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
EDIT: Added in the full article:
Refusing to go any further to regulate bathroom use for transgender Texans, House Speaker Joe Straus said Friday that the Senate can take or leave a proposed compromise it passed on Sunday — to which Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick later responded with a resounding no.
With the clock ticking on the legislative session, Straus said on Friday that the House will not appoint members to negotiate with the Senate on its proposed compromise on a “bathroom bill.”
“For many of us — and especially for me — this was a compromise,” Straus said at a Friday news conference. “As far as I’m concerned, it was enough. We will go no further. This is the right thing to do in order to protect our economy from billions of dollars in losses and more importantly to protect the safety of some very vulnerable young Texans.”
Patrick called a news conference of his own later Friday to reiterate that he is unwilling to step back from pushing for a measure that would eliminate existing policies that allow transgender Texans to use the bathrooms that match their gender identity and will force a special session, if that’s what it takes.
“He said he has compromised enough, but in fact, he has not compromised at all,” Patrick said.
After months of avoiding a vote on the divisive issue, the House on Sunday amended Senate Bill 2078 with language that would’ve required school districts to provide single-occupancy bathrooms, lockers rooms and changing facilities for students who don’t want to use the ones associated with their “biological sex.” (School groups said the language was open to interpretation and could possibly allow schools to maintain policies that accommodate transgender students beyond single-occupancy facilities with a few tweaks.)
But Patrick — who has spent months championing far-reaching restrictions on bathroom use — had said the amendment’s “ambiguous language” didn’t “appear to do much.” The Senate requested a conference committee on the bill to iron out a deal on the issue, but Straus said that won’t be happening.
"If the Senate wants to pass a ‘bathroom bill,' it can concur with the bill we passed earlier week," Straus told reporters during a Friday news conference. "The House has compromised enough on this issue."
Calling it "absurd" that "'bathroom bills' have taken on greater urgency than fixing our school finance system," Straus said the House is "availing itself" of the same actions the Senate took on school finance legislation by refusing to appoint members to conference committee on legislation originally intended to address the state's complex, outdated school funding formulas.
For months, transgender individuals residing in Texas have watched lawmakers in Austin squabble over which bathrooms they can use and have been left to wonder whether the Legislature would pull back on local protections meant to protect them from discrimination in public bathrooms and individual accommodations transgender children have obtained at their schools.
The Senate in March passed restrictive legislation that would require people to use facilities in publicly owned building based on “biological sex” — to keep transgender Texans from using bathrooms that match their gender identity — and void local ordinances that regulate bathroom use.
But that measure and a similar House proposal — House Bill 2899 — have languished in the lower chamber.
In threatening to push for legislative overtime, Patrick had deemed bathroom and property tax legislation as must-pass bills. But the House instead acted on narrower measures than those that came out of the Senate.
On Friday, Patrick continued his threat to push for a special session and said the House at a minimum should pass HB 2899, which, he noted, 80 House members had signed on to. Otherwise, he’d continue to hold hostage legislation that would keep some of the state’s agencies from shutting their doors as part of a sunset review process.
“There are two must-pass bills, or I will allow the mistakes of the speaker to put us into a special session,” Patrick said of the House’s tactical error in failing to pass a "sunset safety net" bill ahead of a key legislative deadline.
"Joe Straus is the one causing the special session," Patrick said. "I'm just allowing it to happen."
While Patrick is holding onto a significant bargaining chip, only Gov. Greg Abbott can call a special session. Straus’ decision to not appoint conferees to SB 2078 comes after days of Abbott saying he was hopeful for a compromise on property taxes and the “bathroom bill" during the regular legislative session.
Straus on Friday took further action on bathrooms off the table but said the House would consider on Saturday whether to appoint members to a conference committee on Senate Bill 669, onto which the House amended a narrow version of the property tax legislation Patrick was pushing for.
Abbott did not respond to a request for comment from the Tribune on Friday evening, but in a statement given to KXAN News, he demurred on the policy deadlock and instead reiterated that there was still time for a resolution.
“Despite tensions, the session is not yet over,” the statement read. “The taxpayers deserve to have the Legislature finish their work on time. Only the governor can determine when or if there is a special session, and if so, what issues are addressed.”
But Patrick made clear he wouldn't compromise: "Tonight, I’m making it very clear, governor: I want you to call us back on your time."
edited 27th May '17 5:20:22 PM by tclittle
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."To add my two cents: Holidays are expensive. When we added reunification day as our first not-church related national holiday, it was quite a hassle to agree about which holiday to knock off the list in exchange (it ended up being the Buße und Bettag (Day of Repentance and Prayer). So I can totally understand why it is difficult to make election day a national holiday. I don't get though why voting can't be done at least on the weekend (for reference, we always vote on Sunday, because the only people working on Sundays are those who work in emergency service and other vital jobs).
And in more Texas possible special session news: several Federal Republican Representatives from Texas are asking the state government to add gerrymandering to a possible special session's agenda due to fears of losses in 2018, due to the courts possibly throwing out the old map, and a blue wave.
From the linked article about the measures in California that did not pass:
It's not quite the same thing as giving everyone a day off for voting. Though it would mean an extra day off from public school for students.
From the linked article after clicking on the bill name:
In the 2000 presidential election, 50 percent of voters turned out nationwide, compared to 50.6 percent of voters in states with election holidays and 49.9 percent of voters in states without one. Four years later, national turnout was 55.3 percent, compared to 55.2 percent in states with election holidays and 55.3 percent in states without one.
“It is evident that an Election Day holiday does not increase voter turnout,” the report said.
I can sort of understand why the assembly might be hesitant to support a bill that would cost the state money and might not have any actual impact.
This bill also caught my attention:
If this had passed, I wonder if a bunch of people would suddenly start adopting animals (and badly mistreating and neglecting them) just for the tax credits.
edited 27th May '17 9:03:15 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedThey'd probably have a basic care threshold or something like the DSS for animals, just to make sure they aren't abusing their tax credit.
Then again, that's ANOTHER organization that requires tax payer money, so it may be an unwise move fiscally.
I'm not fond of the idea in the first place, personally.
New Survey coming this weekend!
Yeah, the availability of early voting via mail in California was probably a factor in the assembly deciding that the measure was a waste of taxpayer money.
It's worth noting that the bill wasn't killed by the state legislature as a whole. It was the Assembly Appropriations Committee that decided this bill — among many others — was not fiscally sound. It had gotten as far as the Suspense File stage.
edited 28th May '17 7:10:39 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedThis is from a few pages back, but...
More to the point in the politics thread: the reason Russia has gone for ground-based anti-air capabilities instead of preferring the stealth aircraft route is that Russia is much less reliant on their air power than America is in general. America really likes air power because it's an excellent form of force projection (park an aircraft carrier on the nearest coastline or base your planes out of a friendly airfield a few hundred miles away and you can operate basically anywhere in the world relatively easily), while Russia doesn't particularly care for them since they have almost no global force projection capability anyway and stealth fighters are expensive. But they need to be able to deal with the USA's stealth capability (or just accept that the American military would be able to operate with impunity in their airspace, which they definitely don't want), so they developed ground-based anti-air systems instead.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.It is unlikely that Russia will ever attack the US directly...it is simply not practical for them. The territories they want are all close to their own soil...to be specific, their own borders. For them it is about expanding the size of their own country. For the US it is about having influence in other countries.
Historically, Russians think defensively, protectively. They've been invaded quite a few times in their history and their military imperatives are based around expanding their regional base of power in order to defend the homeland. The United States, by contrast, has not faced an external threat to its sovereignty since the War of 1812. Since World War I, we've thought in terms of force projection, of protecting our global economic and cultural interests.
These are sharply different ideologies and they shape how our respective militaries will develop.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The Chinese PLA is having to straddle the awkward line between a counter-insurgency force meant to put down a domestic revolt, a traditional heavyweight military for the event of a great power ground war against Russia, and a navy-based force projection asset for expanding the PRC's influence overseas.
Which ironically sounds a lot like the Imperial Japanese military's strategic and organizational dilemmas during The '40s.
Given past precedence, there'd probably be no actual "war" lasting months but moreso a massive border "incident" that costs hundreds of lives but which only spans the time of a single night or day.
Said "border incident" would probably be followed by several more of its kind and scale after the first on a monthly basis, but most likely no actual drives to Beijing lest the Russians go full Zhukov.
__
Now back to our regular programming, Newsweek speculates that
H.R Mc Master, the White House national security adviser, is likely Trump's next target to sack.
![]()
![]()
We don't know. It would depend on how desperate they are.
Also remember, Putin is not stupid nor necessarily bloodthirsty. MAD is not entirely off the table and the country that shoots first gets a major target on their back for every other nuclear country in the world.
edited 28th May '17 11:02:37 AM by Elle
Would he? It's one thing to be ruthless enough to kill journalists but saying that he would definitely use nukes if he could seems somewhat suspect to me. And I doubt he's stupid enough to take parts of China, I imagine that holding it would be a gigantic pain in the ass.

Voting on Tuesday was established way back when things were first established and if you were a qualified and registered voter you had to ride a horse or carriage to the polls it would mean it took you quite some time to actually get there. And since things changed (which took like a century, really) just plain old cultural inertia has kept it from being changed. I'd say we need to change it to a Saturday (Preferably a whole goddamn weekend so as to circumvent attempts to close polls in the evening and coerce people into going home) rather than set any kind of a holiday. Yes, I realize that people work on the weekends, but Saturday still makes the most sense in this day and age.
And boy howdy were you guys quick to jump on the negativity bandwagon. "oh no they ARE just corrupt officials!" Please get off it.
In any case, it appears if someone can make the case that it wouldn't cost a lot of money, then it can probably come up again. Or, you know, convincingly make the argument that the cost is worth it. Persistence is key in politics.