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
@NoName: Honestly, I'd say it's far less of a problem for Obama than it was for (Hillary) Clinton because his career as a public official is seemingly over, whereas Clinton was more or less known to be planning another run for the Presidency since the end of the democratic primaries in 2008. Had she opted to remain a private citizen, it would have remained a non-issue, and now that she's seemingly retiring from politics, it is once again a non-issue.
edited 26th Apr '17 7:49:56 AM by CaptainCapsase
More or less this. And like it or not Democrats are held to a greater degree of scrutiny over this sort of thing and should take greater care not to appear corrupt.
While I broadly agree with what she says I actually think she is being a little too generous with Republicans about Merrick Garland. I think it's safe to say that Republicans would have rejected any candidate Obama put forth for the Supreme Court regardless of how much money was involved.
edited 26th Apr '17 8:05:45 AM by Mio
From Moderate GOP to Neo-Nazi in Record Time: Youth of America's Tomorrow
But there’s something else about Kevin: He’s a self-described fascist who serves as a national recruiter for an emerging white nationalist organization.
American Vanguard advocates for a “Muslim-free America” and for white people to “take your country back.”
The way Kevin describes it, it didn’t happen overnight. “I used to be a regular conservative,” he said. His first brush with politics was campaigning alongside his dad for Mitt Romney, a middle-of-the-road Republican, in the 2012 presidential election.
Then Trump came along.
As his campaign progressed, Trump dragged Kevin and countless others toward right-wing radicalization with his nationalistic rhetoric and tales of Mexican rapists and murderers flooding the streets and taking jobs away from Americans like Kevin’s parents, who worked in a manufacturing plant until the plant relocated to Belgium.
“I became fed up because [Republicans] were failing to push our agenda against the Obama administration,” Kevin said. “Alt right is a rejection of mainstream conservatism. I’m now a right-wing authoritarian.”
We communicated in February the day after Trump gave a rousing speech in Florida in which he touched upon familiar themes: the “lying” media and criminal undocumented immigrants who should get “the hell out of here.”
“I thought it was one of his best speech[es],” Kevin said. He posted a handful of memes that day: One depicts an abstract image of Trump’s face with glowing eyes above a quote that says “I am growing stronger.” The caption reads, in all caps, “LONG LIVE THE TRUMP EMPIRE.”
And here's the stinger: Debating them just validates their views
Researching both sides isn’t necessarily the key to avoiding radicalization, though, experts say. A lot of times it just reinforces what a person already believes.
“I think that we have to acknowledge that the kinds of information that appeals to the alt-right is about ideas these individuals already believed in,” said Michael Stefanone, a communications professor at the University of Buffalo who specializes in social media and social psychology. “The difference now is that these alt-right news sources are treated as legitimate, and are effectively drowning out information coming from reputable journalistic enterprises. They’re taking over the conversation.”
edited 26th Apr '17 8:18:38 AM by NoName999
So I see the last few pages basically boiled down to a member of the thread going "how dare Obama make money". To which I say—who cares? Seriously, why should I care how much money Obama makes? Why should I care about how much money any politician makes? Sure, if someone—like say, a certain guy from Vermont—makes not being one of the 1% a part of their whole platform it might be worth talking about, but other than that? I do not give a good goddamn.
@ 10 districts: Yes! Dana Rohrabacher is long overdue for retirement. (So, are Purdue and Isakson, but California has no excuse for its nuts).
This does a bit of preaching to the choir here, but tis also the clearest way I've seen it written.
The Wall epitomizes the Trump approach to politics
Donald Trump knows it. He knows it better than anyone. He knows that The Wall represents his covenant, his mutual pledge of faith to the people with the red MAGA hats on their heads and the adoring looks on their faces. The promise to build the Wall embodies his promise to serve as their protector and shield against unwanted outside influences.
Against immigrants. Against imported goods, imported ideas. Against demographic change and economic change. Trump would stop all that, and The Wall would be tangible proof of that commitment.
“People want the border wall,” as Trump told the Associated Press. “My base definitely wants the border wall, my base really wants it — you’ve been to many of the rallies. OK, the thing they want more than anything is The Wall.”
