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
I think people are a little too quick to pivot to racism and sexist accusations when they perceive what they feel are unjust comments on a person who is a woman or a minority.
Are there a lot of racist and sexist criticism against Obama and Hillary? Yep but not every criticism is racially-charged nor gender-based.
edited 27th Apr '17 3:34:02 PM by MadSkillz
Ah, so we're going to forget the DISCLOSE Act, and how it was ONE VOTE away from passing.
And? Just because a bank is "large" doesn't mean it's inherently bad and the reason the banks are so large is because they had to buy a ton of banks during the financial crisis because a lot of smaller banks were collapsing.
TPP was an extremely complicated Trade Deal which was pushed almost solely because the Obama Admin wanted to knee cap China's rise before it started. And with the TPP failed, guess what? Chinese are busy behind the scenes making trade deals with nearly every country in SE. Asia, the very thing the administration wanted to prevent. Yay?
He tried during his first week of being inaugurated. Guess who blocked him? Congress did. Guess who was among those who voted to block him from closing it? Bernie Sanders.
What closeness to Wall Street? Because they gave him money for his campaign? And are you seriously trying to say that the Tea Party (which was funded by the Koch brothers) was started because of Obama's wall street ties? Really? It wasn't the transparent racism? Well I'll be fucking damned.
New Survey coming this weekend!So no all ciritisism got paid speeches isn't based on racism or sexism, it goes all the way back to Ford deciding to do paid post-presidency speeches and has gone from democrats like Carter in the past.
But were those criticisms being commonly levied at them by nominal members of their own side of the political spectrum, or only by the opposing wing?
I think people are a little too quick to pivot to racism and sexist accusations when they perceive what they feel are unjust comments on a person who is a woman or a minority.
The point being made by the earlier article that set this all off again wasn't that anyone criticizing Obama for speaking fees is racist. It's going back to one of the common problems with the Sanders wing: even if it's not racism, it is, at best, utterly tone deaf to racial optics, and does a lot of damage to the party's outreach to minorities, especially in this case blacks.
This is one of the things we just keep coming back to with Sanders and his supporters, and their version of progressivism that throws social progress on the backburner in favor of a myopic focus on economic progress. Economic justice alone does not address social injustice, and by constantly framing their economic justice narrative in ways that appear to erase or even condemn aspects of social justice (condemning the DNC for too much "identity politics," the constant pleas to appeal more to the WWC when the Dems have already done literally everything but throw minorities under the bus, now criticisms of Obama for making money in a completely conventional way that many of their own "true progressive" darlings aren't entirely clean of, etc.), they are presenting an increasing risk of driving a wedge between the party and minority voting blocs that make up critical parts of the Democratic coalition.
At best, they are creating terrible optics that marginalize minorities, which is absolutely something we don't need when the other side of the aisle is being about as openly racist as they like. Yeah, it's not like those minority blocs are going to switch sides, but they sure aren't going to show up to vote Blue like we need them to. Not if we're sending them the message that when push comes to shove, white people look out for white people first no matter which side of the aisle they sit on.
edited 27th Apr '17 3:58:32 PM by Wryte
Some of the broad ciritisisms stand regardless, Truman's belief that such speech making is exploitative and Carter's feeling that speech money should be given to charities seems to be a personal feeling that they had which would apply regardless of who was giving the speeches.
A lot of the specific criticism comes from the media itself and is aimed both ways.
My basic point howver is this, why is Obama not being held to the same standard that Truman and Carter held themselves to? I don't think that's an unfair question to ask, it's certainly one that I hope was asked after Bill Clinton left office.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
I'd say Obama should be held to the standards of his contemporaries more than those of politicians from a different time. So, while I personally agree with Truman or Carter's standards, and it would make him look good in my eyes if he did so, I can't really fault him for doing something that other presidents of the last few decades have also done.
