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
Boehner's a damn tool. He and the GOP sowed the wind and now he acts like he didn't want to reap the whirlwind: they created the Tea Party to get them a decade-long house majority; he deserves no credit for chickening out when he can't handle his own creation.
If he was too weak of a speaker, it's because he didn't tell the nutbars to go get stuffed four years ago.
Apparently Trump has put out some details of his tax plan
, promising zero taxes on low-income Americans. Color me surprised.
The plan would either increase tax revenue or keep it at the current level, Trump claimed in the wide-ranging interview in which he also discussed how he would deal with ISIS in Syria and touted his plan for universal health care coverage to replace Obamacare. Trump will unveil his tax plan in full on Monday, delivering long-sought policy details during an 11 a.m. news conference.
"It's a substantial reduction for the middle-income people. Because our middle class...is being absolutely decimated. It will be a corporate also reduction, I think it'll be a great incentive for corporations," Trump said in the "60 Minutes" interview. But in what he conceded is a departure from his own party's approach, Trump also vowed to make some of the wealthiest Americans — namely some Wall Street players — pay more taxes.
"I'm a pretty good Republican. But I will tell you this, I do have some differences. I don't want to have certain people on Wall Street getting away with paying no tax," Trump said after suggesting that he would eliminate some "unfair deductions." Trump has repeatedly decried the low tax rates "hedge fund guys" enjoy and pledged to increase their tax burden, although he didn't cite them in the "60 Minutes" segment. Under the current system, investments are taxes at lower rates than traditional income like wages.
While appearing to go against the ideological grain of his party, Trump said that he is confident his plan will help unleash economic growth. "Overall, it's going to be a tremendous incentive to grow the economy and we're going to take in the same or more money. And I think we're going to have something that's going to be spectacular," Trump said. "We're going to grow the economy so much."
"Sometimes when I would have time, some of it was broadcast live and I would watch it — some of it was quite laughable. It was very strange, the things that they spoke of," he said through an interpreter. "Some of them wouldn't even know where Tehran was in relation to Iran. Some of them didn't know where Iran was geographically, not distinguishing that one is the capital of the other." "So what they spoke of was quite far away from the truth. So the people of Iran were looking at it as a form of entertainment, if you will, and found it laughable."
The U.S. Congress failed to block the implementation of a deal between Iran and six world powers that trades curbs on Iran's nuclear program for the elimination of many sanctions that have been placed on the country. But Republican candidates for president have vowed to tear up the deal if elected. "I will rip to shreds this catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal," Ted Cruz said in a recent CNN debate.
Were the U.S. to do that, Rouhani said, it would destroy the country's credibility abroad, and Iran would abide by its commitmnent to the deal. "Can a government become a signatory to an international agreement and then the subsequent government tear it to shreds? This is something that only the likes of Saddam Hussein would do," he said. "Saddam Hussein, previous to attacking Iran in 1980, did sign an agreement with Iran and then tore it to shreds himself and then attacked Iran."
"So any government that replaces the current government must keep itself committed to the commitments given by the previous administration; otherwise, that government, that entire country, will lose trust internationally and no longer have the type of needed trust to operate in the international arena."
“None of us can ignore what is happening in this country. Not when our black friends, family, neighbors literally fear dying in the streets.” Warren said. “This is the reality all of us must confront, as uncomfortable and ugly as that reality may be. It comes to us to once again affirm that black lives matter, that black citizens matter, that black families matter.”…
“Economic justice is not — and has never been — sufficient to ensure racial justice. Owning a home won’t stop someone from burning a cross on the front lawn. Admission to a school won’t prevent a beating on the sidewalk outside,” Warren declared. “The tools of oppression were woven together, and the civil rights struggle was fought against that oppression wherever it was found — against violence, against the denial of voting rights and against economic injustice.”
Warren’s address, delivered at the Edward Kennedy Institute in Boston, was perhaps the most full-throated endorsement to date by a federal lawmaker for the ongoing protest movement, and it drew immediate praise from some of the most visible activists…
(The Atlantic) How GOP Radicals have made the Speakership of the House unappealing
At the heart of the current Democratic primary is a struggle to define the party's priorities going into the next Presidential term. Do they focus on maintaining a strong political establishment and moving gradually forward with a progressive agenda (Clinton), do they focus on populist economic issues (Sanders) or do they focus on populist social issues (Warren)?
None of these is bad, per se, but which one is best depends on an individual's priorities.
Also, Warren isn't running, obviously, but her voice is being heard loud and clear by everyone.
edited 28th Sep '15 6:12:53 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"EDIT-
![]()
edited 28th Sep '15 6:24:01 AM by FFShinra
None of these is bad, per se, but which one is best depends on an individual's priorities.
