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
Worth noting that Boris Yeltsin was, in fact, working on bringing Russia into NATO. However, Yeltsin's agenda for Russia was radically different from Putin's; he did not see Russia as a global military hegemon, but as a part of the Global Liberal Democratic Team that, in The '90s, was seen as the way the world was going.
Didn't work out that way.
That said, if Russia wanted to join NATO, they'd first have to commit to playing nice with the Baltics, settle up with Ukraine, and I doubt that France or Germany would be too happy with Putin's authoritarian rule or his control of the media and elections - Poland, Hungary and Turkey are already enough of a pain in the arse.
From the @Pres Villain Twitter
I'D BOMB THE S#!&* OUT OF THEM! THERE WOULD BE NOTHING LEFT!
#PresidentSupervillain https://t.co/ECWedqNVoG
x4 There was nothing good about the election itself. It was a win for bigotry, and an embarassment to the US.
But what is good, is that forced people to wake up. To realize that democracy requires participation by it's citizens and that the fight against racism, sexism, and bigotry did not end with the civil rights movement. To say, we won't stand for bigotry, the destruction of our environment, or hypocritical policies. In the past few months people have received a crash course in civics and how congress works and hundreds of people who have never been involved suddenly have a reason.
edited 4th May '17 6:04:40 AM by megaeliz
At least my representative, Charlie Dent, opposes AHCA even though he's a Republican. I tweeted to thank him for being sensible. Make sure to contact your congressman today to let them know how you feel. If they support it, tell them there will be hell to pay when 20m+ people lose health insurance. If they oppose it, thank them. Both things are important.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I have...serious issues with the acceleratonist theory, to put it mildly. You can't take Neil Gorsuch fof the Supreme Court. The environment has already suffered badly. We're still suffering from the Reagan era's attack on workers and unions.
Acting like it's a tough winter and we all just need to tighten our belts overlooks that...no, it's very likely people will suffer and die as a result of Trump's policies. Neil Gorsuch's first act on the USSC was to vote to deny stay of execution to a disabled black man whose prosecutor was having an affair with the trial judge.
edited 4th May '17 6:26:07 AM by Lightysnake
I live is Massachusetts, so my MO Cs are all democratic.
But I can help with resource gathering
News
Tools
https://www.indivisibleguide.com/resource/48-to-save-aca
http://www.istrumpcarestilldead.com/advocacy-tools/things-you-can-tell-your-gop-rep-about-the-acha/
No, that's not the issue; see Corbyn's Labor party in the U.K. being in a perpetual state of civil war. That's precisely what would've happened if Sanders had become President, and we'd be having more or less this exact conversation in a different context.
edited 4th May '17 6:38:37 AM by CaptainCapsase
My rep opposes ACHA and has said he'd remain in opposition to it in its current form. Though, in his case it's because he's a randroid and thinks it doesn't go far enough.
edit- Darn, a more up to date statement has had him resigning to support it if it ditches the protections for pre existing conditions.
edited 4th May '17 7:11:27 AM by carbon-mantis
Both are relevant ultimately, since this is a battle over the soul of one of the major political parties and everything that stems from that. As far as the GOP's healthcare bill goes, it's unlikely to make it through the senate, and we'll be back here again in a few months for round three. I'm far more concerned about what the administration will do in the face of critically low approval ratings and rumblings about impeachment within his own party.
edited 4th May '17 6:45:51 AM by CaptainCapsase
I may very well end up bidding you guys (and life) adéu if the pre-existing condition clause gets dropped and the high risk pool idea gets passed. The only way I can get my meds on an assistance program is if I'm denied insurance, and the existence of the high risk pool (costing thousands of dollars per month to pay and well beyond any of my means even if I managed to land two jobs) means I'm technically not "denied" insurance. And the income bar for medicaid in my state is so low that means you can't qualify if you're even part-time employed.
![]()
It'd be easier to have yet another discussion of Sanders which doesn't go anywhere once people aren't distracted with the possible death of the ACA (and with it millions of Americans).
And while it is unlikely to pass the Senate...I'll breathe easier if it doesn't actually get that far.
edited 4th May '17 6:52:28 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised

Also, if he "messes up bad", like with healthcare or N. Korea, people will die.
edited 4th May '17 4:56:25 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised