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
CNN (the actual station) interviewed a bunch of Amish a while back. While they said they didn't support Clinton because she's a woman, Amish have a religious prohibition on voting in what they see as a matter of outsiders.
And that entire site is clearly satire.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/791107406407303168
this guy is so stupid. his parody account is better than him. Here it is btw :https://twitter.com/trichael_macey?s=099
Democratic Party sues GOP alleging voter intimidation plot
.
Rachel Maddow has more:
edited 26th Oct '16 10:54:53 PM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!Regarding racism in the US, I think the issue is that other countries hide it better and don't raise as much of a fuss about it. We seem to have more racism because we as a culture are much more willing to raise the issue.
In the US, if a cop beats a black man, it's going up on YouTube, and the majority of the population are not on with that shit. We have our rightards, but the rest of us notice racism and call it out when we see it. And because of that, we're making solid progress - as America has shown that it's no longer willing to tolerate police brutality against minorities, we're getting prosecutions and we're getting body cams.
The flip side of this, of course, is that our rightards also see "bullshit" everywhere (like women who dare think that they have a right to not have sex with a "real man" who wants them, or guys who look kinda like Muslims), and they grab the biggest megaphones they can find to call it out.
edited 27th Oct '16 2:16:26 AM by Ramidel
Basically, the idea of freedom of speech has made the US into a culture of people willing to speak out against what they perceive to be injustices. This means that the majority of people will speak out against racism when they see it, but also means a small minority of racists can also speak out against what they erroneously think is injustice.
The United States' prejudice is much more obvious, but that also means it is more willing to work said prejudice out of its system. After all, Trump isn't going to win, it doesn't look good for Republicans in Congress, and so long as the Democrats get the Senate, the Supreme Court will shift itself to the left.
Wizard Needs Food BadlyIt's almost like the system works!
On another note, I wonder if America's Congressional and Presidential system has a few advantages over the Westminster model. Looking at Spain's current governmental crisis, and comparing it to America's deadlock, I can't help but wonder if we got the better end of the deal - because since America doesn't hold a new election just because the government can't agree, we get deadlock. However, that forces Congresscritters from both sides and multiple political inclinations to work together instead of throwing up their hands and calling a new election. We ultimately even get budgets, because a truculent Congress knows what'll happen to their party if the government shuts down - so even the Tea Party learned to compromise after Obama fitted that lesson into a suppository.
If Clinton wins, she will have massive influence on the future direction that the country takes on many issues. The Supreme Court is actually very powerful, and it's surprising how often they end up making the final decision on national issues, especially social justice-related things.
There's a vacant sear at the moment, and Clinton has been careful with how she's worded her comments about it. She wants the Senate to confirm Obama's choice, but if they don't do it she's left herself the option of picking someone else. (That would be a bit of a blow on Obama's legacy, but there you go.)
Two current justices are over 80. One will be over 80 by the end if the next President's first term. That means more seats - 2-4, including Scalia's - will probably be filled by the next President, possibly in their first term (and almost certainly in the second, at the latest). If Clinton gets to appoint the swing vote in the Supreme Court and install several other liberal justices to establish a more firm majority, the decision of the Supreme Court are likely to favour social justice causes in the next decade or two - or possibly even longer than that.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.The issue re justices is that at the moment there's still little prospect that Democrats will get to 60 seats this election (i.e., enough to defeat a filibuster). Unless some Republican senators can be convinced to go along, they could still (in theory) continue to block nominations (or rather, refuse to continue the process) indefinitely. I cannot remember where I saw this prospect, but the result could be a Supreme Court that goes to two empty seats, then three, even four (at which point the Court would effectively stop functioning because a quorum requires six total justices).
The blocking senators will get flak - it will depend on the overall mood of those paying attention.
edited 27th Oct '16 5:54:44 AM by megarockman
The damned queen and the relentless knight.The filibuster isn't in the Constitution, it's a Senate Rule, and Senate Rules can be passed by a simple majority at the beginning of a new Senate. So all Chuck Schumer has to do is expand Harry Reid's "nuclear option," which was previously applied to presidential appointments that weren't SCOTUS or Cabinet members, to include SCOTUS as well.
Or just nuke the filibuster entirely, or at least alter the rules so that filibusters can't be abused as they have been in recent Senate sessions.
In the past it was presumed that you had to actually filibuster, that you had to keep talking on an issue until enough Senators gave up and went home that the bill would be defeated in the short term, and that Senate business would have to stop dead while the filibuster was ongoing. Now you can filibuster one bill at a time, and you only have to declare your intent to filibuster, not actually go through with it.
It's an idea that's well outlived it's usefulness, and might as well get scrapped entirely.

This is the sort of tagline that ends a press release. And being a .de url (Germany, right?) seems fishy.