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
That said, IIRC, gun sales among liberals have gone up since November.
Gee, I wonder why.
Krugman: There will be no Obamacare replacement.
Because the only alternatives to "no insurance for 30 million people" are:
- Single-payer, which can't pass.
- A three-legged stool of regulation, mandates, and subsidies.
- Regulation to require insurers to cover pre-existing conditions.
- Mandates so that healthy people don't decide not to get insurance until they're sick.
- Subsidies so that low-income people can afford insurance.
This isn't an issue of ideology. It's a matter of simple fact, which is why Republicans are having such a difficult time with it. Either they piss off their voters who insisted that they repeal Obamacare, or they kick tens of millions of people off the rolls of the insured.
edited 10th Jan '17 6:50:33 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Conservatism: If it's not broken, don't touch it.
Paleoconservatism: The above, but internationally isolationist and racist.
Neoconservatism: Conservatism, but with a huge fetish for unilaterally aggressive foreign policy. Hyperparanoid of perceived foreign influence in the same way as paleocon, but responds with outward aggression instead of battening down the hatches and siege mentality.
Ultraconservatism: Racist, misogynist, isolationist and aggressively imperial in contradictory fits of pique — one step away from fascism, and with melded corporate influence, becomes fascism. Reactionary attitude towards forthcoming and past reform. Wants to turn the clock back.
My opinion, none are logically or morally defensible — something is always broken.
edited 10th Jan '17 6:55:23 AM by CrimsonZephyr
"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."@Crimson Zephyr And of course, all of them are getting a lot of representation in the new administration.
@Fighteer I never thought before that Reality Ensues could happen in, well, reality.
edited 10th Jan '17 6:55:54 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedNeoconservatism might be back in smaller doses, but is still very much Deader Than Disco — the prevailing zeitgeist in the Trump administration is paleoconservatism, much closer to Pat Buchanan than anything else.
"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."If plain conservatism simply boils down to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", then it seems to be the Only Sane Man among the conservative spectrum of ideologies, going by the definitions in ![]()
![]()
.
edited 10th Jan '17 7:04:59 AM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.@M84: It can if one side in the political arena insists on inventing its own pocket reality that is impervious to facts.
&
Indeed. I don't mind basic conservatism; you need it to keep progressive change grounded in practicality. Hell, by some definitions I'm a conservative. I don't believe in change just for the sake of change: there has to be a solid justification for it and its consequences need to be considered.
edited 10th Jan '17 7:14:32 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Well, ideally, but the search for the ideal conservative who is open to reform and social change becomes more quixotic each year. My step-dad would tell me tales of Republicans in days of yore who were actually reasonable, but every day, it sounds more unlikely than King Arthur returning that we'd ever have one.
Honestly, part of the problem is the American obsession with centrism. You can't establish a compromise between mediocrity and insanity. Part of why I'm so adamant that every molecule of the American identity needs to be reevaluated is because our politics are unsustainable when today's Republicans are mainstream, but we can't purge the GOP from our politics until we purge what made the GOP what it is from ourselves.
edited 10th Jan '17 7:21:09 AM by CrimsonZephyr
"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."Originally, vanilla Conservatism was more like "If it isn't broke, don't fix it but if it is broke fix it slowly and keep radical change down". That position has merits as well as flaws.
The Neoconservatives are something of Fallen Heroes from a certain perspective. They grew out of the Cold War environment as an anti-realist reaction, they hated the idea that US was propping up dictatorships and wanted to spread democracy around the world instead. Of course, they rapidly mutated into something far worse than what they first opposed.
The other groups can just burn in hell though. And I'll add a few more.
Fiscal Conservatives "Fuck you, got mine."
Social Conservatives: "Everyone not like me is a filthy, degenerate subhuman."
edited 10th Jan '17 7:22:42 AM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Yeah, the reaction to institutional incompetence/inability is to fix that, whereas the modern right wants to degrade the government's capacities even further.
Honestly, the intellectual godfathers of classic conservatism are probably rolling in their graves.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.While this discussion on political philosophy is very interesting, I'd like to bring attention to this NYTimes OP-ED (copied bellow)
, because it makes the interesting point that after the intervention in the election, Russians may start hacking more boldly and more often in the future.
The world would have been aghast. It would have been, people would say, worse than Watergate.
Something similar did, in fact, happen at the D.N.C. two years ago, and it was worse than Watergate. This wasn’t just one party spying on the other; these were hackers under orders from President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia who were trying to “undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process,” according to a report released Friday by the office of the director of national intelligence. But the immediate reaction to the break-in was nothing like what followed Watergate.
That’s because most of us don’t think of hacking as a crime like breaking and entering. Before the D.N.C. break-in, I thought of hacking as a prank by mischievous tech-savvy people to get revenge. When North Koreans hacked Sony Pictures in 2014 in retaliation for making the satire “The Interview,” I was much more disturbed by the embarrassing things the movie executives said in emails to one another than by how easy it was for a dictator to punish critics in the United States. It wasn’t until I lived through the Russian hackings of Democratic staff members and organizations that I realized how dangerous such an attitude could be.
I saw it firsthand in July, when I was asked about the first wave of stolen documents on ABC’s “This Week” and CNN’s “State of the Union.” I thought it was a bombshell — Russians hacked into the Democratic National Committee! — but my alarm was dismissed by the news media and our opponents as merely campaign spin, feigned distress meant to dodge real questions about how the embarrassing messages might hurt Hillary Clinton’s prospects.