That wasn't pushed by him though as far as I remember. He congratulated the bill passing the House but I don't recall him ever drumming up support. I'm thinking about this specifically:
Actually it is. Those banks are called Too-Big-Too-Fail meaning that if they go through another collapse we'll have to bail them out with taxpayer cash. Now that they own more of the banks, they'll need even more funds next time.
And I'm going to point out that banks like Citigroup used government bailout money to pay their executives off in bonuses amounting to over 5 billion dollars.
Anyways buying out small banks is partly the reason but Dodd-Frank shares the blame here too as it has been bad for small communities banks.
Let China rise. Personally, I don't think maintaining American world domination is important enough to hurt our citizens and workers.
I know that. I'm just listing a failure here. He had a good reason behind this one.
Creating a false choice. You're not going to beat terrorism with force. You're just creating more terrorists. Seriously, most Middle-Easterners think we're the number one threat to the region.
Oil subsidies doubled under Obama despite railing against the oil industry. There are certain oil subsidies that should be removed but to remove all of them unilaterally? That's dumb. Especially considering those subsidies pay for Research into renewables that...guess what? Big Oil does, too.
No, it was in part birthed by it. It's not just one factor. It's a load of other factors. If you look at the rhetoric they used though it was a mix of racism and anger at perceived corruption from Obama's administration. There were people with signs with slogans like "Where's My Bailout?"
People only pay attention to the racist and nonsensical parts but they had some legitimate grievances.
"Why do the bankers come out of the Recession richer and more powerful than before? Why aren't the people being given bailouts?"
The left could actually have legitimately organized some of these people. But instead, the Tea Party leaders who are part of the same sectors that screwed them over are organizing them for their own benefits.
Does this seem worrisome to anyone else?
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/04/25/politics/shutdown-border-wall-obamacare-congress/index.html
"If Republicans announce their intention to bring their harmful Trump Care bill to the House Floor tomorrow or Saturday, I will oppose a one-week Continuing Resolution and will advise House Democrats to oppose it as well," the No. 2 Democratic leader in the House, Steny Hoyer, said in a statement.
The battle over a government shutdown appeared to be mostly over, with the push for border wall funding sidelined and Democrats saying President Donald Trump's administration will continue paying for subsidies for low-income Americans as part of Obamacare.
I don't think the Republicans even have the votes (The Tuesday Group is against it, and so are most Senate Republicans), so I doubt a vote will happen. It may just be a warning from the Democrats if Ryan tries to pull a "We'll see who will and who won't vote on this!" like they almost did last time.
California Republicans are pledging to fight climate change.
Kinda conflicted about this. On the one hand, nice to see some state level Republicans have not lost their shit. On the other hand, they are still running on a Republican ticket that has a platform diametrically opposed to these initiatives, so I imagine this will not last long one way or another. And in the meantime, they are giving a good name to the congressional Republicans currently wiping their asses with the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
at least they give themselves some distance from Washington.
Hey guys, Have you heard of this. It's the intiaitive to get world heritage site designations for several parks and monuments. It's almost reaching it's goal of 20 thousand dollars and the people behind it caught the attention of the ACLU, who helped them figure out the next step, and find an appropriate nonprofit partner. I bring it up because of Trump's latest executive order.
https://www.gofundme.com/AltParks
edited 27th Apr '17 5:42:08 PM by megaeliz
Speaking of California:
When the bill comes before the Senate Health Committee, it will face a panel of members who have collectively received more than $357,000 in campaign donations from the groups listed as opposing the legislation. Among the top recipients are Democrats, including the Committee's Chairman Sen. Ed Hernandez, Sen. Richard Roth, and Atkins, one of the bill’s sponsors.
If the bill is passed by the Senate, it will move to the Assembly’s health committee, which is chaired by Democratic Assemblyman Jim Wood — who has received more than $42,000 from the groups opposing the bill in just the last two election cycles. Among his top contributors are union groups, like the California State Council of Service Employees, and groups from the health care industry, such as Blue Shield of California.
Wood has been noncommittal on whether he supports the single-payer proposal: He told Capitol Weekly last month that “Historically, there’s a pretty high price tag” on such an idea, and added, “If we’re going to go it alone, I hope we have a strong financing mechanism to do that. Maybe California becomes a leader on this issue.”
That sentiment was echoed by Brown, who last month told reporters, “Where do you get the extra money?” He said the single-payer concept “is called ‘the unknown by means of the more unknown’... In other words, you take a problem and say, ‘I am going to solve it by something that’s...a bigger problem,’ which makes no sense.”
During his election campaigns, Brown has received more than a quarter-million dollars from the groups opposing the bill. That includes big checks from major health industry players. Health Net gave him $54,400 for his 2014 campaign; so did Anthem and Blue Shield of California. The California Nurses Association made a smaller contribution, giving $27,200 to his 2014 campaign.
The Nurses Association is among the most powerful members of the coalition pushing the single-payer legislation. In all, labor organizations have given $9,910,621 to Senate and Assembly committee members since 2009. The state report on the bill showed more than 200 groups listed as official supporters of the bill. Whereas most of the opponents are corporate groups, most of the groups supporting the bill are progressive, labor and community groups, although some coalitions of health care providers, like the California Physicians Alliance, also support the bill.
That's a lot of damn opposition.
edited 27th Apr '17 5:09:45 PM by MadSkillz
Senate Democrats Block Temporary Spending Bill that included several "Poison Pill" Riders.
There is still a Temporary Spending Bill in the House that is going to be voted on tomorrow.
But dear lord, we might have a Government Shut Down if Tomorrow's Bill fails...
Guys, the simpsons did a take on Trump's First 100 days.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Qo3fT0xPeHs
edited 27th Apr '17 5:33:02 PM by megaeliz
The VOICE hotline being flooded with calls about space aliens: Fusion tried asking the ICE for comment, and got a pretty irate response for their trouble
.
I find it interesting that when the House Committee falters, the Senate Committee picks up steam and when the Senate Committee falters, the House Committee picks up steam. Hopefully the House doesn't start faltering until after they get Michael Flynn.
So I'll respond to a lot of this later, but Mad's assertion that Obama "killed thousands" with drone strikes? I'd love to see numbers for that. Thousands, after all, would imply, well "thousands". Multiples of 1000. Usually in excess of 3000 at the least, in fact. Got the numbers for it?
And
to the UFO people. Keep fighting the good fight.
edited 27th Apr '17 5:41:54 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
I'm gonna call and talk about those darn Word Bearers insisting on sacrificing sixty six people in MY backyard and how Erebus just refuses to go away...
edited 27th Apr '17 5:52:58 PM by NickTheSwing
![]()
![]()
Here
and here
for two examples. "Low thousands" would be more descriptive. There's also ambiguity based on how the military counts casualties, as seen in the "wrong target 90% of time
" thing.

Oh and the idea that nobody other than Obama and Hillary faced criticism for their speaking fees is false, I assume it's a falsehood that people just assumed is true due to it feeding into the narrative that all complaints about speaking fees are dogwhistle racism or sexism.
Bush junior had been noted as being one of the most prolific speech makers of modern times, Bill Clinton faced criticism for going to speaking much faster and on a much greater scale than presidents before him, Bush Senior has had his private speech making noted, escpecially how it compares to his unwillingness to speak publicly, Regan faced criticism from Carter for taking huge speaking fees after leaving the presidency. Carter himself escaped criticism by giving his fees away to charity and only speaking on rare occasions.
Ford was the first to do paid speeches after office and has been compared to previous presidents choosing to avoid doing so due to feeling that it was an exploitative practise.
So no all ciritisism got paid speeches isn't based on racism or sexism, it goes all the way back to Ford deciding to do paid post-presidency speeches and has gone from democrats like Carter in the past.
edited 27th Apr '17 3:48:51 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran