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 wouldn't be hard for them to do it legally either, the JCS would simply resign stating their oath to refuse illegal orders, the public outcry would then push the House and Senate to impeach Trump or a face national riots.
![]()
Exactly, and that ring might be enough. Plus who else is there? The Roeublicans are out of runnable governors, the senate class of 2010 are about to loose their seats, why do they run?
edited 3rd Mar '16 10:51:22 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranDo we know who the current Joint Chiefs of Staff are?
I'm worried they might be inclined to think putting the squeeze on Mexico would be a good idea "in the interests of security".
There is also the fact of ICE's current status. They are a law, customs and immigration enforcement agency, not a military group, meaning if Trump drastically increases their capabilities and powers, without changing their affiliation, it would mean no matter how many Waffen ICE units exist, they would technically be customs officers / law enforcers.
Thus, Trump would legally be able to do some very nasty, very skeevy shit to Sanctuary Cities and the Mexican border areas.
If Trump started trying to create his own 'civilian' military arm outside of the control of the JCS that'd be an even more surefire way to get them to riot.
edited 3rd Mar '16 10:57:34 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
The Bush name is too messy, maybe 12-16 years from now after a new Bush has worked their way up the ladder, but it'll take time.
Sure, but this isn't the end, they need to work out who to run after this, even once Trump looses the current splintering won't stop. After Kasich the governor with the best odds in a general is probably Rauner, the senate clearly doesn't have any electable candidates, so what leaves who for the establishment to train up?
Edit: They can't even dig up any Regans, the adopted son from the first marriage Michael is fucking nuts (having called on air for people to be killed) and the son from Nancy is an atheist Dmeocrat who is backing Sanders, one daughter is dead and the other one isn't in politics.
Edit 2: Man I kinda want Ron Regan to run run for office as a Democrat, just because of how much it would make the Republicans explode.
Edit 3: Aww apparently he won't run because Americans won't elect an atheist. Fuck it, could he be the Dem VP candidate? Just for shits and giggles?
edited 3rd Mar '16 11:47:06 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
President Schwarzenegger actually leads to The Simpsons Movie.
Kasich signed a law preventing rape crisis counsellors from suggesting abortions to their clients.
If he hadn't been so comprehensively rejected by his party in these primaries, I'd be pretty scared of him putting a 'moderate', electable sheen on some of the most nightmarish aspects of Republican policy.
He did get his facts on Sweden and Finland right, he said that they're not NATO, but he wants to arm them and Ukraine against Russia and bring them all under US protection.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranArnold Schwarzenegger is one of the old-breed Republicans who the modern party has left behind. That said, I imagine he could make a solid showing running for either party, and I'd be okay with him as President. Wouldn't vote for him over Hillary or Sanders, but would be okay with him.
Sadly, he never really managed to inspire a strong Amend for Arnold platform, despite being the one guy who could get both Democratic and Republican support for it.
In other news, Romney seems to be fully shaking the Etch-A-Sketch and bringing out the Governor of Massachusetts to wield against Trump. I wonder if he actually thinks the convention will split the party.
edited 4th Mar '16 2:03:24 AM by Ramidel
There are plenty of people who won't vote for Drumpf, but will vote for a Republican, and I would be very impressed and just plain surprised if the party openly separates those two things. After all, it comes with quite a risk.
Deliberately throwing the election to Clinton (despite inevitable claims that they didn't), could create a "something else" that stays a perpetual thorn in their side, or maybe even supersedes them. Especially if it's seen as a money-motivated move, which would naturally have repercussions on the Democrat side as well.
Not to mention it would be a very clear sign that the establishment couldn't quite take the hint that some liberal policies are very popular with Republicans. Though to what extent those liberal policies were carried by his other unacceptable views, or vice-versa, is something that should probably be looked at.
And of course, if Sanders actually gets the nomination, then all bets are off.
edited 4th Mar '16 2:35:54 AM by Eschaton
What long term? Doing that would kill them off immediately. The current two party system only exists because both sides have managed to create alliances that give them both a fighting chance each election cycle. Without those alliances, both sides of the split become effectively third party candidates with no hope of winning anything, ever (assuming the Democrats don't split too). It wouldn't be conceding a single election, it'd be conceding all elections for the indefinite future, unless they have a specific plan to get back those voters or some replacement.
The Republican party absolutely needs those socially conservative voters because, quite frankly, it's difficult to make fiscal conservatism popular with the same people it exploits. Making it clear that those voters are "not welcome" in the Republican party would be an apocalyptic move for them.
edited 4th Mar '16 5:00:42 AM by Clarste
Yep. The GOP made their bed, and they have to sleep in it. They simply can't win - either they let Trump proceed with an election he can't possibly win (he can appeal to the base, but he'll crash and burn with the non-hardcore supporters) or reject him to preserve the 'purity' of the GOP, and end up tearing the party in half and make it impossible to win the White House for the forseeable future, and perhaps even lose the Senate and Congress over time.
edited 4th Mar '16 5:01:17 AM by Cronosonic

I'm not gonna lie, "President Schwarzenegger" does have a nice ring to it.