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
Absolutely. Good ol' Dick. He doesn't seem so bad in hindsight.
I've heard people put it this way - Nixon was evil, but not ignorant. Bush was ignorant, but not evil.
Trump is both. And a whole lot of other things as well.
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."It should, but it won't.
The extent it would take to snap them out of their delusions would be literally apocalyptic. And it won't matter to them, because that's what they want anyways!
Remember, these are the people who voted enthusiastically for him after he promised to ban and register an entire religion, build a literal wall to keep out the brownskins, and incarcerate his political opponents. They voted for a fascist, and they knew what they were buying when they did.
Seriously, if Tiananmen Square or something similar happens here, almost as sickening as the event itself will be seeing the number of people who rejoice over Trump "sticking it to SJWs."
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."If I'm being honest, though, what I'm more worried about is another 9/11. Given the level of gross incompetence present in our future leaders, and the emboldened nature of various terrorist organizations, it feels almost inevitable. Or, even worse, once could be staged as a false-flag operation, by Russia - or even Trump's people. They're so evil at this point, I wouldn't rule it out.
And once that happens, all bets are off. Martial law, war, and internment of US citizens all seem like likely prospects at that point.
As it stands, things are stable enough that they might not easily give way to fascism. But in a time of crisis? Particularly a crisis engineered for exactly that goal?
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."![]()
I'd hesitate before going that far. Accusing those kinds of atrocities as being deliberately engineered or permitted (as has long been claimed about Pearl Harbor, for example), is best left in the realm of conspiracy theorists.
Such a tragedy is far more likely to result from the same kind of incompetence that led to 9/11 in the first place.
edited 11th Jan '17 9:16:43 PM by Eschaton
Mm.
In other news, I can't recall this being posted before, so - Hillary gave a brief speech the other day,
in which she directly stated that democracy is under attack.
The brief address one of just a few public appearances Clinton has made since conceding the presidential race.
"Democracy, freedom and the rule of law are under attack around the world. A rising tide of authoritarian and illiberalism threatens that foundation of the post [World War II] global era that American diplomats have built and defending since Marshall and Acheson," the former secretary of State said.
Between this, and Obama directly calling out fascism in his farewell address (as well as trying to inspire the common citizen to action), I'm glad to see some of our leaders are trying to raise the alarm. It seems to me that complacency is incredibly dangerous in times like these.
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."![]()
So basically Hanlon's Razor?
TBH, the sheer incompetence I am expecting from this new administration is my biggest concern. Not my only concern, but still.
edited 11th Jan '17 9:40:18 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedThat's also something of a cold comfort, though. I should clarify that my main fear is just a major crisis of some sort, which could come from any number of sources (and I apologize if I was sounding like a conspiracy theorist there). Even a natural disaster could have serious consequences on the political scene - look what happened with Katrina.
This is potentially good news - Eric Holder to Lead Democrat's Attack On Republican Gerrymandering.
One topic of urgent concern, according to people briefed on the meeting: how to break the Republican Party's iron grip on the congressional map.
Thwarted for much of his term by a confrontational Republican Congress, and criticized by his fellow Democrats for not devoting sufficient attention to their down-ballot candidates, Mr. Obama has decided to make the byzantine process of legislative redistricting a central political priority in his first years after the presidency.
Emerging as Mr. Obama's chief collaborator and proxy is Eric H. Holder Jr., the former attorney general of the United States and a personal friend of the president. He has signed on to lead the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, a newly formed political group aimed at untangling the creatively drawn districts that have helped cement the Republican Party in power in Washington and many state capitals.
In an interview this week at Covington & Burling, the Washington law firm where he is now in private practice, Mr. Holder, 65, said that he and Mr. Obama believe Republicans have undermined the political system by creating a patchwork of legislative maps — at both the state and federal levels — that are designed to stifle the will of voters.
Echoing a number of Mr. Obama's top advisers, Mr. Holder described fighting Republican gerrymandering as a "primary concern" for the president once he leaves the White House.
"He thinks, and I think, that this is something that threatens our democracy," Mr. Holder said. "We have a system now where the politicians are picking their voters, as opposed to voters making selections about who they want to represent them."
[...]
The next round of congressional redistricting is still years away, after the next decennial census in 2020. But the officials drawing the maps in most states will be chosen in elections well before then, starting with the election for governor in Virginia this year.