@Fighteer:
![]()
In our enthusiasm, we must consider that, regardless of the outcome of the Presidential and Senate elections, it is all but certain that a Democratic administration in 2017 will face an unrelentingly hostile House of Representatives and a Senate minority that is able to filibuster, meaning that there will be limited legislative support for its agenda.
If Sanders or Clinton (or Biden?) is to make any headway in their promises, they'll have to have the Democratic establishment — including all those Senators and Congressmen who fear red-state voters — completely behind them, and be able to persuade enough Republicans to cross the aisle to get things passed.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
I think that last part will depend entirely on how many establishment Republicans manage to hold on to their seats against Tea Party twits jerking on the rug under their feet. The TP won't compromise for anything, they would rather watch the country utterly collapse than give one inch to a Democratic President, but the establishment types rather like living in a First World country, rather than an anarchist hellhole.
Don't remember how I stumbled across it, but there's an opinion piece about how the Evangelical types are suffering a
crisis of faith about how to influence politics. Emphasis mine.
Dreher first issued his call back in 2013. Since then, and especially in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges that gay marriage is a constitutional right, things have only gotten worse. “[O]rthodox Christians must understand that things are going to get much more difficult for us,” Dreher wrote in a recent op-ed for Time. “We are going to have to learn how to live as exiles in our own country. We are going to have to learn how to live with at least a mild form of persecution. And we are going to have to change the way we practice our faith and teach it to our children, to build resilient communities.”
This call for societal withdrawal marks a new turn for American evangelical Christianity, which for several decades had been mostly aligned with the political right. Increasing support for gay marriage, the declining rates of marriage, and the rise of the “nones,” all seem to indicate waning evangelical influence on American culture. In the fight-or-flight response to feeling threatened, more and more Christians are taking (or at least talking about) the road out of Rome. They want to regroup, immerse themselves in communities that share their values, develop more robust theology, and emerge, in a sense, stronger than before.
<snip>
Other Christians want to use the Supreme Court’s decision as an opportunity to redouble their efforts in shaping the culture. Ryan T. Anderson, a senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, recently wrote that “there is urgent need for policy to ensure that the government never penalizes anyone for standing up for marriage.” The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the cultural-engagement entity of the Southern Baptist Convention, issued a statement titled “Here We Stand: An Evangelical Declaration on Marriage,” which dissented from the Obergefell decision and called on readers to “[r]espect and pray for our governing authorities even as we work through the democratic process to rebuild a culture of marriage.” Pastor and blogger Denny Burk captured the feelings of many conservative evangelicals post-Obergefell when he wrote, “Although I am disappointed with this decision, I remain confident that Christians will continue to bear witness to the truth about marriage—even if the law of our land is now arrayed against us.”
edited 28th Sep '15 8:02:57 AM by BlueNinja0
That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw![]()
Indeed; some men just want to watch the world burn.
edited 28th Sep '15 7:53:59 AM by kkhohoho
![]()
![]()
Honestly, that's the way it's supposed to be. One party controlling the presidency, House, and Senate simultaneously makes me nervous as hell — regardless of which party it is. The fact that the Republican party has become increasingly unwilling to compromise for the sake of effective governance isn't exactly a good thing, but the concept of "the loyal opposition" is a valid one and something I wouldn't like to see discarded. "We've got a supermajority so fuck you, we do whatever we want!" is almost as bad as "you don't have a supermajority, so filibuster all the things until we get what we want!" in my mind, even if I agree with the supermajority.
Really, the best case would be a sane minority party that's actually willing to compromise in order to govern. I don't think that's outside the realm of possibility — even with the Tea Party nutjobs, there are still some sane Republicans left in Congress.
Or maybe it's all just wishful thinking and if anything's ever going to get done, the Democrats need to stop playing nice and leverage whatever power they have to the greatest possible extent. *shrug*
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.![]()
![]()
In response to the article you linked, I am afraid that, since evangelical Christians are finding themselves on the losing side of the culture wars, their responses are likely to run the gamut from acceptance, to retreat (as advocated by the dude quoted above), to redoubled attacks on mainstream culture, to outright insurgency.
That latter is my feeling. We haven't had a two-party system for some time. We've had one governing party and one group of ideological insurgents who are committed to tearing down government at any cost.
The idea that "compromise is needed to smooth political systems" only works if compromise is an option on the table. The Tea Party has taken it off; ergo there is no option left but total victory or total defeat.
edited 28th Sep '15 8:23:53 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

They're Establishment like Trump is, so they are of the same class and general persuasion, but they act independently of their normal 'collective' and are so exstream in some places that they're very much a detriment to their grouping.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran