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 find the idea of introducing more economic populism into the Democratic Party to be...troubling.
Populism in general is a style that I find troubling, since it usually goes hand-in-hand with anti-intellectualism. Most don't go as far as say, Mao Zedong, who actually had intellectuals killed, but still...
The list of people who have used populism to win elections is also freaking scary. Besides the aforementioned Mao, just look at Andrew Jackson. Come to think of it, Trump is like Old Hickory in a lot of ways.
On the other hand, Teddy Roosevelt was pretty populist too.
edited 24th Nov '16 5:40:36 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedYeah, same here. Sometimes you get someone like William Jennings Bryant who really does give a shit about the common man, but populism is extremely easily disposed to demagoguery because of its disposition towards emotionalism over rationalism. Even then a lot of populist pet causes tend to be shortsighted, instant-gratification, or downright toxic. For example Bryant's plans for fixed gold:silver conversion rates, which would've truly helped the poor farmer classes, but been devastating to the country's monetary policy. Generally you want a situation where the elites are working to further the common man's goals, but the former should have enough detachment from the latter that they not have total sway over the platform or else it'll steer the party right off the cliff.
edited 24th Nov '16 5:53:10 PM by AlleyOop
And when they fail to deliver because of the lack of real long-term planning, they inevitably distract the masses from their incompetence by pointing the finger at a scapegoat. Immigrants, Jews, anyone who isn't the same race, anyone who isn't heterosexual...they're not fussy. They might even start a war as a distraction.
edited 24th Nov '16 5:52:31 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedOk, how are we defining populism in this discussion?
One definition I heard is "a political technique where a 'charismatic leader' identifies certain needs, fears or wishes (to avoid repetition, from here on I'll just say need to talk about all three) within the population and constructs 'the people' as those who share that need, while positioning him/herself as the only one who can fulfill it".
Another definition is basically that populism is just another word for demagogy.
1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KVAt this rate an angry mob is going to try and storm Trump Tower...and the mob will be lead by pissed of CE Os who don't like taking losses due to Trump refusing to work in a less central area.
Everyone knows you don't fuck with New Yorkers. Easily angered, and there are many too many of the bastards.
edited 24th Nov '16 6:15:55 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Jackson was an evil bastard, no doubt about it. But I wouldn't insult the man by comparing him to Trump. At least Jackson had a spine. Remember this is a man who was in several duels (some sources say over 100). A man that, had he not been restrained by his aides, would have beaten his would be assassin to death. How many times has there been a need to protect a president's assassin from the president?
And this is the very attitude I'm complaining about. Not least because who cares what their motives are. Would the world be a better place without Bashar al-Assad? You better believe it would be.
Look, I get that nobody likes hypocrisy. And I get that American foreign policy is often highly hypocritical, supporting dictators they like, while overthrowing those they do not.
Here's the thing though—just because someone is on the USA's hit list for unrelated reasons doesn't mean they aren't a terrible person whom we would all be better off without. Slobodan Milosevic was one of those people. Bashar al-Assad is one of those people.
That the USA will not remove every dictator in the world does not mean we should oppose it when it removes some who genuinely need to be removed.
I'm honestly not sure where to start with this. Russia's "right" to a warmwater port does not trump the right of Syrian civilians to be alive. Letting Assad stay in power when his regime was stable was one thing, but after all the bodies he's dropped over the course of this war, and the tactics he's resorted to in the process is unconscionable.
The Assad family regime was a problem that had to be put up with during the Cold War, due to Soviet support, and that was worth tolerating in the 90s and early 2000s when things were relatively quiet. That situation no longer holds anymore. Assad is now actively engaged in destroying his own country and the people who live there. Standing back and letting that happen, as Trump is prepared to do so, is morally unacceptable.
Republicans Divided Between Romney and Giuliani for Secretary of State
Republican allies are warning Trump Romney will stab him in the back. Giuliani is disgusted with how much of a public spectacle the Administration appointments are turning into.
[Mod edit: Please don't make such a comparison.]
edited 25th Nov '16 5:13:52 PM by Berrenta
A Dodge Viper was the closest I've ever been to voiding myself.
I thought Giuliani wanted this?
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotIt's an idiom.
A nest or den of vipers refers to a group of villains, with the implication of them potentially tearing each other apart.
[/Humorless Kill Joy]
edited 24th Nov '16 6:34:23 PM by PotatoesRock
Given the choice between being locked up in the same room with a bunch of vipers or the people vying to be part of Trump's inner circle (and of course Trump himself), I'd pick the vipers in a heartbeat.
Heck, I'd pick a roomful of spiders over those assholes. And I hate spiders.
edited 24th Nov '16 6:36:30 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised

Yes, because allowing Russia to retain the warm-water port with the Dictator they're propping up since foreverin is clearly the End of the World.
Democrats Struggle to Regroup After Loss: Without a consensus on the way forward, diagnoses and proposals abound from numerous power centers
Despite the WSJ title, the basic assessment is the party is organically performing turnover from the Schultz chairmanship for better or worse if populists or moderates in the party take over.
Wealthy allies and donors of the party are planning to stay apolitical and allow the party's internal alignments happen on their own, and instead of focusing energy forcing the direction of the party going forward, they plan to focus on highlighting the worst of Trump and his administration. Let the man hang himself by the albatrosses he's tying to himself.
Meanwhile, former Attorney General Eric Holder plans to help lead the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, which plans to focus on allowing the party to grab back Governor Mansions and State Legislatures for 2018 and 2020, in time for the Census.