video is fake and in no way represents what actually happened.
If people are releasing fake videos that have been heavily edited to completely misconstrue what Agriculture Companies are doing then yes that's a problem (or they work for the Agriculture Companies marketing department).
But to answer your other question,
Oh and can you please respond in new posts instead of with edits that add
arrows, people miss edits and it makes it very hard to have a conversation with you.
edited 5th Aug '15 7:21:58 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranIf they aren't related to her gender why would you be labelled "anti-women" for them? I mean unless they are related to her gender or her fighting for women's rights, in which case yeah you probably woudl be called anti-women for saying anti-women things. Also if you have no interest in expressing your actual opinion why make a post about her in the first place?
edited 5th Aug '15 7:29:15 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranWow.
So yeah. "Wow".
edited 5th Aug '15 7:42:45 AM by DrunkenNordmann
We learn from history that we do not learn from history

If he actually does "well" (in the eyes of those who vote in the primaries) in the debates, the GOP establishment is going to crap their collective pants in terror.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.