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
First Read: Why John Boehner Could Lose His Job
Yesterday's House Republican chaos over what to do next on the Iran deal is a reminder how combustible the next month could be in Washington, especially as Congress must pass legislation to keep the government open after Sept. 30. And it's a reminder just how precarious Speaker John Boehner's position is right now with his conservative base. Indeed, you have the making for a perfect storm — a conservative electorate angry that President Obama is poised for another win, despite Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress; a 2016 race where the incentive is for the candidates to move to the right; and the Age of Trump where his central argument is: "Why is everyone so weak?" If you add those things up and throw in a fight over Planned Parenthood and abortion, then you get trouble. Big trouble. Remember, both Boehner and Mitch Mc Connell received loud boos at yesterday's "Stop the Iran Deal" rally.
Boehner's problem isn't ideology; it's tactics
Here is the irony about Boehner's predicament: He's with GOP conservatives on the ideology. He's against Planned Parenthood. He's against the Iran deal. He criticizes Obama at every opportunity (see his comments yesterday on the Syrian migrants). But Boehner's problem isn't ideology; it's tactics. House conservatives view Obama as someone who's willing to do whatever it takes to win — executive action, Dem Senate eliminating the filibuster for executive appointments — and they don't know why their leaders aren't doing everything they can do to beat him. And now you have the situation where House GOP leaders can no longer blame Harry Reid and Senate Democrats for their inability to stop Obama since Republicans have the majority in that chamber.
The House GOP's Plan B (or Plan D) on the Iran deal
Here is the dispatch by NBC's Luke Russert on the House GOP chaos over the Iran deal: Instead of simply voting on a resolution of disapproval which was the original plan, yesterday the House Republican leadership came under fire from conservatives, who said that the clock for when Congress received the Iran deal from the administration did not start. They said this would make the deal invalid and that they should fight… Conservatives believe that the administration has not been forthcoming enough regarding "side deals" made between Iran and the IAEA regarding inspections. They believe that because the Administration has NOT disclosed these deals, the formal submission process of the deal never began and thus the clock which points to Sept. 17 when the deal takes place — never did not start… The House will now hold a series of three votes instead of a simple resolution of disapproval as intended:
Vote 1—-A non-binding expression of the House saying that the administration wasn't forthcoming regarding the side deals. Probably Thursday.
Vote 2—-A vote on an actual bill that says the U.S. should NOT give Iran sanctions relief.
Vote 3—-A bill that calls members to vote on whether they APPROVE of the Iran deal (not DISAPPROVE as originally thought).
(Jezebel) Planned Parenthood not invited to Congressional hearing to testify.
The best case scenario that we could see of this debacle is the following.
Trump wins the Republican candidacy. Sanders/Biden wins the Left one. Trump gets absolutely demolished in the general elections. He spent everything on it. Without winning it he is out of funds, he is out of support, having built a campaign of trying to shit on others, and when he finds his only supporters are not interested in giving him money but rather on attacking people, he falls into the backburner of "bad, but hilarious memories" and reappears years after in an E! "where are they now" special
The left consolidates its governance, passes some good shit, but hopefully the moderate rights do not fully dissapear. The US would regret an unchecked, unchallenged and unrestricted left as much as an unchecked, unchallenged and unrestricted right.
No nukes, no crazies, all it took was one insane weirdo to bring down the economical support of a hatred spewing machine. Everyone gets on with their lives. etc etc.
That is, i think, the best case scenario for these elections. Also a highly unlikely one. And a not very funny one either.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesYou know what, I take back what I said way back when the D started his unlikely campaign. I hope he loses the primary to an establishment candidate. This will so demoralize the base that they might just stay home in 2016. Right now he's feeding them red meat and potatoes, waving the flag in front of the enraged bull, riding a wave of white anger. That anger, unleashed on the national elections, might just carry the day if there isn't an equivalent enthusiasm on the left.
edited 10th Sep '15 2:05:25 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
Well, there is still plenty of space on the left for a more radical candidate; it's just not possible for them to get any voice in the current political climate. The Democrats simply don't have the equivalent of the Tea Party/Trumpite base to rile up.
Sanders, no matter his reputation as an "evil socialist", really does represent core Democratic values. Clinton is more centrist, but both are affluent whites. #BLM has little say here despite their protests.
Trump vs. Clinton would be extreme right against centrist left. Trump vs. Sanders would be extreme right against moderate left.
If you want polarizing, the Democrats should nominate a gay, atheist, female, ethnic minority candidate. Then we'd see the fur fly. Sanders is only "polarizing" to the establishment media who believe that Democrats should field banal, milquetoast candidates.
edited 10th Sep '15 2:17:01 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Doesn't have to be all of them at once. Ellen DeGeneres for Prez!
edited 10th Sep '15 2:20:22 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Heck, Oprah Winfrey for Prez! She's a bit too sensationalist, though. Not nearly as much substance as her press would have you believe — I wouldn't vote for the woman who made Doctor Oz a star.
edited 10th Sep '15 2:24:37 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Uh, no. Lohan won't be old enough for a while, for one thing, and for another she only satisfies the "female" portion of the list I presented. Unless she's lesbian (or black) and I didn't notice.
edited 10th Sep '15 2:27:42 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Fortunately, Jeb!'s poll numbers are all but invisible. He's right up there in the "government by plutocrats, for plutocrats" zone that is so utterly boring to Republican voters at the moment.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"