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 Supreme Court to take on a challenge to Texas' abortion law.
Black said he was briefed on the findings of two recent private focus groups of Trump supporters in Iowa and New Hampshire that showed these voters knew little about his policy views beyond immigration. “Things like universal health care and other more liberal positions he’s taken in the past will all get out before people vote in New Hampshire,” he said. Black said the focus groups were commissioned by two rival campaigns, but he was not authorized to identify them.
My question is, is Obamacare that unpopular with the Republican base? I thought it was broadly popular, but does the base care enough to sink Trump over it?
If you discuss the components of the plan with people, they are broadly supported. If you talk about "Obamacare", then people revert to knee-jerk partisan conditioning.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"It's also very bad because since a Democrat was its main proponent, it makes Democrats look good.
However, they brought it on themselves by rallying against it when Obama first proposed it (much to his surprise), instead of making it the bipartisan law he hoped for.
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."Isn't "big money" a big part of why so many Republican voters distrust the establishment? The Republicans may have pulled off one hell of a Pyrrhic victory by getting the Supreme Court to allow unlimited campaign contributions.
Link in english
at least 600 Cubans were detained in Costa Rica (other 600 in Panama) unable to continue their travel up north to enter the U.S illegally.
This is a consequence of Costa Rican police stopping a smuggling ring that charged thousand of dollars to Cubans to get them to the United states
Without their contacts, the cubans flooded the Costa Rican migration offices, demanding they be extradited to Nicaragua so they can continue their trip.
Of course, by law, they cannot just let them continue their illegal trip. And also, by law, Cuba will not take them back. This kinda has the offices and the police officers at a strenuous position specially since the Cubans have taken to blocking the streets.
The illegal cubans begin their trip in ecuador.This is because Ecuador's laws do not require visa. Then they mve from there to Colombia, from there to Panama, form there to Costa Rica, then Nicaragua and until they reach the destination of the United States.
Funny thing how illegal immigration works, huh? This is prolly what the U.S fears if they open up more to Cuba. To which I ask why is Cuba such an asshole.
No word from any international embassy other than the U.N refugee program who is there helping them
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesRE: Nixon and Vietnam
Not sure if it was mentioned on the prior page, but Nixon('s campaign) deliberately sabotaged the peace talks in 1968 by promising the South Vietnamese a "better deal" than what Johnson was getting them in Paris that year
. Cut to 7 years later, and Nixon got them a deal that was practically identical to the one Johnson almost had.
The China one is still valid, at least.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"Maybe they need to utterly fail to learn their lesson. That might finally scare them into running in the opposite direction.
Yep. I and others have said this countless times before, these people are completely reality proof. Truth and facts are subjective to them.
That's not us being biased or bitter or exaggerating, it's the truth. There is a massive amount of deliberate cognitive dissonance going on with the American Right.
edited 13th Nov '15 10:34:30 PM by LeGarcon
Oh really when?![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
I though the US allows Cuban immigrants no matter what. Also why would anyone want to leave Cuba, tropical left wing paradise with free healthcare, for the US a right wing country with a shitty health care system and in many places a terrible climate?
The US generally allows immigrants from Cuba (and other Caribbean nations) if they manage to reach land. If they're picked up at sea, then they're deported. Details here
. This has actually resulted in some somewhat amusing court cases over the years. There was a group of would-be immigrants who ended up stranded on the old Seven Mile Bridge in the Florida Keys. Since they couldn't walk to land (the old bridge is no longer in use and its connections to land have been demolished), they were initially declared "wet feet", but after some legal shenanigans the decision was reversed.
Found an editorial complaining about the immediate politicalization of the Paris attacks
that began before there was even an accurate estimate of the body count.
Or must we instantly bootstrap obliquely related agendas and utterly unconnected grievances to the carnage in Paris, responding to it with an unsavory opportunism instead of a respectful grief?
First news of the gunfire there on Friday didn’t dribble out until about 4 p.m. Eastern time in the United States.
Within four hours, Ann Coulter tweeted:
Too bad there were no concealed carry permits ... anywhere in Europe ... since 1818. — Ann Coulter (@Ann Coulter) Nov. 14, 2015
Hasty? Hardly.
