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
Democrats getting elected in Montana doesn't seem to be particularly uncommon, actually. Outside of the presidency, other state and national things seem to be able to go either way. For enough people there it really does seem to be more about the person running and less about the letter next to their name.
Again, outside of the presidency, and even that was a toss up until not that long ago (and almost a toss up in 2008, I think).
edited 12th May '17 6:26:02 PM by LSBK
I kind of hate guns, myself, as a Briton, and can't possibly imagine wanting to own one.
I've fired a gun before. A hunting rifle. Hurt my damn shoulder.
They're terrifying.
I'm actually a little surprised to see people in favour of guns on this thread. Well, with heavy gun control, of course.
I'm pretty negative towards guns. My personal life may have biased me to them. Still, the arguments made in this brief discourse has made me reevaluate my position, particularly in regards to those isolated from the police.
Like almost everything, this all makes me think of that episode of South Park regarding guns.
edited 12th May '17 6:42:41 PM by PolarPhantom
![]()
You can't pet them?
US law boss Sessions orders harsher criminal sentencing
In a two-page memo, Jeff Sessions instructed US attorneys to "charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offence".
He has vowed to crack down on violence and drugs at the Justice Department.
The move is a reversal of ex-President Barack Obama's policy to reduce jail time for low-level drug crimes.
"It means we are going to meet our responsibility to enforce the law with judgment and fairness," Mr Sessions said on Friday. "It is simply the right and moral thing to do."
The new criminal justice policy "ensures that the Department enforces the law fairly and consistently, advances public safety and promotes respect for our legal system", he said in a memo released to the public on Friday.
Barack Obama presided over the first decline in the federal prison population since the 1970s and used his power of executive clemency to free or reduce the 1,927 federal inmates, many for drugs charges.
In going back to old Bush-era sentencing policies, Sessions is essentially rejecting any notion that these practices disproportionately affect people of colour, crowded prisons and caused the modern era of mass incarceration, and are a drain on taxpayer resources. Reform advocates say Sessions is rekindling the failed "War on Drugs" - and Sessions himself points to the opioid epidemic as the reason he wants to reinstate aggressive sentencing.
Despite bipartisan support, Congress has failed to pass sentencing reform bills in the past, and it will be interesting to see if this move by the Trump Department of Justice reinvigorates that effort or completely stamps it out.
edited 12th May '17 6:56:00 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 livesSee that kinda doesn't tell me stuff like "Wow he shifted the paradigm a lot" it just tells me "he barely won and it in no way guarantees republicans don't have a chance anymore"
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesWa Po has a look, not quite an analysis on Bullock:
Montana Gov. Steve Bullock on dark money, the drug war and his state’s special election
In Montana, said Bullock, the clearest danger from the swamp was obvious. Montanans wanted clean elections and campaign-finance limits. He’d defended Montana’s ancient campaign-finance limits after conservative groups cited the precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Citizens United case to undo them.
“Our experience since Citizens United suggests that individuals lose our voices with all the dark money that’s allowed in the system now,” said Bullock. “That’s an area where I am concerned about what will come from this new Supreme Court.”
Montana, which has not voted Democratic for president since 1992, has continued to elect Democrats to statewide office ...When Montana’s Democrats win, they tend to back gun rights in the context of hunting and tradition. National Democratic politics don’t fit the state completely.
The end of the Obama administration had removed a “bogeyman” that Republicans found to be effective in spooking voters — the Democratic-run Environmental Protection Agency. But it had been supplanted by an administration that doubted man-made climate change, and that wasn’t flying.
In the short term, the administration was also alienating rural voters by trying to undo the Affordable Care Act. “It was with us governors in the White House where Trump said this health-care stuff is “pretty complicated,” Bullock said, laughing. “He just figured that out!”
In 2016, even as Trump was promising to repeal the ACA, Bullock ran on how Montana had implemented it.
“We cut our uninsured from 23 to 7 percent,” he said. “What we’ve been able to say is that this works in Montana. It’s not just Democratic governors that are saying this — it’s John Kasich in Ohio, it’s Brian Sandoval in Nevada. It’s real easy in D.C. to make statements – okay, we’ll repeal Obamacare, we’ll send it all back to the states! But we’re actually on the front lines, and we’ve seen it work.”
EDIT: Based upon the (10 so far) comments, Gov. Bullock is quite liked and someone people want to see in national office.
edited 12th May '17 7:07:36 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 livesThis may get thumped for encouraging violence but I'll take the risk. At this point, and especially if the Democrats don't take at least one branch of Congress away from the Republicans it might be counterproductive for us to make it harder to get guns. I will note that I myself do not own one and am not fond of them.
Trump delenda est![]()
![]()
I don't think the arguments have been that Republicans didn't stand a chance, just that Democrats can stand a chance in (many) rural areas if they go about it in the right way.
That also wasn't is first election, that he continues to get elected in the state still says something, even if the margin of that one doesn't impress you.
edited 12th May '17 7:11:02 PM by LSBK
Holy fuck, Sessions is evil.
I mean, this is no surprise (considering the R beside his name, and the state he used to represent) but still...
What the fuck is wrong with these "people"?
I mean, I know the answer is "the private prison industry". But I still hate these people.
edited 12th May '17 7:33:06 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.The answer is what has been for the entire history of this country: They want their slaves. And they're going to take full advantage of the 13th Amendment to do it.
edited 12th May '17 8:16:06 PM by TheAirman
PSN ID: FateSeraph | Switch friendcode: SW-0145-8835-0610 Congratulations! She/TheyI have a very negative view towards guns. But I am not necessarily against people wanting to learn how to shoot. I mean, I get the satisfaction of hitting a target. While I personally would prefer it if there were no guns in the world at all, I aim for realistic goals. And I think it is way more realistic to aim towards ensuring that guns are in competent hands and not easily available for every crazy out there.
Btw, the notion that you have to do more to get the permission to drive a car than handling a car is freaking terrifying....especially since it is a miracle that Americans don't kill themselves or others with their car in my eyes. And no, not because you are allowed to drive as 16 year olds. More because I am used to driver licences which require a certain number of lessons from a certified teacher, a looooong theoretical test and a basic first aid certification.
Convicted prisoners are Acceptable Targets.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.The US pretty uniquely violent with or without guns. I do not actually think trying to address the violence via control of weaponry is.. at all productive, not the least because, well, trying to confiscate them would involve the police in far to many shootouts with paranoids that would be convinced this was step on in a nefarious plot. So, you know, just not a cause worth expending political energy on. Far better to do lead remediation.

edited 12th May '17 6:09:37 PM by IFwanderer
1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KV