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
Mad, link for your quote? While a couple things I know to be true (co-sponsored PIPA with Schumer, and if Schumer's opponent last year hadn't been a Trump-nut that would have been a black mark against me voting for him) I'm less sure about others.
I do suspect the backlash against PIPA and SOPA may have dissuaded them from pushing the issue again though.
About this whole no compromise/purity thing....if you have a district A that's highly anti-immigrant and a district B that's highly anti-LGBT, a Dem candidate may have to let immigration slide to win district A and similarly a candidate in district B may have to let LGBT-rights slide. If they both win their districts, the Dem congressman from A can still vote YES for a LGBT-rights bill while the district B congressman can vote YES for an immigration bill. A no-compromise attitude that allows GOP candidates to win both districts means you lose the vote for both bills. It's a simple math game. Rule 0 of power is that you have to have power to change anything.
edited 15th May '17 3:34:45 PM by nightwyrm_zero
That's certainly true, but tolerating regressive attitudes among members of the party in districts out of necessity is different from preferring those people for Presidential nominees. I'd also opposed the notion put forwards by @Fighteer that the left and right (maybe the latter these days, but horseshoe theory is at best seriously lacking in nuance) are categorically worse about demanding ideological purity than the center.
edited 15th May '17 3:40:20 PM by CaptainCapsase
This is rather amusing to me.
GOP plans could kill one of Trump’s favorite tax breaks: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/15/the-next-great-tax-reform-fight-238380
And good news if anyone lives in New York City:
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/15/barron-trump-st-andrews-episcopal-school-238396
edited 15th May '17 4:03:28 PM by megaeliz
@Elle Here ya go.
The link goes into a lot more detail and probably goes to some places that a some people here would handwave but it's well-linked to other news sources within the article that you check it against if you want.
Worst case scenario is that she's a political chameleon and will do whatever she thinks would advance her career.
edited 15th May '17 4:04:06 PM by MadSkillz
House Republicans are looking to slash Food Stamps and Veterans Benefits. The cruelty we see from them shouldn't shock me as much as it does.
Ninth Circuit Court to Hear Trump's Muslim Ban case.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/15/politics/9th-circuit-travel-ban-hearing-round-two/
Edit: Why is this a story? I mean doesn't the Washington Post have anything to better to report on?
Thanks
edited 15th May '17 4:19:15 PM by megaeliz
US Official in Israel, preparing for Trump's visit, tells Benjamin Netanyahu (PM of Israel) that the Western Wall is "Not (their) Territory".
There has been 0 Comments from the White House about this.
Either this Official is gonna get fired, or Trump has done a serious 180 on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and it could make us lose one of our last allies...
Correction Meagaliz: The House is, not the Senate. Just thought you should know.
edited 15th May '17 4:13:25 PM by DingoWalley1
![]()
At this point, I think I've actually gotten desensitized to how cartoonishly evil the GOP is.
Blue Dog was an actual self adopted label, mostly for more conservative democrats or those who were elected in traditionally conservative districts as the country started turning against Bush. IIRC, the name comes in part from an old joke during FDR's days that went something like "I'd vote for a dog, as long as it was a Democrat."
Honestly, I don't entirely get the need for an "authentic" politician. Maybe it's just the extra jading that comes from having been paying attention to politics all the way back to the late 90s, but politicians are basically employees being hired to represent the interests of the voters. As long as you have leverage over them via elections and primaries, I don't see any reason to need them to be true believers. If I'm accused of a crime I didn't commit, I can't see what difference it makes if my lawyer makes a well reasoned and insightful case for my innocence and gets me acquitted because he truly believes in my innocence, or if he does it just because I'm paying him.
If I'm going home instead of to jail, the lawyer can believe I'm guilty as sin until the heat death of the universe, as long as they do the job. If my reps get this country adopting leftist politics/economics, institute a smart and welcoming immigration package, (yeah, I don't like Gillibrand there, but c'est la vie) getting national health care, protect the rights of gays and racial minorities, and don't get into any more Iraq style wars, they can be as phony as a three dollar bill with the faces of Richard Nixon and James Buchanan on it for all I care.
If they fail to do those things, or they don't shape up when you do threaten them with protests, being primaried or withholding support/funding, then kick em out and get someone who will. Otherwise, we're stuck in this 1 step forward, 2 steps back quagmire where liberals decide they'll only vote when they're inspired by the perfect candidate or when they're not disappointed that massive change couldn't be implemented immediately.