Democrats ruefully acknowledge now that before the 2010 census, riding high after Mr. Obama's 2008 victory and seemingly secure in their hold on Congress, they were far less prepared than Republicans in gearing up for legislative reapportionment. The Republican Party mounted a ferocious state-by-state campaign that gave it overwhelming control of redistricting, allowing it to lock in many victories in the 2010 midterm elections.
In the run-up to 2020, Democrats say, their goal in many places will be not to seize control of redistricting, but merely to capture one or two key offices to keep Republicans from locking them out of the process. Right now, there are 25 states in which Republicans control the whole government — the governorship and the legislature — versus just six wholly controlled by Democrats.
Mr. Holder said his initiative would unfold on three fronts: In court, where Democrats will challenge Republican-drawn maps they see as violating the law; on the campaign trail, where they will seek to win offices that influence redistricting; and through ballot referendums in states that allow voters to give direct approval to laws mandating new procedures for legislative apportionment.
Mr. Holder said he was also prepared to take an unaccustomed leap into electoral politics, campaigning for candidates around the country who can affect the redistricting process. A career prosecutor, Mr. Holder has quickly emerged as a leading figure in Democratic efforts to fight Mr. Trump; he has been retained by the Democratic-led California Legislature to help in any battles with the Trump administration.
The success of the new effort will depend in part on whether the newfound appetite among Democrats for confronting gerrymandering can be sustained as more attention turns to what will be a wide-open presidential primary, the sort of glamorous campaign that often attracts the most attention from liberal donors at the expense of less-sexy party building efforts. Republican donors have typically been more attentive to state elections; they are expected to pour money into defending the party's hold on power outside of Washington.
Sounds like Eric Holder is a name I might need to remember for the future. I'm glad to see that this, as well as voting rights, is getting some serious focus from the Dem leadership.
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."Welp.
Evil won.
New Survey coming this weekend!Your average Trump voter thinks the ACA and Obamacare are different things. And when they're told "no, they are literally the exact same thing," they yell "FAKE NEWS" and run away. (Seriously.) Selling it to their base will be pitifully easy.
Although I hear that one motive the Dems had in tonight's vote was to actually force each and every GOP senator to vote on specific parts of the ACA. In other words, it's now public record that every GOP senator (sans Paul) voted for Americans to lose coverage for preexisting conditions, for children to no longer be covered on their parents' health care plans, etc. It's a damn awkward spot for them to be in when it's all broken down in public like that, and it may give the Dems more ammunition down the line.
Also, as this reporter
points out, there are still plenty of steps the GOP still need to successfully complete before they can accomplish their noble goal of killing thousands of Americans in exchange for high-income tax cuts. But I'm still not optimistic. People have been talking for weeks about how the GOP's plan to repeal Obamacare is going to come crashing down any day now, and it hasn't happened yet. Every damn Republican senator (sans Paul) voted against it today. I see no reason to think that's going to change.
... Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it just me, or does only a minority of your country's people seem to have the guts to participate in civil disobedience/resistance against the government? Because the Occupy protests mobilized tens to hundreds of thousands over comparatively much less than what's happening now / threatening to start happening after a week from now.
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.I'm sure part of it is due to the fact that the government has not yet been officially handed over. Another part is that there is so much bullshit that I doubt there is enough manpower, let alone willpower, to combat it.
In regards to Occupy specifically, a lot of that movement was incorporated in Sanders' campaign. And considering that the last major protest against the Republicans (the election itself) failed, it will take time to re-organize. And there are still more contemporary protest movements that carry weight, such as Standing Rock.
However, this is precisely the kind of thing that will be stamped out first, since the next administration (and their supporters) have made it very clear that they have no respect for dissent of any kind. And considering that both protesting and policing are national issues, that is where I fear the (domestic) body count will start.
America has a problem where the common folk think that America is special and immune to tyranny, which leads to political apathy and a resistance to getting off their asses and marching. Protests have also been stereotyped as something only overly sensitive and overly dramatic people who can't deal with reality participate in.
![]()
![]()
If I were in the shootee's places, I'd glady respond in kind. They want a bloodbath with me as the victim? Then they're going down with me.
![]()
Ah yes, the oh-so-WONDERFUL American exceptionalism complex. -_-
Easy: It's the Confederacy that was being tyrannical, not the Union.
edited 12th Jan '17 12:12:01 AM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

TBF, if I had to choose between Nixon and Trump for President right now, I'd vote for Nixon in a heartbeat.
Disgusted, but not surprised