This perception has to change. I’m not referring to the D.N.C. incident in particular, but about cybercrimes in general. Unless we realize how vulnerable we are, we are playing into the hands of foreign aggressors like Mr. Putin.
The chilling effect of these attacks can be very public, and very personal. But they can also be more subtle, impeding dialogue within an organization. For all the fanfare we give the internet for freeing speech, when it is weaponized against you, it can also be used to stifle speech. At the D.N.C., certain conversations could take place only on an encrypted phone app, which made communicating more complicated logistically.
Skeptics, including President-elect Donald J. Trump, have compared the hacks to leaks to the news media. They’re not the same. A leak occurs when someone who is authorized to have information gives it to a reporter without authorization. The “Access Hollywood” video of Mr. Trump talking about assaulting women was a leak. When someone on my staff shared a memo about our campaign launch without permission, that was a leak. Leaks are frustrating, and they happen all the time.
What Mr. Putin did by dumping Democrats’ emails wasn’t a leak; it was an attack with stolen information.
Until we start to see these situations in this light, “Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the U.S.-led liberal democratic order,” as the national intelligence office report called it, will remain potent, and the democratic process will remain vulnerable. The news media needs to spend at least as much time reporting on the source of these foreign-led cybercrimes as they do on the contents.
This isn’t a partisan issue, as Republican senators like John Mc Cain and Lindsey Graham have already made clear. Mr. Putin and Kim Jong-un of North Korea aren’t registered Democrats or Republicans — they’re anti-American, and they want to hurt democracy itself. To justify what Mr. Putin did, or to blame the victim, as Mr. Trump and his staff have chosen to do, simply leaves them, and all of us, under threat, because the next attack may be aimed not at a political party, but at the White House or the Pentagon.
Of course, Americans need to do a better job protecting ourselves. Law enforcement needs to create better bridges between the intelligence services that monitor attacks and the individuals and organizations they affect. There are very few protocols for the F.B.I. and C.I.A. to alert and assist potential victims. Our democratic structures — elections equipment and officials, elected officials and candidates, activists and reporters — must be elevated as a priority.
At the time of the D.N.C. attack, water treatment plants, nuclear power plants and even casinos were on the Department of Homeland Security’s “critical infrastructure” list. Voting equipment was added last Friday, but we must do much more to protect the people who animate our democratic process. Imagine how stolen information could be (or already has been) used to influence or corrupt officeholders, or voters themselves.
Watergate inspired greater vigilance in the press and prompted major reforms to safeguard our democratic institutions. We need to do that again.
"Hey, remember when Americans voted for American leaders?" "Yeah, that was cool."
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
If that happens, I hope Argentina gets in on the act. You guys seem like a sane bunch.
edited 10th Jan '17 8:14:16 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised
We tend to go against the global trends, it makes sense we're the only country going from populism to "standard politics".
EDIT: Do note it would be in our national interests to put someone who would cut subsidies to agriculture, since that's were we compete in the global economy. Just saying in case anyone here lives off the agriculture sector.
edited 10th Jan '17 8:19:31 AM by IFwanderer
1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KVObama has always wanted a job at Spotify
On Instagram, Natalia gave a "word for word" account of her husband's chat with his former boss. "I loved visiting you in Stockholm, it was my favorite trip," he said, referring to his 2013 trip there. "I plan to go back there really soon." He went on to joke about the Spotify gig, riffing that Daniel Ek and company would want him on board "Cuz' I know y'all loved my playlist."
Well...Spotify responded.
Job Offer: President of Playlists
Spotify started in Sweden in 2006, but we’re now in over 60 countries and counting. As an organization, we are full of hope, and always open to change.
What you’ll do: Provide world-class leadership to our playlist editors and supporting staff.
Identify and substantiate new playlist ideas, e.g. from a playlist for shooting hoops with your friends, to the perfect warm up playlist for addressing the nation about health care legislation that bears your name.
Analyze data and performance of playlists in a clear and transparent manner using all available intelligence. Attend daily briefings.
Celebrate our diversity of playlists, from Viva Latino (3.4 million followers) to Rap Caviar (5.3 million followers). Who you are: Have at least eight years experience running a highly-regarded nation.
Familiar with the Spotify platform, with experience in programming playlists at a federal level.
Anything from an eclectic summer playlist, to a celebratory, “I just found my birth certificate” playlist.
Have good relationships with a wide range of artists and musicians. Ever had Kendrick Lamar play at your birthday bash? We’d love to hear about it!
Can speak passionately about playlists at press events. Let us be clear, you should be nothing short of one of the greatest speakers of all time.
A keen attention to detail and consistency. Able to work closely with other departments, so playlists can hold up to public scrutiny.
Someone with good team spirit, excellent work ethic, a friendly and warm attitude, and a Nobel Peace Prize.

Trump won't pull a Tiananmen Square because, ironically, Americans would respond to that by grabbing their guns. (Which Trump can't take away - the "da gubmint's comin' after MY GUNS" people are part of the GOP's core constituency.) And while beating the army isn't an issue, assassinating Trump in retaliation for a massacred protest is entirely possible. (At which point Pence is likely to make an insincere apology, hang a few scapegoats, and be smarter in the future.)
Yeah, I accidentally found myself supporting the old "Second Amendment is for defense against the government" argument just now. So sue me.