An hour earlier, Judith Miller tweeted:
Now maybe the whining adolescents at our universities can concentrate on something other than their need for "safe" spaces… — Judith Miller (@J Mfreespeech) Nov. 13, 2015
Before we knew all that much about what had happened, before many Americans had even caught word of it, before the ones who were aware had moved past horror and numbness, Paris wasn’t just a massacre.
It was a megaphone to be used for whatever you yearned to shout.
That’s how it works in this era of Internet preening, out-of-control partisanship and press-a-button punditry, when anything and everything becomes prompt for a plaint, a rant, a riff.
It all happens in the click of a mouse, its metabolism too furious to allow for decorum or real perspective.
I woke Saturday morning to Paris-pegged commentary about not just gun control and free speech on American campuses but also climate change—yes, climate change—and of course immigration, albeit to the United States, not France.
What does Paris have to do with climate change?
Well, apparently President Obama’s justly profound concern about rising temperatures is proof of his inadequate attention to terrorism and an indictment of his ability to do triage overall.
Or so I gather from a column written by Roger L. Simon for PJ Media. Simon characterized Obama as “a ludicrous man who thinks the world’s greatest problem is climate change in the face of Islamic terror.” Does battling the latter prohibit battling the former?
Simon also mentioned that Obama had once referred to the Islamic State as “the JV team” and had sought to scale down American military commitments abroad. While I question the usefulness of bashing Obama within 24 hours of the Paris attacks, I acknowledge that his past and present assessments of the Islamic State and his readiness (or not) to use American might are fair points of debate in the context of Paris and how we respond to it. But I don’t for the life of me see why Miller and many others, including Coulter, felt the need to construct a bridge from Paris to Mizzou and Yale.
Yes, some American students’ demands for “safe spaces” have gone much too far, endangering free speech and a vital exchange of ideas. Yes, the Yale campus is overwrought (I’ve watched that viral video). And, yes, the insult of certain Halloween costumes pales beside the bloodshed in Paris. Duh.
But there are countless offenses and injustices that pale beside the bloodshed in Paris — what doesn’t? — and there’s absolutely no reason to believe that the people articulating those offenses and injustices would claim otherwise. Using Paris to delegitimize them is puerile. It’s also tasteless, cheapening what happened there.
At this point it’s our ingrained habit to rush with dizzying speed into hyper-political overdrive and treat any shocking new development as fresh fodder for an old argument. That’s what Newt Gingrich did, joining Coulter in crying out for more firearms:
Imagine a theater with 10 or 15 citizens with concealed carry permits. We live in an age when evil men have to be killed by good people — Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) Nov. 13, 2015
On Saturday morning I read that Paris was going to be good for Republicans. I read that Paris was going to be good for Democrats. I felt sick. For a few hours, even a few days, I’d like to focus on the pain of Parisians and how that magnificent city reclaims any sense of order, any semblance of safety. I’d like not to wonder if Hillary Clinton’s odds of election just ticked upward or downward or if Donald Trump’s chest-thumping bluster suddenly became more seductive.
I’d like not to be told, fewer than 18 hours after the shots rang out, how they demonstrate that Americans must crack down on illegal immigration to our own country. I read that and was galled, and not because of my feelings about immigration, but because of my feelings about the automatic, indiscriminate politicization of tragedy.
It’s such a disrespectful impulse.
And it’s such an ugly one.
edited 14th Nov '15 1:50:13 PM by tclittle
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."Shall we list the reasons iron balls?
Extremely repressive government, with arbitrary imprisonment and even executions without trial
No political freedom what so ever
God help you if you criticize the castros
Widespread poverty
Extensive discrimination against those with African ancestry
And for bonus points.
"Cuba is the only country in the Americas that consistently makes Freedom House’s list of the Worst of the Worst: the World’s Most Repressive Societies for widespread abuses of political rights and civil liberties."
Some people really prefer not having to fear getting dragged of by secret police because someone claimed they don't support the revolution.
edited 14th Nov '15 1:52:48 PM by Joesolo
I'm baaaaaaack

@ Bonsai: ...as long as one doesn't run headlong to the other extreme, perhaps?
edited 13th Nov '15 11:00:18 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling On