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
Actually, a poll awhile ago showed some of the GOP base had decisively turned against a free media Plus the WH doesn't need an amendment. They just need to put a case in front of the Gop-Trumpist majority on SCOTUS and have it interpret "clear and present" danger" very widely. Defending your right to speak out.
Disclaimer: None of this means I think those are overtly probable. But since they're giving their guy less scrutiny, the GOP could easily overlook indirect encroachments on open society (like Trump refusing to answer questions, or skipping a dinner, or trying to silence the administrative agencies).
EDIT: And now that I think of it, this exact case has happened. The US had a seditious libel law in the past, that all but annihilated the party that passed it at the polls and was declared unconstitutional...eventually.
edited 30th Apr '17 5:05:44 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 livesThe conservative members of the Supreme Court have their limits. Just recently they balked at the idea that Trump could casually take away an immigrants citizenship. I can't imagine Justice Roberts ever considering doing something to the First Amendment just because Trump is throwing another tantrum.
Ah, prop 13. It turned California's education system into garbage since property taxes are meant to help finance public schools.
It's also a good example of how direct democracy can go awry since it was the people that voted in this this directly. A lot of people didn't get how that worked at the time. They saw just less taxes and jumped on it.
Nowadays are ballot initiatives come with some explanations of what they do and the possible consequences.
edited 30th Apr '17 5:14:11 PM by MadSkillz
x6 Nope; No amount of Conservative Justices would ever make Freedom of Speech that limited. Simply criticizing the President will never be considered a threat, because that is exactly what the Founders intended with the First Amendment. Since most Conservative Justices follow the Textualist/Originalist interpretation of the Constitution (IE, doing what the Founders wanted or wrote), they would never be like "You can't insult the President! That's dangerous!"
And no political Party would ever get rid of any of the Bill of Rights amendments. To do so would not only be politically suicidal, but it would basically destroy this nation's foundation, and not even the Republicans in Congress want to do that (yet).
edited 30th Apr '17 5:19:34 PM by DingoWalley1
![]()
Assuming that Trump truly believes in Democracy, Trump cares about his power. He doesn't mind Democracy and the Courts/Press if they work with him but if they don't I'm sure he would love the ability to throw them into a gulag/concentration camp. But I would be very surprised if he is the only person who feels that way, others (especially the ones in power) are just smart enough never to be as blatant as Trump is.
x 3 Oh, I don't doubt it (that's what the disclaimer is for), and the note to the past. The Federalists tried it w/o decades of jurisprudence behind the amendment and were wiped out in the next election.
Also, @Mad Skillz, reasonable people may differ, but I'd contend that referenda =/= direct democracy.
edited 30th Apr '17 5:34:10 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
What would it be if not Direct Democracy? People were voting on the issues directly and chose the sexier option that hurt them, sounds like Direct Democracy to me.
edited 30th Apr '17 5:33:06 PM by Fourthspartan56
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangThe print media might be willing to go there but the likes of cable news wouldn't, they are desperate for Trump's approval, they wouldn't dare challenge him.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranTrump claims he made China stop manipulating their currency the first day he was in office.
Even though China actually stopped devaluing the Yuan in 2014.
The Delusions of Grandeur... They hurt me mentally...
![]()
![]()
Well: They simplify complex decisions—remember a referendum does not have procedures for formal discussion, often are little more than a way for elected officials to avoid being accountable for decisions, and they're quite vulnerable to chance elements (rain, disinterest, diffuse cost)—remember a vote split something like 51-49 or similar actually means the populace has no majority opinion, which is an excellent evidence that the debate wasn't presented well or that the populace wasn't as involved as it should've been.
Plus, on the first issue, a referendum is a single question that can be presented as, (for example in GA): "do you support ensuring your child's future and a better education through passing amendment x?" Even if well written, you really cannot do anything beyond yes/no at that stage. (Important as a co-production would certainly result in a very different bill and probably a less divided populace after it was over).
There are other problems—and VQ and I went back and forth starting here
note ...I could go into more note . In any case, I'd happily discuss referenda here (General Politics)
. I make no secret that I consider them among the worst ways to make a decision, but I don't know how much space that discussion might take up in this thread...
edited 30th Apr '17 5:57:17 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 livesFor something completely different: People outside the U.S. hate Trump. Will they punish their leaders for working with him?
During the presidencies of Richard Nixon and George W. Bush, nations faced similar dilemmas, but given Trump’s known susceptibility to ingratiation and penchant for revenge, they have had to tread especially carefully.
Just ask Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto. Last August, even as Trump was bashing Mexicans on the campaign trail, Peña Nieto hosted the candidate in Mexico City, hoping to stake out a patch of common ground on bilateral issues. But instead of rewarding their president for his diplomatic outreach, Mexicans — some of whom had taken to whacking piñatas made in Trump’s likeness — condemned Peña Nieto for legitimizing their tormenter. Adding to the humiliation, just hours after Trump returned from Mexico City, he gave a fiery speech on immigration in which he doubled down on his pledge to build a border wall. So intense was the political fallout that Peña Nieto’s closest ally — Luis Videgaray, the finance minister who engineered Trump’s visit — was forced to resign. Already deeply disliked because of various scandals and economic woes, Peña Nieto saw his approval rating fall to 12 percent, a historic low.
Japan, too, found itself in Trump’s crosshairs during the campaign ...but the Japanese have given their leader far less grief for sucking up. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe perceived that flattery goes a long way with Trump. (It certainly worked for Vladimir Putin.) ...Abe became the first foreign leader to meet the president-elect when he made the pilgrimage to Trump Tower in New York. There, he presented Trump with an offering: a $3,800 golf driver inlaid with gold. ...In the end, Abe got what he had come for: a public reaffirmation of the U.S. commitment to defend Japan.
Trump is profoundly unpopular among Japanese; they preferred Clinton over him 60 percent to 3 percent. But recognizing that their country is entirely dependent on the United States for its defense against China, they appreciated Abe’s outreach. Newspapers celebrated his “home run,” and one poll found that 70 percent of Japanese approved of how Abe handled the visit. (It probably helped that, unlike with Mexicans, Trump never accused them of being rapists.)
In late January, British Prime Minister Theresa May went to the White House...She left clutching Trump’s hand.
Later that day, Trump signed his travel ban — controversial in the United States, radioactive in Britain. Initially refusing to condemn it, May eventually relented under criticism, calling it “divisive and wrong.” But by then, a petition to rescind the invitation to Trump (“because it would cause embarrassment to Her Majesty the Queen”) had garnered 1.8 million signatures, and protesters had assembled outside No. 10 Downing Street. Members of Parliament, including fellow Tories, raked her over the coals
Just 15 percent of Germans consider Trump “competent,” which could be problematic for Merkel, who has to play nice with her country’s biggest export market. At the White House, she affected an air that the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung characterized as “not warm, but not distant.” And this past week, on a panel in Berlin, she sat silently as a crowd booed Ivanka Trump for praising her father. German voters will decide in September whether to anoint Merkel to a fourth term, and for now, she is leading the polls.
In effect, the Trump era has given opposition leaders around the world an unfair advantage. When Mulcair confronted Trudeau in Parliament for refusing to denounce the travel ban, the prime minister pointed out that unlike Mulcair, he had a “double role.” Or, as May quipped when Jeremy Corbyn pursued the same line of argumentation, “He can lead a protest; I’m leading a country.”
It would be arrogant to assume that U.S. relations will dominate any foreign campaign, but on the margins, various races could see a Trump effect. Corbyn might needle May about Trump in debates before the elections in June. In New Zealand, one columnist predicted that Prime Minister Bill English’s equivocations over Trump could cost him the election scheduled for September. In Germany, it’s conceivable that Schulz’s ability to energize voters with his anti-Trump rhetoric could give him the edge over Merkel.
The clearest impact can be seen in Mexico. The early favorite in the presidential election scheduled for next year is Andrés Manuel López Obrador, a left-wing populist whose success derives in part from his willingness to insult Trump, raising the prospect of a less-friendly government on America’s southern border.
Interesting look at yesterday's climate march.
http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/indigenous-communities-lead-massive-peoples-climate-march-dc
https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/524865/
edited 30th Apr '17 8:21:18 PM by megaeliz
Honestly, Trudeau might win points for taking on Trump. When an unpopular Republican is in the Oval Office, anti-Americanism tends to simmer in Canada. Doesn't help that Trump is hitting literally every negative American stereotype we have. And that means easy political points for a Liberal government (a Conservative one has to be careful, lest they get equated with the GOP). Standing strong on Trump's rhetoric, and not submitting to his outrageous demands on trade, will go a long way.
edited 30th Apr '17 8:26:16 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Just in case anyone plans to call their reps over Trumpdontcare mark #2, here's a great list of things to say. Written by an actual doctor, who opposes it.
http://www.istrumpcarestilldead.com/advocacy-tools/things-you-can-tell-your-gop-rep-about-the-acha/
edited 30th Apr '17 8:44:39 PM by megaeliz
edited 30th Apr '17 8:43:14 PM by DingoWalley1
good riddance
Ben and Jerry's employees went to the climate march. Who woulda thought?
http://www.benjerry.com/whats-new/2017/04/climate-march-inspiring#.WQXUfRQseaQ.twitter

California does have a train system that connects all the big cities on the coast together along with anything in the way. I would know. I ride it all the time.
And Governor Jerry Brown is currently trying to build a high speed bulletin train that skips LA and instead goes through inland California as a way to connect inner-California with the rest of the state.
edited 30th Apr '17 5:04:23 PM by MadSkillz