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
@Century Eye: it's a pretty safe thing to say that getting richer usually doesn't, by itself, make someone else poorer. Mind you, the rich still can and do hurt the poor.
A good example of what I'm talking about: in the Neolithic period, most everyone was really poor. There weren't many rich people. In a modern industrialized society ala the US, even poor people usually aren't about to die of starvation, despite there being more wealth inequality in the US than a hunter-gathered tribe.
Leviticus 19:34Even being homeless in the US is better than what I'm comparing it to at the moment.
Note: not saying poverty in the US isn't a problem-it is-but this does still demonstrate my point, that having some people being rich does not by itself make people poorer.
Leviticus 19:34I believe it's been mentioned both in this thread in the general economics threads, that Keynesian economic policies tend to make both the super-rich and the middle class and poor wealthier in the long run, so Protag's point about there being rich people not necessarily equally more poor people probably holds.
The issues we have no is due to short-sighted policies to increase wealth continuously and quickly in the short-term at the expense of everyone else. Probably because most people actually do wealth as a zero-sum game, even if it doesn't have to be.
edited 19th May '17 3:15:58 PM by LSBK
It would be close to a zero-sum game if the currency was static like it would be in a gold standard economy, but since the fiat currency is flexible in that regard, it won't be a zero sum game.
However treating the economy as a zero-sum game is something both left and right wings, from the US and abroad, tend to do, which in the long run harms everyone.
Inter arma enim silent legesWarcraft fans will now picture Pence as Majordomo Executus being bossed by Ragnatrump
Don't be ridiculous.
Trump is an orange, thin-skinned, temperamental bigot who delights in flashy shows of power that he can lord over others without understanding it, believes the country is only for people like him, and got where he is today entirely because of his daddy.
Trump is Garrosh, and I miss Vol'bama.
Some interesting ones from today's belated WTF Happened Today that haven't come up yet that I saw (Links go to their Twitter):
6/ Trump’s attorney didn’t want him to sign his financial disclosure.
7/ Health insurers are planning rate hikes on Obamacare — and they blame Trump.
8/ Nearly 700 positions at the CDC are vacant because of Trump’s hiring freeze.
10/ Jeff Sessions and the Do J are telling lawyers to stop representing immigrants in deportation proceedings.
edited 19th May '17 3:33:43 PM by sgamer82
Jimmy Dore continues to claim DNC had Seth Rich murdered
. Warning, contents may be hazardous to your sanity.
This stuff drives me nuts. I know in the long run his insanity (and that of fellow TYT goon Jordan Chariton) probably doesn't matter that much, but if even one person stays home in 2018 or 2020 because they believe garbage like this, it hurts progressives.
In good news, Sam Seder continues to call him out on it
.
edited 19th May '17 3:37:12 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Seriously Biden, you couldn't have just said her campaign made mistakes?
Given his comment about her being a good president while saying she's not a good candidate is an attempt to observe something this thread has pointed out (more eloquently) in the past: Clinton has extremely high approval ratings while in office, but not while running for office.
She's like that classic situation of the best people for the job not being very good at interviews, while the people who can't do the job know all the buzzwords to blag their way through the interviews.
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.Article on how Joe Lieberman at the FBI would be Trump's shrewdest troll yet
.
The gist of it is that it will give Trump an appearance of bipartisanship that isn't really there, and may well win over parts of the media and some Red State Dems.
edited 19th May '17 3:42:53 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Kind of like me. I hate the process of job-hunting, because you basically have to pimp yourself to prospective employers.
I sort of fell into my current job, and my job performance has made it such that they don't ever want to get rid of me, because anybody else who could do the job as well as I can wouldn't work for the cut-rate wages they're paying me. (I don't have a family to support, so it's okay with me.)
This Space Intentionally Left Blank.Comey agrees to testify before Senate
.
EDIT: I know I should comment, but there's really not a lot else to say here.
edited 19th May '17 4:00:13 PM by IFwanderer
1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KV![]()
Actually yes, but posts about that started a bit after
that post (and a bit before
you posted that question).
@ Protagonist 506; LSBK; Angelus Nox seems sensible. (dismal science...)
edited 19th May '17 4:13:40 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 livesWell all the evidence says she's good at raising money from fundraisers at least. She's just terrible at creating enthusiasm and she and her team picked a losing campaign strategy based on equal parts hubris and delusion.
Just compare 08 Obama and her schedule during the last months of the race.
Biden is the person who should be President right now. I understand completely why he didn't run and can't blame him; Lord knows that man deserves a fucking break. But yeah, I don't see him running in 2020 unless he feels that he absolutely has to.
And with that, who would be the good candidates from the current pool?
PSN ID: FateSeraph | Switch friendcode: SW-0145-8835-0610 Congratulations! She/They
What is "the current pool" to you? Because the Hill gives a ridiculous list of 43 candidates
, and I can still think of people missing (MT governor Steve Bullock, for example)
![]()
That is why I said "a ridiculous list. On another website I said this about the list:
Of the 28 still here, Perez, Ellison, McAuliffe and Maloney, sound like somebody saw Democrats who're involved in the organization of the party and threw them in. Murphy, Booker, Cuomo, O'Malley, Gabbard, Webb, Landrieu and Inslee might have baggage or controversial positions that would sink a run (which doesn't mean they wouldn't try). Also, Garcetti and Castro are trying to run for governor, so if they win they should probably stay there, and a loss would be too close to the beginning of the presidential primaries for them to recover in time. So we're down to 15.
Now, looking at the current Senators (Sanders, Warren, Harris, Klobuchar, Gillibrand, Franken, Brown and Duckworth) who're still in consideration, we should count out those from states where the governor will be R (so them running isn't losing a seat in the Senate), meaning no Warren or Brown (and maybe no Sanders) and the ones who'll be running for reelection that year (bye Franken). Dems don't usually do House reps as presidential candidates, which gets Moulton out. Now we're at 10.5 (since I can't say about the governor of Vermont that year, meaning Sanders may or may not run).
Now, while I don't think age is too limiting, Biden, Brown and Sanders would probably be too old for some in 2020. So I'd say the potential roster for 2020 will have the following 8 candidates:
- Kamala Harris
- Amy Klobuchar
- Kirsten Gillibrand
- John Hickenlooper
- Deval Patrick
- Bill de Blasio
- Tammy Duckworth
I would personally add Steve Bullock (Montana governor) as a contender, who wasn't included in the list.
Do note: a. I was trying to trim the list, so I'm probably being overeager at cutting people out; and b. the final 8 are more of a "could be the candidate" than "could run", since I imagine some (read: many) of the people I counted out would run.
edited 19th May '17 5:09:59 PM by IFwanderer
1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KV

You see if Laser-Guided Karma really worked Fox News would be off the air right now. Roger created a breeding ground for racism and sexual assault.
edited 19th May '17 2:44:17 PM by Wildcard