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
I'd expect it to make it to the supreme court- surely the state is going appeal it, and anyway a ruling that could significantly reshape the political landscape of a bunch of different states is exactly the sort of thing that should go to the supreme court.
But that's not a reason to despair- even taking the worst case scenario and assuming there's a Trump crony on the court by then, I don't see any reason to assume the other GOP-appointed judges wouldn't be leery of Trumpism.
And it's reason to celebrate if it goes through, certainly.
Let's not forget that the current opening was left by one of the more conservative SCOTUS justices, so all Darth Orange can do at this point is preserve the status quo. It's still not that bad - the current makeup plus Scalia gave us Obergefell v Hodges.
Fear of a name increases fear of the thing itself.This editorial written by someone who supposedly grew up in rural white America, gives credence to the idea that HRC making more direct appeals would not have helped.
Disgusted, but not surprised^That's an awful lot of sweeping generalizations, and an awful lot of the sort of sweet, punchy outrage that's very easy to nod along with and not think too much about. I'm inclined to believe almost all of this, but it reads less like political analysis and more like someone who made it out venting about their younger days.
That said, it comes back down to the usual conversation we've been having around here. Things need to change in rural white neighborhoods, a redo from education systems up is necessary, etc etc.
It's been fun.I don't get it, Rural america would be better served with like, a rotating staff of interns that cycle through working the farms and rejoining actual civilization. Having people live that isolated from like, Real Life has to be inefficient and detrimental.
"Coffee! Coffeecoffeecoffee! Coffee! Not as strong as Meth-amphetamine, but it lets you keep your teeth!"It's still a big part of Real Life, just one that is very far away from urban life.
And to the South's credit, their schools have more diversity than certain urban ones:
edited 23rd Nov '16 2:34:11 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedBasically, HW was trying to overhaul ethics in the government after it was viewed that Reagan had created too much ethics corruption in his time in office. However it was determined that Conflict of Interests could potentially make it impossible for the President, Congress or vital Judiciary members to pass or judge on important laws that would potentially need signing or voting on that they'd need to recuse themselves on.
The exemption was viewed as uncontroversial at the time and a reasonable decision by people in office at the time, as it was viewed higher level officials who might be in conflict needed more wiggle room. Specifically:
"One member of the blue-ribbon panel Bush appointed said the commission concluded that elected officials in each branch couldn't be held to the same standards as lower-ranking employees."
i.e. HW and Congress at the time didn't foresee Congress going completely haywire or a goofball like Trump getting into office.
edited 23rd Nov '16 4:18:41 AM by PotatoesRock
It really seems like a lot of the problems in politics worldwide can be explained by "the ones who developed the system did not foresee the legislative becoming hyper-polarized and the executive going to an idiot or a madman"
American democracy was definitely built with Trump in mind. That's why he only has 4 years to do his worst before everyone else has a chance to stage a better counterattack. That's why the Democratic half of the Senate is going to do everything they can to make life hell. That's why people are allowed to boo Pence at Hamilton, why people are allowed to openly protest in the streets.
No matter how bad things get these next few years, it is not a failure of the American system. Probably a failure of the Electoral College, definitely a failure of gerrymandering, but not of the Republic.
EDIT: Holy shit that article is salty. Like, personally bitter. It is the least helpful thing you can say at this time. "Yeah man they won't change for shit, so fuck em". That's a great sentiment except Donald J. Trump is the President-Elect of the United States of America. It's great that you can claim a moral and intellectual victory, except you have already lost the only victory that really matters. And it's great that you can say "well he wouldn't have won if it weren't for the EC", but he DID win with the EC, and because he won you can be assured that the EC won't be changing any time soon.
More importantly, the idea that "working class whites" is directly referring to the rural deep red states and not the "blue wall" of the working-class is just straight up wrong. No one is trying to court the deep-red, that's impossible just like California or New York turning red. But there are states that used to vote blue that voted red, and that needs to change, now.
More more importantly, I really don't get how people are just so okay with the idea that there exists a solid half of the nation that is thoroughly irredeemably awful.
edited 23rd Nov '16 5:24:57 AM by InAnOdderWay
I question the assumption that the people who frequents /pol/ are too young to vote. 4chan has been around for more than a decade. The people who started trolling on that site in their teens are now in their mid to late twenties. The people who created and spread the Pepe memes are angry, young men who have been radicalized by being submerged in an Alt-right, PUA, "anti-PC" internet culture for a decade. They are not entitled dipshit kids who can't vote. They are entitled young men who grew up in a poisonous culture, finds out the real world doesn't bend over backwards for them and have started to begin voting this year.
edited 23rd Nov '16 5:59:37 AM by nervmeister
![]()
4chan hasn't been an Alt-right hive for nearly that long. /pol/'s been around, but they didn't really become a major player in the field until maybe around SITEWIDE BANNED TOPIC RELATING TO VIDEO GAMES, which was the definitive turning point when PC culture and SJWs went from being a funny meme to a serious existential threat to gaming/politics/internet/porn. Similar trends can be found on Reddit. Even then, I'd hesitate before saying that /pol/ runs 4chan, when the actual consensus is far more split. While most enjoy the glorious age of dank memes that Trump heralds, whether or not PC culture was actually the major threat it was painted as is still definitely a hot topic for debate. It's a more diverse than most folks give it credit for.
Their impact is more than negligible, but you're giving them way too much credit here.
EDIT: Also I still don't get the Pepe thing. The alt-right doesn't own Pepe, they're just better memers than the far-left, who primarily meme through depression, communism, irony, and overreactions to corny jokes.
edited 23rd Nov '16 6:04:12 AM by InAnOdderWay
I'd advise you edit your post, as Gamergate is a site wide banned subject and one that people aren't allowed to mention never mind use as part of an argument or debate even in a rounderbout way of "the subject that must not be named".
edited 23rd Nov '16 6:02:12 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI was in another thread where it came up as background info and apparently the rules don't say you can't namedrop it, just not talk about it. The main reason we call it That Hashtag thing is out of self-awareness that it's a banned topic plus sending the message to people who don't already know that.
![]()
![]()
Unsure how I can better phrase that then. It's not really part of the argument, it's just literally what happened. Around that point the alt-right started to gain traction on 4chan. The creation of 8chan, the rise of /r/Tumblr In Action and other similarly named subreddits dealing with similar subjects, etc. etc. all came primarily by way of this large and significant subject. I understand why it's banned, it's a controversial subject as all hell, but it's counterintuitive to tiptoe around the subject as if it didn't happen when discussing why the alt-right is such a large movement as it is now. It'd be like trying to discuss the causes of WWII without discussing the Nazi Party (apologies for the Godwin's Law there), or like discussing the Civil Rights Movement without acknowledging slavery or the Civil War.
edited 23rd Nov '16 6:10:33 AM by InAnOdderWay

Federal Judges Rule Wisconsin's Redistricting Maps Unconstitutional
. This could be very good - or it could make it to the SCOTUS after Trump appoints the country's foremost proponent of abolishing the 19th Amendment or something, and it gets written in as constitutional after all.
It's been fun.