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 other thing with Canada is that the Supreme Court of Canada has now stated that all referendums must have a supermajority on one side or the other, or the results will be thrown out and the status quo will be maintained. It was so close in '95, and since the number of people who really want out has been going down, it would fail. Especially since Quebec gets no benefit whatsoever from being independent, and most of the people in Quebec know that.
Well speaking as a French Canadian with a lot of family who went from "Yes" to "No". There's a lot of reason (that would be best covered on the Canadian Politics thread) and the Supreme Court judgement honestly doesn't tend to factor that much in people's mind. It's the fact that the idea is WOEFULLY unpopular among voters 35 and younger. And less popular the younger the demographics in question (for a variety of other reasons). It's hard to talk about building a country for future generations when the future generations aren't remotely interested. It's also seen as a distraction away from working on real problems in the province (Economy, Environment, Education and Health Care). Add that the groups championing the idea have fractured and are prone to infighting meaning they are terrible at pushing their idea.
But enough derails :-P
edited 28th Jun '16 7:09:56 PM by Ghilz
On the one hand, illegal immigrants who commit felonies need to go. On the other hand, we don't have full relations with Cuba yet - Cuba's not under any obligation to take anyone back from us.
@Tactial: US military interests are more or less one of the only forces on Earth capable of overcoming US business interests, so it's not surprising the embargo has gone as long as it has: the US is in danger of being more or less excluded from hemisphere political meetings over the issue of Cuba, which is more or less the reason Obama moved towards normalizing relations.
edited 29th Jun '16 2:26:21 AM by CaptainCapsase
![]()
It doesn't go that far, more like they automatically get clearance to stay here if they make it but they still have to go through the other normal channels to obtain citizenship besides that. But I'd assume that's the kind of thing that gets revoked if you commit a violent crime like any other immigration status.
edited 29th Jun '16 2:32:35 AM by LSBK
Cuba wants its people back. That's why they struck a deal with us to return anyone intercepted in the water between Florida and Cuba. Our policy on Cubans is that if you're caught trying to flee Cuba, you're immediately returned to Cuba, but the moment you set foot on American soil, you're a refugee and can legally become a citizen after one year.
That's actually a really important point to note when it comes to talking about "illegal immigrants". If you've ever wondered why so many Hispanic people support Trump's anti-immigration policies, it's because the "send 'em back where they came from!" rhetoric only really affects Mexicans.
edited 29th Jun '16 7:50:21 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.(The New Republic Opinion Piece) An argument for Warren as VP
She'd be able to mend the hostilities between the Progressive and Neo Liberal wings for the election and she'd basically be able to basically walk Republicans into a mine field of sounding like misogynists and racists (especially when they're already down for the count in some ways.)
The problem is: The Clinton Camp is signaling they want a no-enemies, won't overshadow Hillary, ideologically close VP: Virginia Senator Kaine.
On Monday's program, Rachel Maddow discussed the idea, which is itself old but keeps being rediscovered each election cycle, of "August", "November", and "January" VP picks.
- An August pick helps the candidate unify their party.
- A November pick helps the candidate win the election.
- A January pick helps the candidate govern.
Warren would clearly be a party-unifying choice, but Maddow pointed out that this hardly seems necessary given that the portion of Sanders supporters that have indicated that they would jump parties in protest of Clinton has dropped in recent polling to 8% from its 20% level last month. By all objective measures, the Democrats are far more unified this year than they were in 2008.
That said, Warren's appearance by Clinton's side was electrifying and looked like one hell of a nailed job interview.
edited 29th Jun '16 7:58:25 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"And it's fizzling faster than Clinton PUM As at the equivalent time 8 years ago. Power of Trump, maybe.
Clinton might do well to pick a "January" VP if Trump keeps looking like he's going to throw the election to Democrats, but the risk of appearing complacent is very real. Also, we haven't done so well by them of late — Cheney, for example, was such a choice.
edited 29th Jun '16 8:13:57 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
Would nice if he had then taken the obvious next step and endorsed her, which AFAIK is what every other second place candidate in a primary ends up doing.
Because I think the lack of endorsement is itself a statement of disapproval toward Clinton and understood as such by Sanders supporters, and sends the message that they shouldn't vote for her. And as a corollary, while these commentators on Twitter are probably a small subset, they all seem to think that Sanders is somehow going to get the nomination (usually in connection with Clinton being imprisoned).
As long as Sanders doesn't endorse Clinton, he's preserving and spreading these sentiments- which IMO is probably the point- it's a feature and not a bug as far as he's concerned.
![]()
I'd argue that Biden was a "January" pick, too. The main thing he brought to the table was a network of relationships with other people in Washington that he could leverage to help things done — a network that Obama, being a young Senator without decades spent in DC, didn't have.
![]()
![]()
And that's a good thing as far as I'm concerned; Clinton was one of the key figures in her husbsnd's presidency (to the point where she was more or less his de facto Vice President), and, given she is inevitably going to have a GOP congress, I expect similar policymaking and strategic decisionmaking to the first Clinton administration, except to the extent that it is restrained by the public sentiment.
edited 29th Jun '16 8:31:39 AM by CaptainCapsase
People are convinced that the Dems can't win the House, I'm not so sure, Trump may be toxic enough that he costs them the House even with all the advantages the Republicans have.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
