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
JFK did come out in support of Civil Rights and helped pushed the bill that Lyndon B Johnson would later support and sign off on.
They're also the guys that alienated the southern democrats 'causing that mass of villainy and scum to migrate to the Republicans who couldn't keep a handle on them like the Democrats could.
I still think it's dangerous for people to assume we'll have free and fair elections come 2020, as though this is all just business as usual, but from a theoretical perspective there are two prospective candidates who have a fair amount of buzz around them: Kirsten Gillibrand and Kamala Harris. Gillibrand because she's voted against nearly every one of Trump's cabinet nominees (making her unique among the Senate Dems), which is a pretty nice claim to be able to make in the primaries. And Harris because she seems like she has the potential to be another Obama.
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."Harris is gonna have to be popular as hell to get the nomination. A Californian as blue as they come is going to have an uphill struggle in the swing states more than anyone else just for the crime of being a Californian. We're the super coastal liberal elite people over there love to complain about.
It's true. That "liberal coastal elite" stink is hard to shake, as ridiculous as it is.
Also, for those who may be feeling beaten-down or hopeless, a list of all the things The Resistance has accomplished in the last twelve days.
![]()
A general term for the opponents of the Trump administration, I presume.
Not a fan of the name?
edited 31st Jan '17 4:43:04 PM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!There is one, you know. We got Chuck Shumer to grow a spine.
The next President, and any progressive candidate for any office, will have to have a realistic job growth strategy that will benefit everyone. Really, we have to figure out how to reconnect our roots in the working class.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.But would they be able to rescue him from ninjas?
edited 31st Jan '17 4:58:32 PM by HextarVigar
Your momma's so dumb she thinks oral sex means talking dirty.There's an extent to which anyone with Trump's seal of approval should be looked at with suspicion, but there aren't any obvious red flags with this guy. He's a conservative, but that's to be expected.
Don't think it would be that great an idea to spend a lot of time and resources trying to block him. That's a battle they'd probably lose, and the effort is better spend on more obviously horrible things.
For those who think he's fine, here's an (ongoing) thread listing some of the stances he's taken in the past.

Enter The Civil Service: To resist or not, the federal employee’s dilemma
It's fitting that the much-maligned civil service alone amongst federal institutions is openly contemplating their role in protecting the constitution in these interesting times. Then again:
More precisely, when, if ever, do federal employees have the right to disregard a presidential order or administration policy?
...civil servants don’t make policy, they implement it. And deciding to defy even an illegal order is risky. While the resisting employee might be right on the law, the danger of revenge is major, particularly from an administration led by a man whose New York-size ego seems unable to countenance criticism or admit error.
In an informal email survey, federal employees and retirees were cautious, with some, but not all, saying they would refuse an illegal order.
“I can disagree with the policy, but once the decision is made I owe the people an apolitical response — or resign,” said Ray Levesqu, a Defense Department employee. Doing otherwise, “would violate the public trust of an apolitical civil service system that MUST serve any president whether we agree with his/her policies or not.”
Current employees willing to resist were not willing to acknowledge it openly, given the risk of reprisal.
“I am sick to my stomach and have trouble sleeping already over this ‘President’ and his misguided ‘policies,’” said one worker who did not want to be identified. “The major concern I believe I and other government employees have is the carelessness and impulsiveness with which life-changing decisions are being made without debate or common sense at the highest level of government. … Yes I will disregard ill-conceived policy. But not to the extent of losing my livelihood. I have bills to pay like everyone else.”
Another who would resist, depending how the order “affected the world in general,” was succinct about Trump: “He ain’t the boss of me.”
edited 31st Jan '17 4:13:57 PM by CenturyEye
Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our lives