His base does want it. In poll after poll, large majorities of Americans reject the idea of a wall. They understand the futility and expense of it, and they want no part of it. But a consistent minority — 37 percent in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll — say they support it. Twenty-five percent say they support it strongly. That is the Trump base, the people to whom Trump feels a real connection, affection and obligation. They give him what he needs, which is adoration. And he owes them The Wall in return.
“I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters,” Trump has bragged, and he’s probably right. But abandon The Wall? That might be different.
The Wall would protect; it would divide and separate, us from them. It would do more than just prevent the flow of drugs and immigrants across the border, because in fact it would do none of those things. The Wall would make a statement.
That over there? That’s their side; this is our side.
And the fact that Mexico would pay for The Wall?
That has always been about power, about the joy of imposing our will upon and humiliating a weaker neighbor. The pledge to make Mexico pay for The Wall, which Trump still insists will happen, was about far more than finding the pesos for the construction costs. At the emotional level where this all found resonance, making them pay for the wall was about making “them” pay for a whole slew of perceived acts of disrespect against America, not just by Mexico but by the entire world.
The Mexicans understood all that — humiliation is not a subtle thing. They got it. And when, as a matter of national pride, Mexican leaders categorically refused to pay for The Wall, you no doubt remember Trump’s smug response.
“The Wall just got 10 feet taller, believe me. It just got 10 feet taller.”
And you probably also remember the raucous, gleeful response.
But in the end, here’s another way in which The Wall epitomizes all, because there will be no wall. Unable to generate support from Democrats in Congress and from a number of Republicans as well, Trump says he will delay his push to fund The Wall until September.
But September will come and September will go and there will still be no wall, for the same reason there’s no Nigerian prince wanting to put $10 million into your bank account.
Yes, The Wall is a symbol of the intolerance of the body politic that supports it. Their insularity, their inability to cope with change, with new ideas. Their idealization of a fantasy past in which things were good for them.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Indeed...
Also, is this believable?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-popular-politician_us_58f921f2e4b018a9ce599bde?ncid=engmodushpmg00000004
![]()
![]()
That's because nobody in the primaries pointed out that his track record is largely ineffectual
.
If every other Democratic primary candidate pointed out that Sanders' crowning achievement as a lawmaker appears to be renaming a post office, that he is very much the elite he rails against, and his wife getting a $200K golden parachute for driving a college into debt it could not repay, things would be very different. And they will be should he run again.
edited 26th Apr '17 10:31:24 AM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotThat's not even getting into that whole "not in my backyard" thing with the nuclear waste
Also, some Trump ignorance for laughs, courtesy WTF Just Happened Today:
Trump attacks “ridiculous” 9th circuit judge who blocked his order to deny federal funding to “sanctuary cities.” Judge William Orrick doesn’t sit on the 9th circuit. He sits on the court of the Northern District of California, which appeals to the 9th circuit.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/26/trump-tweets-sanctuary-cities-237620
edited 26th Apr '17 10:40:35 AM by sgamer82
Probably because it's too old and not really statistically significant. And the metric that Krieger cites is not that ... effectual at gauging a lawmaker's performance.
I personally guess that Sanders does not evoke negative reactions to the degree that Trump, Obama and Hillary do.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman![]()
Among the far left. The far left does not actually go wading into Bible Belt coffee shop talk as far as I know. Of course, it could just be that they actually do agree with said coffee shop goers about people who aren't white..
And there we have it: The Trump tax reform plan
.
edited 26th Apr '17 10:47:34 AM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot*looks at tax plan outline* Dafuq is the "death tax"? There's no such tax on the books.
If you want to repeal the tax on massive inheritances, then just fucking say "estate tax" instead of inventing a fake tax to crusade against.
And by and large, it's just a standard GOP "coddle the rich until the confidence fairy uses her magic want to make the economy boom forever and never bust until a filthy cuck democrat takes office and smothers all the confidence with their communism" tax plan.

I think I've safely confirmed my assumption that, indeed, only one person here really cares about Obama giving speeches.