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 Republican Party was the first real Left-Wing party in American history, at its starting point. It was a party Karl Marx was doing propaganda for in London...no seriously, he was a pro-Union fanboy. The Republican platform at that time was more or less that of the Jacobins during the French Revolution as Eric Foner has noted: Fair Shares, advancement on merit, modernization and urbanization, promotion of cities over towns, abolitonism and anti-racism.
Of course there were moderate and radical wings and Lincoln was from the Moderate wing and Thaddeus Stevens was on the Radical wing. And both of them would roll in their graves to see their party become a Neoconfederate Death Cult, or more likely they would say that it's not his party anymore.
I mean I don't think the American 2 Party system aside from their names has real connections to say Andrew Jackson (founder of the Democrats...though considering the Dakota Pipeline, maybe Old Hickory is still there after all) or Lincoln. The Republican party became a totally different beast with Barry Goldwater, the religious right and Reagan. Its inconceivable to imagine that Fiorello La Guardia, a pro-Union congressman and left-wing mayor was Republican...leave alone Nelson Rockefeller, who was more or less a Trump-esque aristocrat with actual class, elegance and intelligence.
The Democrats these days are probably not even the party of Lyndon B. Johnson, leave alone FDR.
Sort of. He wanted a strong lifetime president who was less focused on re-election and more focused on governing. A blend between monarchy and republic. Hamilton was a big Washington fanboy so I don't think he wanted to marginalize him and Washington listened to Hamilton more than his advisors. You can see it as a little self-serving in a sense since making Washington a lifetime president would've meant that he'd stay influential for a longer time.
Anyways a constitutional monarch would've been an executive too weak for his liking. His ideal is closer to a king(sans title) with checks and balances put in place and no hereditary succession.
He also wanted a council of representatives that would represent every interest group rather than the population. He saw that as the reason why the colonies split from Great Britain since their interests weren't represented.
And then he wanted lifetime senators because he thought that'd make them more resistant to mob rule. This idea of lifetime appointments made its way into our Supreme Court where SC judges are in their position for life.
Seems like Hamilton saw Caesar as a man that tried to save the Republic from itself and was his vision of what a strong leader looks like. To be fair, Thomas Jefferson is the one who reported this conversation with Hamilton so he may have been trying to smear Hamilton.
In reality, Caesar's closer to a proto-Napoleon but I guess some would see Napoleon as a proto-Hitler and Mussolini although I heavily disagree with that idea.
edited 29th Nov '16 2:44:05 AM by MadSkillz
This a pretty good scene between "Stannis" Jefferson and John Adams on Hamilton from the "John Adams" miniseries.
edited 29th Nov '16 2:48:15 AM by MadSkillz
Yeah, that was the pre-2000s Jefferson historiography speaking...today we know that Jefferson as Gore Vidal long pointed out was just as conniving and self-interested as anyone else. And just as driven by fear.
Jefferson was extraordinarily ambitious and quite ruthless. He would write attack ads on Washington under fake names, which Washington found out about (he had an exemplary spy network and information backlog and would totally have been on board with NSA) and snubbed TJ forever after that.
Today, people see Hamilton's idea for a Big Government more positively as Jefferson himself did, when he unilaterally acceded to the Louisiana Purchase and generally governed differently from how he preached. But that's the Thomas Jefferson Life Story...the wide gap between his preaching and his conduct.
I am not on board with the Hamilton-hoopla because its based on wrong principles...that Hamilton is a Immigrant Success Story (The man was opposed to immigrants and wanted to make it harder for them to get loans and settle in), that he was an abolitonist (its an abuse of the term and a dishonor to real abolitionists to apply it to a guy whose wife owned slaves, who negotiated slave purchases on behalf of the in-laws, and who never made one single public speech or any action in favor of it—Real abolitionists take stands, say out loud and take names) and that he would have been a good president (man was phenomenally unlikable and would never have amounted to anything without Washington).
The story is more nuanced than you present it. Hamilton's attitude to immigrants changed during his career, he was an active member of a manumission society and collaborated a lot with Laurens, and as for unlikeable, that depends on who you ask.
A lot of that comes from Ron Chernow's biography. The thing is Chernow is not an academic historian, he's a popular one. He's not doing peer-review, he's basically creating information and fitting in with the popular sentiments of the time. At that time, Hamilton was unknown...and to give him street-cred, he decided to make him "an abolitionist" while ignoring all the other stuff.
He also used a lot of letters and other documents that other historians long disclaimed and bacisally made a Hamilton as we want him rather than what he was.
Fires in the Southern Appalachians have taken a hell of a turn for the worse after a front moved through with 60mph+ winds overnight. The entire resort city of Gatlinburg, Tennessee
is burning with reports coming in now of hundreds of homes already destroyed. Apparently the evacuation was called so suddenly that the local zoo/aquarium didn't have time to secure the animals, so they have been left to their fates.
Firefighters are stretched thin through the area battling other fires so it will take some time before they can muster up the numbers to push it back.
edited 29th Nov '16 5:49:48 AM by carbon-mantis
Since I can't stand directly linking to Trump's feed, have the inimitable Karl Sharro pointing out that wanting to strip people of their citizenship does indeed make Sisi look liberal
. You know, that Sisi
. On the other hand, I think I know a Finnish redneck ripoff (I know, I'm embarrassed on behalf of the rest of Finland that aren't neo-Nazis) who probably jizzed his pants hearing about it.
edited 29th Nov '16 6:02:47 AM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotThe difference is Trump talks big and will be a toothless little shit once he gets in office, while Sisi speaks softly and will just have the secret police spirit you away.
That's why the real dictators are always more polite than the blowhards like Trump or Duterte: they don't need to curse you out to get back at you.
Being loud never stopped Milosevic, Mussolini and Hitler from being effective, though.
Got recommended this elsewhere, I promise it's a lot more tolerable than Jonathan "Fucking Russian Propaganda Mouthpiece" Pie:
The Wisconsin Elections Commission has unexpectedly hiked the cost of the recount to $3.5 million, due by close of business hours today.
Stein has about seven to eight hours to raise another $2.4 million if she wants a recount in Wisconsin.
That's pretty much it for the recount, it would seem. Donations had already slowed to a trickle, and it was looking very probable that she wouldn't even get the additional half-million she needed to meet her previous $7 million goal. Unless there's a massive surge in donations, there will be no Wisconsin recount.
edited 29th Nov '16 6:13:12 AM by RBluefish
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."Really, Bannon? If you don't own a house you shouldn't be allowed to vote? I guess those seven years I lived in a studio apartment disqualified me from voting in your eyes? But how can that be? I'm white!
Trump: Anyone who burns the Americans flag should face jail time or lose citizenship
Fascism is here folks.
New Survey coming this weekend!

If things go really pear-shaped in the next few years, that crazy Calexit idea might become a lot more appealing. Heck, other states might want in by that point.
Really hoping things don't go that bad.
Disgusted, but not surprised