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
x3 (Something weird is going on; I can't edit my post and it's telling me I'm trying to edit other persons votes.)
x6 According to Quinnipiac, it's currently 36%. And the Republican Congress has a 22% Approval against a 71 Disapproval. Trump is also hemorrhaging White Voters and Independent Voters. Also, 54% of Voters want the Democrats to take over the House.
x5 Also according to Quinnipiac, the Media is more believed then Trump (57% to the Media, 37% to Trump).
edited 12th May '17 11:34:59 AM by DingoWalley1
![]()
It doesn't mean shit to the extent that it's definitely plausible a more competent and popular president than Trump would be able to successfully centralize power in the executive branch, probably not to the extent that occurred in Russia, but enough to be worried about that eventuality. Considering how unpopular they are, I honestly worry more about that happening under a democratic administration under the hubristic assumption that said power wouldn't fall into the wrong hands, followed up by a Republican administration pressing down on the scales using their newfound power to keep their party in power against popular tides.
While Trump may very well be headed towards impeachment, we're also heading into the sort of territory were the risk of a constitutional crisis occurring is highest. Nixon was initially prepared to defy the courts' demand for evidence in the Watergate investigation, and only stepped down once his own party turned against him. In this hyperpartisan environment, it's far less likely that will happen, and the executive branch defying the judiciary absolutely qualifies as such a crisis. If Trump manages to walk away from that without being impeached, that's when you could see a descent into authoritarianism in earnest, which is why the coming months are going to be by far the most dangerous.
edited 12th May '17 11:41:02 AM by CaptainCapsase
@Aszur- No, they dont feel betrayed by Trump, thats why they still support him. They feel betrayed by the likes of Cruz or Rubio. But Im assuming that Trump isnt running in four years. In that case, its wide open, and theres an opportunity to win some republicans over.
Re constitutional crisis. The thing that should save us is that all Republican members of Congress are not die hard fanatics. If there is one thing they believe in more than the party line, its saving their own skin. The R's will turn on him the moment they conclude he is an electoral liability.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.I think a lot of people dosent belive in trump but int he fantasy of trump: the idea of one outsider who love the country and cant be corrupted because of it and will stop at nothing to do so is appeling, they have divorce the real trump to this projectiont hey have in their mind.
So once Trump lose they will just replace him with the next guy.
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"Hammering down further on the concept of winning red state voters by showing you care: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/05/12/cheri-bustos-trump-territory-democrats-215126
Cheri Bustos is an Iowan Democrat who won in a district that went for Trump and has kept winning for the last few elections.
"The Bustos blueprint, she told me in January as the Taurus dodged raccoon road kill outside a speck of a village called Maquon, is rooted in unslick, face-to-face politicking. She shows up. She shakes hands. She asks questions—a lot of questions. “Don’t talk down to people—you listen,” she stressed. When she does talk, she talks as much as she can about jobs and wages and the economy and as little as she can about guns and abortion and other socially divisive issues—which, for her, are “no-win conversations,” she explained. And at a time when members of both parties are being tugged toward their respective ideological poles, the more center-left Bustos has picked her spots to buck such partisanship. She’s a pro-choice Catholic and an advocate for limited gun control, but she has supported the Keystone pipeline and called for improvements to Barack Obama’s “imperfect” Affordable Care Act. It’s worked. She’s the only Democratic member of the Illinois’ congressional delegation from outside Chicagoland."
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.The article seems to confirm what I suspected. She's very personable and active in the community and listens a lot. That's what Bullock does too, from what I gathered.
There's a catch here though:
I started with guns.
“I say, ‘My husband carries a gun on his hip—he’s the sheriff of Rock Island County. All my sons own guns. I own a gun. But we’ve got to be reasonable about this,’” she said to me. “I say, ‘All I want to do is make sure people who are deranged or on a terrorist watch list don’t have guns.’ That’s how I talk about it.”
And abortion?
“I don’t try to change their mind,” she said. “I’m Catholic, so I understand their views. I’m pro-choice, but”—here she shifted the subject with me, the way she says she does with others—“that’s not what most people are talking about. Most people are talking about jobs.”
