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
It seems that the Supreme Court is going to uphold the challenge of Texas citizens to the current definition of "persons" with regards to districting. Districts will now be drawn based upon the number of adult, registered voters only, meaning that our Republican-skewed system is about to get even worse.
Although automatic voter registration would solve that problem and restore it to normal, creating skews only in areas with large numbers of illegals or disproportionate amounts of children.
The 1964 election was the infamous Johnson-Goldwater election
, where Goldwater fought an absolutely bitter primary campaign against other Republicans candidates, railing against the establishment and running as the true conservative. He was nominated... and promptly lost in all but 6 states during the general election, as people from everywhere turned out in droves to vote against him and anyone with an R next to their name. (As to his politics Goldwater was of the 50s school of thought, which included the idea that everything was better before FDR screwed up America with things like Social Security and workplace protections, Communists must be hunted everywhere and anything to do with segregation of the races should be left up to individual states, etc.)
This is the effect that some people are hoping Trump's presence will cause in this election, and have occasionally referred to Goldwater in this thread when referencing it.
Sadly, there was an unforeseen problem with Goldwater and the Republicans being completely stomped in that election: most of the Republicans that people voted against in droves were exactly the sort of establishment Republicans who had been thwarting Goldwater and his faction previously. Once those establishment Republicans were out of power and the electorate got complacent again and stopped turning out in such numbers for elections, Goldwater's faction crept back and completely took over the Republican party, culminating in the marriage of conservatism with Evangelical Christianity (much to the horror of Goldwater himself, ironically) and finally the election of Reagan, which utterly transformed US politics, pushed it immensely to the right, and has left most Democrats essentially running as "Republican-lite" ever since for fear of provoking another Reagan Revolution. Arguably this is only just starting to wear off now, 35 years after Reagan's election. And whether it is wearing off is very arguable.
You'd be surprised, actually. The country wasn't nearly as politically segregated as it is today, moderate to liberal Republicans of the time were essentially FDR-lite, and that was part of why the feud between them and Goldwater's conservatives was so bitter. One of the biggest kingmakers of the time for Republicans was popular ex-president Dwight Eisenhower, who had pushed for vigorous defense of the safety net, advocated against the government being taken over by the military-industiral complex, (and, IIRC, coined that very term) covertly fought against the infamous Communist witch hunts of McCarthy, strongly favored education especially in the sciences, began the Interstate Highway System and NASA, refused to get involved with the French in Vietnam, and had top tax rates around 90%.
If he weren't such a fan of creating coups in South America and places like Iran, or threatening to use nukes to solve foreign problems, (see Korea) he'd practically be an arch-liberal by today's standards.
It was partially because of Eisenhower and other moderate-liberal Republicans like George Romney refusing to endorse or campaign for Goldwater that Goldwater's campaign sank so badly, partially because of Goldwater's big mouth and flying off the handle saying things like that he wished the East Coast would fall into the sea because of how much he hated their evil liberalism, and partially because Lyndon Johnson had no compunctions against playing very dirty and creating a fear storm about Goldwater that drove people to the pols and drove moderate Republicans away.
edited 8th Dec '15 1:55:41 PM by TheWanderer
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |"Former Vice President Dick Cheney:
"I think this whole notion that somehow we can just say no more Muslims, just ban a whole religion, goes against everything we stand for and believe in," he said on the Hugh Hewitt radio show Monday.""
Dick Cheney is now calling trump out on his shit.
I'm baaaaaaack
We were just talking about that.
But yeah, when Cheney's calling you an asshole, you're an asshole.
Leviticus 19:34
Who? Anyways, Lindsey Graham criticized Trump, but also called out Ted Cruz for not taking any stand against Trump's position (which is not surprising, since Cruz is pushing a similar proposal).
Reading tropes such as You Know What You Did
Just heard about Trump's plan to ban all Muslims today and thought I had to interject: some may recall Charles Manson and how he wanted to ignite a race war that would leave him the last one standing on a mountain of ashes.
As Britain's PM said whoever the subway terrorist or knife attacker is a hero for saying they are no Muslim. ISIS are no Muslims but I would class them as akin to wanting to ignite a race or holy war, and Trump may well be the one to trigger it.
On that note if the issue is ISIS then they are no Muslims. Race, religion, that is not the issue here. If it was why kill their own race? Their own religion? If the solution is to ban everyone of a particular group why not ban all teenagers? They're the ones who are sadly being targeted. What about banning social media where ISIS recruit? You see how silly the idea is?
Currently reading up My Rule Fu Is Stronger than YoursTrump just wants to play Hitler for a while, and he'll ultimately get shut down by people saying "No, Trump, we're not going to appoint you Chancellor / President."
Then he'll run home and hug his Hitler Plushy and cry about how he didn't get to annex Baja California, which I guess is the Austria in his weird World War II fantasy.
Reading tropes such as You Know What You Did
I heard the Hitler analogy a few times, as well as JK Rowling replying to a Potter fan that he's far worse than Voldermort. I wouldn't go that far but would agree that this proposal as well as the man in general is very dangerous because he has this whole, "F you I'm Donald Trump" persona where he seemingly thinks he can do whatever he wants and as a President that will quickly make him come unstuck, and America with him.
Currently reading up My Rule Fu Is Stronger than YoursFollowing up on an earlier story.
edited 9th Dec '15 5:51:46 AM by sgamer82
![]()
If trump is elected any allies will be a thing of the past. He already regularly craps on Japan and Europe, no one else will side with the US as well.
He could probably cause WW3, in a World vs the US way quite easily...
He has as much chance of getting elected as I do.
He is, however, one of my best sources of entertainment. I work all day and the funniest things there are to read online at work are about what he says.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

Romney senior actually did a lot to address certain social issues. IIRC his particular focus was on affordable housing.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.