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
@Silas - I don't think thats quite it. She is journalistic often enough that I don't assume malice with her like I do with the others. She isn't the first to work at Fox that I feel is more journalistic than her peers either. A lot of the field correspondants (where there is more turnover to other news organizations) seem on the level.
Megyn Kelly strikes me as an individual whose personal integrity clashes with her job, because despite her role as Lead Fearmonger Who Is Also Sexy, she sometimes goes off script to ream out something that is truly stupid. I suspect she's encouraged to do this in the name of maintaining the illusion of "Fair and Balanced".
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Trump is actually a lot like Bill O' Reilly, in that he enjoys shouting over those asking him questions, so it's not easy to even just ask him something.
Also, does anyone else agree that there needs to be a law as to just what kind of person can be President? Because the fact that David Duke (a former Klansmen) ran in 1992 and now Trump (a racist billionaire) is running shows how much of a pathetic sideshow the Presidency has become.
"Somehow the hated have to walk a tightrope, while those who hate do not."Indeed. Can't lock out the crazies — the democratic process is supposed to do that.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I think you underestimate Trump's crazy. He's in a fight with Fox News as in and Fox are coming out as the sane ones, I think it's entirely possible for Trump to do something so crazy that enough Republicans are willing to work with the Democrats to impeach him.
Also keep in mind that a Trump win would be just that, a Trump win, not a Republican win, the high command of the Republican party wouldn't be able to boss Trump around, and they'd hate that.
Now all of this is academic anyway, a Trump win would be declared invalid rapidly anyway, as the massive corruption and vote rigging required for such a win to happen would come to light quickly.
edited 30th Aug '15 8:45:19 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.” ~ CyranThe big thing is, Trump is actually pretty moderate on economic policy, if not slightly liberal. And the Republican party only uses the things they agree with Trump on as a smokeshield.
So to the power brokers, a Trump win really isn't that different from a Democrat win, at least in terms of policy. Now, it obviously has impact on how people view the party and the effectiveness of said smokescreen. But if Trump wins, I don't think that actually advances the Republican agenda much.
Sure it is, Trump might actually try and take away their cheep undocumented labour, that's much worse then a Democrat win for them.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranHa, well, there you go.
Honestly, as offensive as Trump is, I think that he'd be well served by running as an independent. He clearly represents different interests than the Republican party. Now, is he more likely to be president running as an independent? Probably not.
edited 30th Aug '15 12:14:31 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
The last president who wasn't a Republican or a Democrat was Millard Fillmore 150 years ago. I don't know if any candidate who isn't either could even win the presidency today—both parties get so funded that it's like they're the only choices.
...obviously we need someone to run under the Whig ticket.
You gotta believe me when I scare you away, all that I wish for is that you would stayIt's possible only if an independent candidate won a clean majority in the electoral college, which would be hard for anyone but a candidate who had very wide crossover appeal.
Even if an independent finished in first place but without a full majority, the election would get turned over to the House (or the Senate?) and one of the big two would win.
But because most of the states are winner-take-all, the independent would have to steal evenly from both sides of the aisle (hence crossover appeal), otherwise it would lead to a Woodrow Wilson or Bill Clinton style situation, where the party that the independent stole from (Republicans in both cases), would be the party that suffered, and the opposition walks away with the full victory.
For instance, there would be few states which would go Red if Trump ran 3rd party and managed to consistently poll just 10% per state, if that 10% were all Republican voters. Only super-deep states like Utah would still go GOP, otherwise 10% would be enough to put most everything else in play.
Mt Mkinley to once again be called Denali
President Obama announced on Sunday that Mount Mc Kinley was being renamed Denali, restoring an Alaska Native name with deep cultural significance to the tallest mountain in North America.
The move came on the eve of Mr. Obama’s trip to Alaska, where he will spend three days promoting aggressive action to combat climate change, and is part of a series of steps meant to address the concerns of Alaska Native tribes.
The central Alaska mountain has been called Mount Mc Kinley for more than a century. In announcing that Sally Jewell, the secretary of the interior, had used her power to rename it, Mr. Obama was paying tribute to the state’s Native population, which has referred to the site for generations as Denali, meaning “the high one” or “the great one.” The peak, at more than 20,000 feet, plays a central role in the creation story of the Koyukon Athabascans, a group that has lived in Alaska for thousands of years.
Mr. Obama was also putting to rest a yearslong fight over the name of the mountain that has pitted Alaska against Ohio, the birthplace of President William Mc Kinley, for whom it was christened in 1896, while he campaigned for president.
Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, introduced legislation in January to rename the peak, but Ohio lawmakers sought to block the move. In June, an Interior Department official said in testimony before Congress that the administration had “no objection” to Ms. Murkowski’s proposed name change.
The mountain came to be known as Mount Mc Kinley after a gold prospector who had just emerged from exploring the Alaska Range heard that Mr. Mc Kinley had won the Republican presidential nomination, and declared that the tallest peak should be named in his honor as a show of support.
Mr. Mc Kinley was assassinated in 1901, six months into his second term, and never visited Alaska. Mr. Obama’s trip there starting Monday will be his first major visit to the state, and he will become the first sitting American president to visit the Alaskan Arctic.
The White House also announced on Sunday that Mr. Obama was expanding government support for programs to allow Alaska Natives to be more involved in developing their own natural resources. The programs include an initiative to include them in the management of Chinook salmon fisheries, a youth exchange council focusing on promoting “an Arctic way of life” and a program allowing them to serve as advisers to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.

I think that kind of works against the Democrats though. Trump is doing a fantastic job at showing what kind of shit the Republicans stand for. The others are generally smart enough to filter what they say but he just comes right out and says it. This means that unless he wins the candidacy people can just ignore what he says because they think Trump is an idiot. He won't tarnish the Republican brand at all.