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
![]()
![]()
Truman's domestic policies also sunk him-welfare was non grata after Truman made the appeal across all demographics. And he burned most of his political capital desegregating the military, and even then the only way he could sell it to the racists he needed for votes was to line their pockets in the form of cutting waste in military redundancy they could sell to their constituents.
About 30 million children covered under Medicaid are going to be hurt by the AHCA's cuts if it passes.
edited 25th May '17 7:43:41 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedEven if they make it less horrible (less being relative here) considering how things have been going what are the chances of the House out right rejecting it for being too soft like it seemed to be happening before?
Also, what happened with the secret discussions by those Republican senators to try and keep the worst parts of it in? Is that still a thing.
The House Republicans are fractured into three groups-the Teapublicans and Randroids, the bulk of spineless shills and party line staggers, and the group with half a brain. The first vote failed because the first group scuttled it for not being awful enough-the second passed because several were courted by the opt out and preexisting conditions BS that allows insurers to drop people or price them out of care for no reason at all. If the Senate sends back a modified version, it would need to just as awful to pass, because the third group has not budged.
538 now has Gianforte up by about 9,000 votes. While only 44% is in, that's not good, unless there's a significant blue stronghold that hasn't come in this race is going to go down as another case of a Democrat performing better than expected but ultimately losing.
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |Can anyone give me a run down of how Reagan Administration deal with AIDS?
edited 25th May '17 8:29:55 PM by RAlexa21th
Continue writing our story of peace.If you've watched the video, then you already have a pretty good idea.
They ignored it entirely until the last year or two of the Reagan administration, by which point the lack of response to early warnings had pretty much wiped out the hemophiliacs in the US via HIV+ blood donations, and the disease started getting a pretty solid spread into the straight community. Even in the last year or two before Reagan left office and some official medical research and preliminary, baby step methods of countering AIDS were going into place, I don't think old Ronnie ever said the name of the disease a single time while in office.
It was something you didn't talk about, didn't act on, and the people dying of it were considered unimportant and contemptuous by that administration.
edit: Just double checked myself. Reagan first mentioned AIDS in 85... when he said that he didn't think HIV+ kids should be allowed to continue going to school alongside non-HIV+ kids.
Reagan's first speeches on talking about AIDS as a crisis wouldn't come until 87.
edited 25th May '17 8:43:49 PM by TheWanderer
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |The Montana race has been called for Gianforte (at least, according to the website Five Thirty Eight has been using).
Gosh dang it. Now I'm sad.
I think this is worse then Trump winning, because at least Trump never (personally) attacked anyone.
I'm worried for my Country...
edited 25th May '17 9:05:41 PM by DingoWalley1
Honest question, but how many people do you think voted for Gianforte because of the assault, due to Republicans trying to demonize media and reporters (that aren't Fox News)? How many Republicans see it as not a scandal, but congratulate Gianforte to being a big tough guy and teaching that lying liberal a lesson? I know there are good people in Montana, but I don't think we should assume that everyone is going to view this scandal as a scandal.
I've read a lot of cases on other sites where I follow political threads, and in the news, of people essentially saying "Serves those reporters right."
I'd like to think it's a vocal minority, but between the toxic atmosphere that ring wing media has made worse and worse over the course of the last 20 years, how eager they are to put on the jackboots for every right wing president, and declare anyone who questions or challenges said president an enemy, it's hard not to be concerned.
I'm saddened and sickened by how bad the worst of this country is becoming, and how little true pushback there is to it.
I don't think many people voted for him because of the assault, (as has been mentioned repeatedly most votes had already been mailed in and there was little time for the story to break before going to polls) but there definitely is a disturbingly large percentage who either think it never happened/was a possibel hoax, (eyewitnesses and recordings be damned) and/or those who approve of it, and essentially think "I was going to vote for him anyway, but now I'm sure of it. He's exactly the kind of fighter we need to stick it to the uppity Libs."
edited 25th May '17 9:16:00 PM by TheWanderer
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
Well, at the very least, I think we could assume that anyone who actually thinks body slamming a reporter would have voted for Gianforte anyway. I highly doubt anyone who was on the fence was won over by it, but maybe when the story got out it it made people who might not have voted get out and vote one way or another.
I guess we'll see how things play out from here, see if the scandal will continue to haunt Gianforte or just end up blowing over. We'll see if people continue to tolerate Republicans committing crimes.