She talks, in other words, about these kinds of things by not talking about them much, because the people she represents, she says, aren’t talking about them much, either, or don’t want to.
“On these sensitive topics,” she said—Black Lives Matter, transgender bathroom laws and so on—“I don’t dwell on them.”
Unfortunately, I kinda feel that goes back to what I said earlier where you aren't always going to be able to run the same kind of platform everywhere. You have to work with what you have.
That you have to tailor your campaign and what you talk about to your audience should be obvious. It would be great if everyone could win on the most progressive platform every, but that's not the case, nor is it likely to be the case anytime soon.
That being said, that doesn't mean everywhere except west coast, and upper northeast are lost causes, and talking that way really only validates people's concerns about not matter or looked-down on.
So do what you can in the hopes that you might be able to shift them leftward, if only a little bit, or at least that they get caught up in the greater cultural transition.
edited 12th May '17 12:20:58 PM by LSBK
Honestly though, a lot of the race relations stuff is a very urban issue. I'm not saying racisim isn't a thing in rural areas but these areas are 70-90% white to begin with and with the minorities that do live in them they fall into the "I know them so they're ok" category..
As long as her votes are in the right place on these issues she doesn't have much to gain by campaigning on them.
Gun Control in Rural Areas is pretty goddamn stupid to be honest, considering how isolated some communities are from hospital and police services, as well as some use their guns for hunting, keeping animals away from properties, making sure certain deer populations don't explode, etc. etc.
That's not to say it shouldn't be regulated, but a blanket ban like some countries in Asia is laughably impractical.
New Survey coming this weekend!
Well yeah. That's probably one of the biggest sticking points when it comes to the gun control debate. The laws we have now work perfectly fine in rural areas. They're completely inadequate when it comes to urban areas however, and it's difficult to come up with a way to satisfy both.
edited 12th May '17 12:27:52 PM by CaptainCapsase
When you put it that way, it seems as simple as having different gun control laws in more urban areas but I'm sure if it was that easy the gun control debate wouldn't be what it was now.
I don't think anyone anywhere is pushing for a blanket ban in the US (and it's not happening while the 2nd Amendment is a thing).
In NY, for example, handguns are strictly regulated (must be licenced, concealed carry is not a given and the licencing involves a lot of hoops) but non-automatic rifles and shotguns are not for the most part. It *mostly* keeps the rural people happy other than the serious gun nuts.
edited 12th May '17 12:34:42 PM by Elle
Different areas having there own gun laws hasn't really worked out since it's not particularly hard for people to buy guns in places with lax laws and bring them into places with more strict gun laws.
This has specifically been a problem in Chicago where a lot of the gun crime is conducted with weapons bought in nearby Indiana.
edited 12th May '17 12:48:39 PM by Mio
The gun topic is partly a cultural problem. I mean, there are tons of guns in Germany. And tons of illegal guns, too. But due to the rules for purchasing a gun, people do have to develop criminal energy to actually obtain one if they aren't able to pass the tests, so that a mentally unbalanced guy has easy access to a gun is pretty unlikely (not impossible, but there is a reason why those people tend to attack with knifes instead). But if for example the police is taking down a gang, there can be a number of guns be around, the likelihood that there will be a shoot-out is pretty unlikely. Partly because of the laws...there is a huge difference in Germany between going down for theft or drug pushing, or going down for shooting at the police. The way the US law is designed, it makes barely any difference.
I think what the US needs is a combination of instilling responsibility into the gun owners (especially considering that most people in the US don't die from shoot-outs, but simple accidents), a different law which discourages criminals from using their guns, and countering the notion that having a gun is "cool".
I wonder...perhaps instead of introducing a "licence to carry", they should introduce some sort of medal system for guns. We have stuff like this for swimming and dance lessons. I mean, having a licence sounds kind of uncool in itself, but being able to brag that you have the licence with gold star or something like that might trick people into doing all kind of gun training (combined with a test), which might lead to them acting a little bit more responsible with their guns....

I notice that conversations like this tend to get confusing as to whether people are talking about Republicans in government, or just people who are willing to vote Republican.
edited 12th May '17 11:32:57 AM by LSBK