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
The primary agenda of any extremist group within a political body is to try to excommunicate their moderates, because they see the moderates as the main obstacle to their (righteous) domination of the group. Should they achieve this desire, they quickly find that they are completely unable to govern effectively, for two main reasons:
- Their insistence on ideological purity causes them to refuse to compromise, even when they cannot win without doing so.
- They reject anyone who tries to show them, via rational analysis, why the things they want won't work, and so they devolve into intellectual chaos.
These things serve only to further alienate moderate voters from either competing party, as they see their choices as lying between two unconscionable extremes: there is no "lesser" of two evils any more.
edited 15th May '17 2:02:59 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
![]()
Those rightwing conspiracy whackjobs seem to think Soros fills that role. Except 1) paid protesters is bullshit and 2) the guy hates Communism for very valid reasons and is more or less the bane of so-called "economic progressives" being a financier who runs a hedge fund and supported TPP.
Disgusted, but not surprisedI posted president Obama saying it earlier, but I do hope Senator Gillibrand is never letting her district forget this:
I was just a young lawyer thinking, What am I doing with my life? What am I doing with my career? As I watched her on that stage I thought, Why aren't I there? It was so poignant for me. And that's what made me figure out how to get involved in politics.
>''"If someone was able to make actual liberals progress in an area that openly supports maiming liberals,..."
The NY 20th covers multiple counties. Are you sure the guy isn't extrapolating too much from a very loud abnormality?
The district as a whole is not that red.
Y'all are cheering for an argument based on a putdown of an area I love and it ticks me off for reasons other than the fact it misrepresents Gilbrand's chances in it. Wanderer says he's attending college there but that's my native soil.
edited 15th May '17 2:11:22 PM by Elle
Well all of this shit doesn't matter now. Because The President of the United States of America revealed highly classified information to a Russian Foreign Minister
Now can we throw the bloated orangutan with moss toupee OUT?
edited 15th May '17 2:12:44 PM by NoName999
![]()
![]()
![]()
That seems to happen a lot.
Still, I think the general point about "purity tests" stands. A lot more can be done by working with who know how to work in purplish or reddish areas, than just denouncing them as "DIN Os" because they don't act like they live in the most liberal parts of California or New York.
edited 15th May '17 2:16:10 PM by LSBK
x4 Unfortunately, the President has the power to declassify information whenever he feels like it. Although this is highly unusual, and very suspect, the Republican's won't try to impeach him over this. They'll just say "He's allowed to say that! He's the President!"
edited 15th May '17 2:16:52 PM by DingoWalley1
Apologies. I know little about that area of NY (I should given my native soil but...). That block from The Other Wiki still seemed worth sharing though.
And I've finally reached my limit on Wa Po articles (That took alot longer this month...) So, a penny for what the commander-in-chief declassified?
As for all this hemming and hawing about "purity tests" and us crazy leftists, I'll say there's certain things you should never allow members to compromise on if you make pretensions to being progressive. Reproductive autonomy, racial and LGBT protections, living wages, workers rights, none of these are up for debate. You either support them wholeheartedly or you aren't progressive. I can't make specific statements about the story RE: Gillibrand because I don't know much about it, but there ARE lines in the sand and they're there for good reason.
"Coffee! Coffeecoffeecoffee! Coffee! Not as strong as Meth-amphetamine, but it lets you keep your teeth!"RE that Trump sharing classified intel story, I think I'm going to stop watching this tv show. Way too many over-the-top twists and unrealistic characters.
RE the Gillebrand/etc. discussion, not to talk behind Mad Skillz's back, but one of the issues I see with this discussion is that some of the terms used have formal and informal uses that don't completely line up with each other.
Specifically, there is an actual Progressive Caucus and Blue Dog Caucus, but those terms are also used casually. Probably in part because of the uncertain meaning of the term Progressive, there are a lot more people that could be characterized as such regardless of whether they belong to that Caucus. Similarly, my sense (supported by the discussion here) is that Blue Dog is typically understood as sort of an insult- essentially synonymous with calling someone a DINO.
So, when there's a lack of clarity about whether the formal or informal definition of the term is meant, that creates problems in discussion.
@CenturyEye Wa Po may still work of you open in an incognito tab
edited 15th May '17 2:32:35 PM by sgamer82
That sounds like a very easy thing to say when you're not actually in the position to meaningfully improve things or trying to be.
It reminds me of how when Jimmy Carter was running for Governor of Georgia, he had to play along and court the "Wallace vote" of segregation and such. Now, as soon as he was elected he made it clear that he was going to be everyone's governor, but he had to play ball before he could actually get in a position to help anyone.
Leroy Johnson, a black state Senator, voiced his support for Carter, saying, "I understand why he ran that kind of ultra-conservative campaign. ... I don't believe you can win this state without being a racist."
Now, I do think there are lines that shouldn't be crossed, but I don't get the feeling that's what Mad Skillz, and maybe you, are talking about.
edited 15th May '17 2:40:39 PM by LSBK
![]()
Thanks
@The Intellegence Declassification
The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said that Trump’s decision to do so risks cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State. After Trump’s meeting, senior White House officials took steps to contain the damage, placing calls to the CIA and National Security Agency.
“This is code-word information,” said a U.S. official familiar with the matter, using terminology that refers to one of the highest classification levels used by American spy agencies. Trump “revealed more information to the Russian ambassador than we have shared with our own allies.”
Most alarmingly, officials said, Trump revealed the city in the Islamic State’s territory where the U.S. intelligence partner detected the threat.
The Washington Post is withholding most plot details, including the name of the city, at the urging of officials who warned that revealing them would jeopardize important intelligence capabilities.
U.S. officials said that the National Security Council continues to prepare multi-page briefings for Trump to guide him through conversations with foreign leaders but that he has insisted that the guidance be distilled to a single page of bullet points, and often ignores those.
The White House readout of the meeting with Lavrov and Kislyak made no mention of the discussion of a terrorist threat.
“Trump emphasized the need to work together to end the conflict in Syria,” the summary said. Trump also “raised Ukraine” and “emphasized his desire to build a better relationship between the United States and Russia.”
Much easier to see the IC's side of them freezing out their constitutional chief executive.
edited 15th May '17 2:53:13 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 livesAs far as Gillibrand goes, her political 180 could potentially result in her being viewed as inauthentic, which is probably one of the worst reputations to gain as a politician. There's also the matter of having co-sponsored and supported PIPA and generally was in favor of expanded government surveillance, which makes her pretty much radioactive to the millennial generation.
Then of course there's the immigration issues.
edited 15th May '17 3:08:28 PM by CaptainCapsase
This accurately describes it. DINO is typically a slur used for Blue Dogs. That's why I said she "kind of" was (by virtue of being an actual Blue Dog).
Here are some parts Wanderer didn't tell you though:
Gillibrand’s record on immigration deserves special mention. Before taking up her Senate post, Gillibrand came out against giving undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship and opposed then–New York governor Eliot Spitzer’s plan to allow undocumented immigrants access to drivers licenses. In 2007, she cosponsored the SAVE Act, which significantly beefed up border patrols, required all employers to check the immigration status of their employees through a flawed computer database, established monetary rewards for anyone who helped catch an undocumented immigrant trying to obtain falsified documents, and turned local police into an arm of federal immigration enforcement.
She supported financially penalizing sanctuary cities, the same thing now on Trump’s wish list. And she wanted to make English the United States’ “official language.”
edited 15th May '17 3:01:20 PM by MadSkillz
I had known some of Gillebrand's immigration background and I don't really disagree. I consider her about as bad or worse in that respect as I do say Gabbard's history of homophobia. Probably worse since I'd imagine there was more direct harm caused by Gillebrand's stance/actions.
So, she wouldn't exactly be my first choice for either President or VP.

To say nothing of not wanting to repeat the insanity spiral that led from the Tea Party to Trump.