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
So, the Capitol Building shooter has been tentatively identified as Larry Russell Dawson, who made an appearance describing himself as a "Prophet of God" last year at the House
.
Actually, the last last time another nation state attacked American soil and actually occupied was when the Japanese invaded
the Aleutian Islands in 1942 and occupied Attu and Kiska until 1943.
Which bring up another point about why a shooting with politicians/the Capitol as a potential target makes no legislation waves; everyone crazy enough to try so far has been certifiably crazy in other ways and easy to write off. (Gabby Giffords and her husband do now campaign for moderate gun control laws of the background and psych check sort but Giffords was one of the shrinking number of moderate Republicans in Congress even before that.)
Ok, the last one anyone not from Alaska or a serious military history buff remembers. :P I don't remember that detail from any history classes.
edited 28th Mar '16 2:57:29 PM by Elle
Oops, you're right. She was still an Arizona legislator who opposed gun bans while in office, however.
Edit: DOJ drops case against Apple, having got access without their help
. The official statement cites the assistance of an unnamed third party.
Edit 2: Evening news is on here and the mention of the veto of the Georgia bill also mentioned that one of the companies threatening action was Coca Cola. Given that they were founded in Atlanta and are a major part of the culture there I imagine that was a Pretty Big Deal.
edited 28th Mar '16 3:48:12 PM by Elle
Depends if he can take New York and California, and so such. One argument's been made that Sanders' has been doing so poorly so far because many of the early states are more conservative in voting tendencies (not necessarily Republican but more reserved), and thus more inclined to lean Hillary.
Basically there is the potential but at this point it would take a LONG shot. Like. Hail Mary in American Football tiers of long shot.
Basically he swept Alaska (A frontier state if any, which has a lot of semi-Socialist policies for varying reasons), Washington (which is at the forefront of a lot of Sanders' policies) and Hawaii (not too sure on why he did Hawaii so well).
Sanders might do well in California since Oregon, Washington and California while not exactly the same, have some sweeping similarities in terms of culture.
New York is more of a toss-up, IMO. Hillary served as a 1 and 1/3rd term Senator for the state (meaning there was reason for her to be liked/voted in repeatedly), however, the Democratic Rump Partner in New York, The Working Family Party, has overwhelmingly gone in favor of Sanders. On the other-other hand, the state Democratic machine (including Cuomo) is more likely to ally with Clinton. But the base in New York City bounced centrist Democrats off the ticket in favor of De Blasio.
So.
???
edited 28th Mar '16 4:16:29 PM by PotatoesRock
Florida's primary was two weeks ago — Clinton won with about 2/3rds to Sanders' 1/3. The only big primary states left are New York (April 19th, 247 delegates), Pennsylvania (April 26th, 187 delegates), and California (June 7th, 475(!) delegates) and New Jersey (also June 7th, 126 delegates). Everything other than that has less than 100.
edited 28th Mar '16 4:25:08 PM by NativeJovian
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.The thing that gets me about this whole Supreme Court Justice thing isn't how blatantly obstructionist it is (you'll never convince me we'd even be having this issue if the President were Republican) but it seems excessive because I'd think it'd be easier to stall by agreeing to the hearings and then just finding some excuse to deny the person. At least then there'd be an appearance of legitimacy behind their actions vs this situation.
EDIT: The linked article does address this towards the end, actually. Stating he'd be criticized no matter what and not having the hearings at all probably is in McConnel's own best interests if i'm understanding right.
edited 28th Mar '16 4:45:20 PM by sgamer82
![]()
![]()
![]()
Whoops, I meant New York there.
He should do decently in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, though probably not enough to close the gap. And even splitting California gets Clinton about half of the delegates she needs to win it all.
Not sure about New York, Clinton is decently popular there and there are quite a few minorities there that usually give her wins elsewhere.
edited 28th Mar '16 5:13:55 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.I think he'd still have to win about 60% of the remaining delegates, (to get that high a percentage, he'll need to win every remaining state by close to the margin that he did in Hawaii, where it was essentially 70-30 in his favor) and even he may need some help from the superdelegates, so the odds are pretty terrible. Not impossible, technically, but certainly not a position you'd want to be in.
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |@Rational: I don't think Superdelegates are obligated to vote the same way as voters like regular delegates are. In fact several super delegates appear to have already given support to one or other of the candidates. Like, they're explicitly not tied to the primary/caucus system. I'm not really sure why any of that is organized like it is, the whole process just seems increasingly arcane to me.
In fact I've asked about how super delegates work here before and no one actually gave me an answer. So I'm assuming some kind of witchcraft.
It's fairly simple. Superdelegates are people who have been selected to that status by the Democratic party apparatus, usually as favors for service, seniority, or whatever. They are allowed to give their vote to any candidate they want and are not locked in by the popular vote in their state. Instead, candidates vie for their favor on a personal level.
edited 28th Mar '16 5:42:11 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

@ Garcon: Downtown Belfast was fine. The Ardoyne area wasn't.
edited 28th Mar '16 2:28:18 PM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling On