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
Lifespans by county
, with some interesting demographical implications:
- Appalachia and the Deep South are short lived, predictably.
- As are Oklahoma and even more so some counties in the Dakotas, not so predictably
- The south border is imperceptibly longer lived
- As are some counties in Texas which I believe coincide with the big liberal cities
- As are Wyoming's Teton County, Utah's Summit County and California's Mono and Alpine Counties. Not sure why these places are long lived. Or liberal leaning
- Three noticeable longevity belts: A diffuse one centered on southern Minnesota, two more discrete ones in coastal California from Sonoma southward and in central Colorado, following the Rocky Mountains or so it seems to me.
Go Coastal Californians! Hopefully I live at least the average of my County.
Currently the Sanders loyalists and Establishment wing are battling it out for the leadership of the Californian Democraric Party.
The Establishment candidate is currently the target of pedophilia rumors but they don't know by who. To her credit, the Sanders candidate is defending him.
We'll find out who wins on May 20th.
edited 9th May '17 2:22:21 AM by MadSkillz
I know that the Republicans are firmly in power, but if a German politician would be caught up in this kind of scandal, you can bet that its party would act knowing perfectly well that if they don't, they loose voters - as the Af D just learned when it refused to get rid of a Holocaust denier. There is always a next election after all.
Concerning TYT and other similar Youtube shows: What bothers me about them that they consider themselves as much better than the evil, cooperate media - but they actually aren't. They aren't really journalists, they are just commentator of what is already common knowledge. It is rare that they draw attention to a piece of legislative which would otherwise slip by, and there is no investigative journalism whatsoever happening. The only difference between them and the cooperate media is that they have a general "all politicians are trying to screw us over" stance. Which is exactly the same dangerous rhetoric Putin likes to use in order to defend his own actions. This is bull. There are good and bad decisions in politics, independent from the party which makes said decisions, and sometimes what looks to be a bad decision turns out to be a good one after all.
Exactly. This isn't journalism, it is more an ongoing political commentary. And not even a good one, at least not when it comes to what is going on in foreign countries. The commentaries on the French Election and German politics were hilariously off the mark in all those left-wing channels. They all make the mistake of just assuming that European politics is similar to US politics.
So, apparently Trump's official website has a bug where any url you go to under /press-releases/ that wasn't a previously existing page (that has been wiped but not deleted) will take you to his health care plan, for example:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/why-should-i-be-impeached
or:
1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KVBecause that's what the article called it.
The Sanders wing really isn't a socialist wing. Sanders is a socialist but his followers aren't.
WSJ is actually pretty good despite being conservative. I use it, NYT and the Economistz
The danger isn't that their sources are bad but the narratives they might try to sell you.
But that's true for any news sources. It's only worse in corporate media because it can reach a much wider audience and their messages are pounded into society so regularly that it's the norm.
edited 9th May '17 5:18:26 AM by MadSkillz
The point is that TYT mines the maligned corporate media for their stuff. Which effectively makes them hypocrites. And as Swanpride pointed out, that's not really journalism. It's punditry and commentary.
It's like someone decrying the evils of technology who has no compunctions against buying the latest smartphones and notebooks for their own use.
edited 9th May '17 5:22:44 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedPriorities.
edited 9th May '17 5:59:03 AM by Deadbeatloser22
"Yup. That tasted purple."They may have some priorities straight...
Trump has just begun massively reshaping American appeals courts
By putting Larsen (who’s only 48), Stras (42), and Thapar (48) on appeals courts, Trump is further burnishing their credentials for future Supreme Court vacancies. All three of them, and especially Stras, will remain safely within the same age range as recent SCOTUS nominees for the next eight years; all of them would be able to serve, and would keep a seat in reliable conservative hands for up to three decades. They could even be appointed this same year, if a vacancy opens up, just as Souter was.
The most likely next vacancies are either Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an 84-year-old two-time cancer survivor who might need to retire for health reasons, and Anthony Kennedy, who’s now 80 and who former clerks told Reuters is pondering retirement this year or next, especially now that his former clerk Gorsuch is on the Court. Replacing either of them with Larsen, Stras, or Thapar would create a bloc of five solid conservatives (Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas, and the new justice) who could consistently overrule the remaining liberal bloc.
Replacing Kennedy, who sometimes rules with Democrats on reproductive rights and LGBTQ issues but is otherwise fairly conservative, could provide the votes to end Roe v. Wade. And replacing Ginsburg, a thoroughgoing liberal, would move the Court to the right on a whole variety of issues.
There are currently 129 vacancies for federal courts of all types: 101 at district courts, 20 at courts of appeals, and eight at other specialty courts. There are now more than twice as many district and appeals court vacancies as when President Obama took office (as 13 have opened up since the above chart was made).
And as analysis from the team at Ballotpedia shows, the aging of the federal judiciary means that by the end of 2020, slightly over half of district and appeals court judgeships will be a) vacant, b) filled by Trump, or c) held by a judge old enough to take senior status and semi-retire, opening up the seat for another judge.
Not all of those judges will take senior status, of course. But some will. And regardless of how many do, the core point remains that Trump will have considerable power to use his Republican Senate majority, and the 50-vote threshold that Democrats established for lower court judgeships in 2013, to move the lower courts solidly to the right over the next four years. If he’s committed, and if he nominates people fast enough, there’s little that can stand in his way.
According to NYT’s Liptak, the 10 Monday nominees are expected to be part of "near monthly waves of nominations." If Trump keeps up this pace and no one else retires, then he'll have nominees for every vacant federal judgeship by May 2018. He could easily finish the process before midterm elections, and the 2018 Senate election map means it’s very unlikely those will end with Democrats retaking the body and slowing down confirmations.
This is a less visible way that Trump is remaking the federal government. But it’s hugely significant, including to the survival of Trump’s policy initiatives like the travel ban, and it’s a process that’s being guided less by him personally than by the broader conservative legal movement. If you ever wonder why rank-and-file Republican activists are tolerating this administration, this is a very good explanation.
Indeed, but they and their voters did their due diligence to ensure a firewall of allied judges to keep things from going to far forward. Boring, but Practical.
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 livesBeating a rotten, larvae infested slab of decaying meat, that was once called a horse, there's yet another study that shows, yet again, it was bigotry, that made the wwc go for Trump, while the ACTUAL economically anxious wwc went for Clinton.
But to add something different, apparently working class white males see college as futile and risky.
edited 9th May '17 7:06:50 AM by NoName999

Good news, comrades! California is trying to end its ban of communists in government jobs.
@m84 Thanks for the info.
edited 9th May '17 1:42:53 AM by MadSkillz