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
@Protag: This is true, but the phrase rarely seems to be used that way. It seems like it's used more by people with autocratic tendencies who don't particularly care about individual rights or abuse of government power. Or else, used sarcastically by democratically-inclined folks who are critical of the autocratic perspective.
Or worse, vulgar liberals who conflate the two opposite meanings positively.
edited 6th Apr '16 9:03:27 AM by CassidyTheDevil
It is preferable to avoid tyranny altogether regardless of the origin, though it's true that tyrannies have been exercised by either one or a minority as a historical norm.
Hence the necessity of a separation of powers and a formal social contract or constitution.
"It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few."another cross post, how the Panama Papers prove Sanders and Corbyn right
So, how likely is it that Trump and Clinton will rebound in New York? I've read David Wasserman's
analysis on 358 of the delegate allocation rules that the Republican party applies and it seems to imply that a) it may be heavily stacked in Trump's favour in New York (and California?) and b) that people who live in Democratic-held congressional districts are exceptionally important in the GOP primary.
The San Francisco law takes effect Jan. 1, 2017 for companies with 50 or more employees.
It will be phased in for smaller employers so that by Jan. 1, 2018 it will cover all employers with at least 20 workers. Employers with fewer than 20 employees will be exempt from the law.
Any group who acts like morons ironically will eventually find itself swamped by morons who think themselves to be in good company.(Balloon Juice): Good News for Judge Garland
(Reid plans to use procedures to get past Mitch, Trump plans to reveal his own candidates for the Court)
(There are actual plans on how to build the wall)
(Vox) A Massachusetts state legislator has a big idea to ease the urban rent crisis
Let's then add My God, You Are Serious! to Trump's page.
The man actually has plans for his crazy shit.
He has become legitimately frightening.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Do divided conventions also lead to downballot disasters? Because the only safeguards against shutdowns, defaults and debt ceiling fights, Cromnibus riders, "free trade" treaties and other MEB problems is to remove as many Republicans from Congress as possible. This is part of why I am wishing for Trump to receive the nomination - he's the candidate most likely to aid in that.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanIn theory @ Downballot Disaster, you get such a shattered party pissed off that their guys didn't get in, that a fair number stay home to spite the chosen one. In theory it's one thing if say Kasich and Cruz get together, but it'll be less ugly than some options.
What would be nuclear is if Paul Ryan or so such got made the nominee.
Who knows. If the Republicans are seriously going to go through with this, they're throwing away any hopes at winning the general election barring the democratic party doing something equally self-destructive, and the only remotely plausible scenario for that is a narrow Sanders victory in pledged delegates being overridden by the superdelegates, and in a scenario where a contested convention results in a third party Trump run (pretty much inevitable if he doesn't win outright), I don't doubt the democrats would still win in a landslide even if they resorted to that.
edited 6th Apr '16 4:18:04 PM by CaptainCapsase
What do people think of the recent Supreme Court news, that Harry Reid is considering options to force a vote on Garland?
The Court situation's become a topic of personal interest, due to the blatant anti-other-side attitude the Senate Republicans are showing. I'm convinced that, if the only difference in this situation was a conservative president instead of liberal, this wouldn't even be an issue. If anything, the controversy would be going the other way as the Republicans try to force their nominee through the selection process as fast as possible.
edited 6th Apr '16 4:25:03 PM by sgamer82
Republicans have, as a matter of party identity, chosen to publicly act as if Barack Obama's presidency is illegitimate: that is, that they shall use every tool in their playbook to deny him the right to govern. That this is ultimately self-destructive is something they are unable or unwilling to face.
I support anything Harry Reid can do to break through this wall of defiance, as long as it doesn't set a counter-precedent should we be faced with the terrifying prospect of a Trump-led White House and a Democratic Senate.
edited 6th Apr '16 4:29:07 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Considering how difficult it would be to differentiate between the remittances from legal citizens and illegal immigrants, I would not put it past Trump to shut off remittances entirely.
He could then use the money he needs for the wall and then distribute the remaining cash to enrich his base and important allies, much like how Hitler gave over Jewish businesses and properties to German citizens.
Of course this would then make more Mexicans direly impoverished and result in a dash for America...which...the wall would be in the way of. And I suspect that while its getting made, ICE would be patrolling the area, making sure these desperate people meet horrible, desperate ends.
Trump gets his wall, ICE gets to test out its new capabilities, and the Republicans look good to the Xenophobic base.
He'd need to stack the Supreme Court somehow, as there's no way that would be judged constitutional. Seizure of remittances would probably be considered a bill of attainder.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
Even with the worst case scenario for the supreme court (4 justices), there's only so much damage Trump could do as president; the United States isn't nearly unstable enough for him or anyone else to seize the Republic in the foreseeable future.
If he (or Sanders) doesn't make it? Well, the anti-establishment sentiments that fueled his campaign isn't going away, and if dirty tricks like superdelegates, brokered conventions, and the like are used to suppress such candidates, a decent chunk of the American public is on the fast track to radicalization.
edited 6th Apr '16 4:54:27 PM by CaptainCapsase
![]()
I don't doubt he'd try to pull that at least once, but not even the GOP senate would stand for that. They'd probably end up compromising on judges who are still thoroughly underqualified in all ways other than their uncanny agreement with whatever Trump says, but his agenda in office would likely be more about further enriching himself than anything as directly destructive as what Cruz would be trying to accomplish.
Sept Trump would directly enrich himself by taking money strait from the American people, look Cruz is Saudi Arabia levels of religious nut, but he still wants there to be a country when he leaves office, Trump? Trump is North Korea level of crazy, he might just blow everything up tomorrow, he might blow his own country up or another country, nobody can tell.
Look at the way Trump does business, he'd sell Alaska back to Russia and pocket the profit if he got the chance.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThe FEC questions Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) About over $1000 of campaign funds used on steam games.
edited 6th Apr '16 6:03:21 PM by Demonic_Braeburn
Any group who acts like morons ironically will eventually find itself swamped by morons who think themselves to be in good company.

Tyranny of the Majority is a legitimate thing to be concerned about. In a democratic government without any limits on government, minorities will almost never get a voice. As such, you need to introduce limits on government and individual rights.
Leviticus 19:34