(Dissing Saratoga and the Adirondacks might be a thing I'm liable to take personally. Can't speak for the Catskills. I'm not sure where your college is.)
Apologies if I hit any sore spots, especially given that I'm originally that scum of scum, a Brooklynite, albeit one who has been kicking around everywhere from Putnam county to Albany for the last 25 years. Most likely I'm thinking of some of the more extreme things I've seen over the years and recently, because the extremes are what tend to stick in the mind. Ditto if I' thinking of places that weren't in the district due to the redistricting after the 2010 census, I didn't get to do a ton of research as to how the boundaries changed.
Again, no offense intended. We good?
I'm not going to pretend Gillibrand was perfect, especially as a House Rep. Here's the take from On The Issues.com
and on the whole, I'd certainly want to keep her, even limited to just stuff it's sourcing from 2007 and earlier.
But the point was, Mad, you've both claimed to have nothing against Blue Dog type democrats in tough districts and seemingly advocated for ousting anyone who didn't meet an arbitrary definition of a progressive. Guess what, progressives are a tiny percentage of the population. If we want to see change go our way instead of continuing to get our asses kicked as they have for the last 40 years, we need people to work with us, whether it's those we have to drag through mud to get there or even *gasp* people who are careerists!
So how about we kick the name calling and defining who is and isn't acceptable and accept help from anyone who's willing to give it.
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |Also, because I haven't finished getting through the last 30 pages or so of posts, has there been any discussion yet of the Kushner family pushing foreign investors to bribe er, I mean, invest, $500,000 in Kushner family businesses in return for qualifying for the EB-5 visa/citizenship route? Because that's
a thing
But the Jersey City project faces a number of hurdles.
This week, it ran headlong into a new one — an ethics flap, after Kushner's sister highlighted her family ties to the White House while pitching the development to wealthy Chinese investors. That's prompting closer scrutiny of the project, and the controversial immigrant investor visa program that could help finance it.
The EB-5 visa program gives immigrants a visa and a shot at a green card, if they invest in a project that creates jobs in the U.S. It was meant to support hard-to-finance projects, particularly in rural areas and distressed urban neighborhoods. But some question if that incentive is really needed to build luxury residential towers.
"It's an example of a project which probably could attract capital without the benefit of EB-5," said Gary Friedland, a scholar-in residence at the NYU Stern School of Business.
Friedland and his wife Jeanne Calderon, a professor at NYU, have been studying the EB-5 program for years. They found that developers across the country have raised at least $10 billion dollars for more than 50 major projects this way. They say immigrants are willing to lend money for the promise of almost no financial return, because what they really want is a visa. So the EB-5 program helps developers pad their profits.
"It could save the developers tens to hundreds of millions of dollars in financing costs," said Calderon.
The Kushner Companies is looking to raise $150 million from investors overseas for the project known as One Journal Square. When it's finished, the developers say it will include two towers and hundreds of luxury apartments with commanding views of lower Manhattan.
But for now, it's an empty lot surrounded by a chain-link fence.
"I have watched Journal Square go up, and go down," said Don Smartt, who runs the Journal Square Special Improvement District. While Jersey City neighborhoods across the river from Manhattan have been booming for a decade or more, Journal Square has fallen behind. It's a mix of crumbling movie theaters, office buildings and chain stores that feels a long way from the city's downtown renaissance. That's why Smartt is excited about One Journal Square.
"We hope that the current developer finds the support necessary through all legal means to make this project a reality," Smartt said.
The Kushners have used EB-5 financing before. For example, raising $50 million for Trump Bay Street, a luxury apartment building on the Jersey City waterfront.
"Nothing about what they've been doing is out of the ordinary in what many real estate developers in NYC have been doing over the last few years," said Jason Barr, the author of the book Building the Skyline, and a professor of economics at Rutgers University, Newark.
But the Kushners are out of the ordinary, because Jared Kushner is President Trump's son-in-law and senior advisor. Ethics watchdogs howled when the Kushner Companies pointed out its connection to the White House in a presentation to investors in China last weekend. The company has apologized, and says Kushner has stepped away from his role at the company.

Because if compromising on those never-compromise areas allows you to get into office when you otherwise wouldn't have been, and then be progressive in other ways, then that's certainly better than losing the election to a conservative candidate. Having policies that are 90% progressive with 10% bowing to the reality of the district in question is infinitely better than failing to get elected in the first place and therefore having policies that are 0% progressive.
This is exactly the sort of thing we mean when we're talking about the harm that arbitrary purity tests do to the cause they claim to be in defense of.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.