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
Oh, and I forgot to address this:
But remember, even with an evenly split Supreme Court, the Voting Rights Act was gutted. And when we had the first presidential election without the protection of the VRA...look what happened.
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."I was talking specifically about why we hear about Bernie Bros here.
Sure and that remains a solid complaint, though I'm curious as to if that's still ongoing.
Not your hatred in of itself, but you do tend to let your hatred fo Sanders out rather often and you're not the only one.
On the subject fo Hillary running again, I don't think it would be worth it for her (she deserves a quiet retirement at this point) or for the Democrats in general (Hillary's name is so tarnished that I think she'd just do more harm than good for the Dems nationally), plus the kind of offices she'd run for are ones that it would be good to be used by up and comers who can deepen the Democrat bench.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranIt is.
Eh? Unless my memory is faulty, I don't recall having a constant habit of expressing hatred of Sanders. I remember basically making a few snarky comments about him now and then, and that's about it.
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."
I voted for Sanders in the primary, and Clinton in the main. I didn't expect him to win, but I thought he was good for pushing Clinton further to the left economically. I think my main beef with him is his "both sides are the same." I'm pretty sure Sanders didn't really believe it, because he was running as a Democrat and not Green/Independent, but my Facebook feed was filled with Sanders fans who took it to heart. I don't hate the guy, but that both sides bullshit needs to die, and he was a fool for feeding it.
So, I looked at Dan Coats's wikipedia page. He was part of a push for gun control, and opposed gays and lesbians. He tried to cut taxes for "middle class" families, whatever means in this America. He was banned from Russia after pushing President Obama for harsher sanctions against Putin.
I feel like I'm missing something here. Is this some kind of eleven-dimensional chess from Trump's inner circle? Is Trump trying to deflect people from pointing out he's Putin's puppet? Is Coats one of those anti-Russian politicians who have done a one-eighty now that the Republicans are in power? Or is Trump picking names from a goddamn hat?
edited 8th Jan '17 3:40:18 PM by JBC31187
@JBC 31187: All of the above. Also, Coates appears to be an opponent of Obama on principle, so that might be all it takes to get a job, along with toeing the company line.
edited 8th Jan '17 3:40:49 PM by ViperMagnum357
<coughs>
edited 8th Jan '17 3:41:27 PM by TerminusEst
Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele
What, where? The closest thing I found is
Writer Jeff Sharlet did intensive research in the Fellowship's archives before they were closed to the public. He also spent a month in 2002 living in a Fellowship house near Washington, and wrote a magazine article describing his experiences.[19] According to his 2008 book about the Family,[3] he criticizes their theology as an "elite fundamentalism" that fetishizes political power and wealth, consistently opposes labor movements in the US and abroad, and teaches that laissez-faire economic policy is "God's will." He opines that their theological teaching of instant forgiveness has been useful to powerful men, providing them a convenient excuse for misdeeds or crimes and allowing them to avoid accepting responsibility or accountability for their actions.[30]
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.I have an uncle like that.
He is scum.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.If you ignore the one unnecessary potshot about "Identity Politics", this article says some very interesting things
.
Re: HRC's future. I think it's probably best if she just lives a quiet retirement. America, the ungrateful and barbaric beast that it is, throws so much shit her way that on humanitarian grounds alone, a future political career is probably a bad idea. Plus, the electorate is so completely obsessed with bringing in "new blood" — whatever that means — that an old hand will always be looked down on.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."Honestly, Clinton could become a vengeful super villain and I'd still find it hard to fault her after what happened these past few decades. Her withdrawing from politics, giving the American electorate the finger and enjoying the rest of her life would be totally understandable.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
She's definitely done that, at least. There's been a wave of women who have been inspired to run for office, both by her example and the outrage that was her loss. One of the few potentially good things to come of all this.
Meryl Streep just gave a speech about Trump and the future at the Golden Globes.
While Benedict Donald isn't mentioned by name, there's no question who she's talking about, especially as she condemns him for his infamous mockery of Serge Kovaleski's disability. She also emphasizes the diversity of Hollywood's most famous actors, and points out that without them, our arts would not be what they are.
She makes too many good points for me to sum up here. Which is why she's now being blasted by the right. I've seen people unironically saying that "people like this is why Trump won!"
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."It's not just backwards, it's complete horseshit, coming from a pack of narrow-minded assholes. Streep was eloquent, respectful, and compassionate in her speech. All the things they hate.
I mean, remember what happened when the cast of Hamilton gave a very respectful, very polite address to Pence, asking him to be the VP of all Americans? Trump and his stormtroopers lost their shit.
"How dare you ask me to stop hitting you!"
edited 8th Jan '17 7:58:17 PM by RBluefish
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."

Did we already talk about Dan Coats being the Director of National Intelligence
? Which is...interesting.
edited 8th Jan '17 2:59:44 PM by TerminusEst
Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele