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
Igno, where are you getting the idea that no one is doing anything about voter ID or general disenfranchisment? As frustrating as the situation is, at least in North Carolina the SC is making them redraw districts based very much on the fact that they're heavily gerrymandered. It's not something people forgot about. Also... I am pretty fucking sure that with the way our infrastructure is set up that blue states CAN'T embargo red states, and that would just create way more fucking problems than it would solve. It's a fucking idiotic strategy. Like.... what the fuck makes you think this is even feasible? Or that it wouldn't, somehow, backfire on blue states, despite the fact that we're all one country with a very much integrated infrastructure? Do you understand how interstate commerce works? I am pretty fucking sure that New York can't just decide not to trade with Texas because they don't like the politics. (And embargoes on the international scale are implemented for far more serious reasons than just not liking someone's politics.)
And I fail to see how your complaint about protests is valid: It's not at all true that all protests used to shut things down entirely. The ones that did that had literally millions in them. And while the ones we've had may not be quite that huge, we've got to start somewhere. It's like you've declared them useless because they've failed to immediately meet some standard of effectiveness you've set. (Here's a hint, it takes more than one, or even a few, protests to get anywhere.) Also, protests are not a silver bullet.
Also also, people were probably thinking about making protests illegal back in the Civil Rights movement. I'm pretty sure that they put bans on how many people could gather in a group, at some points and places.
Dealing with the current problem isn't going to meet with immediate success, Ignomiya. I understand that you're frustrated, but you're declaring things ineffective far too soon. And also suggesting some really poorly thought ideas here.
edited 13th Jun '17 8:51:22 PM by AceofSpades
While the merits and problems of the EU are probably better suited to the European Politics thread, Swanpride and others (from Germany TBF) have mentioned that Germany doesn't actually like being the "face" of the EU as a whole since they don't actually get that much benefit — at least not enough to make up for the responsibility and scapegoating. For one thing, they really don't like those "Fourth Reich" jokes.
The UK and France could have taken charge, but they stepped back for various reasons. Germany more or less Got Volunteered.
edited 13th Jun '17 8:53:15 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised![]()
![]()
Naturally. All I'm saying is that Nixon's situation is unusual enough, both in American history and history in general, that it's flawed to use it a guide for what Trump's fate will be if he's impeached. It's fair to say that Trump is less likely to be jailed than he is to be impeached, but anything stronger than that is unsupported.
edited 13th Jun '17 8:55:01 PM by Gilphon
![]()
Take Berlusconi for example; he was convicted for an offense related to tax fraud, but not jailed or even fined appreciably, and all the various investigations against him have gone nowhere, and are expected to continue to do so. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that it's very unlikely to happen.
edited 13th Jun '17 9:00:54 PM by CaptainCapsase
![]()
Exactly.
Though there are probably enough presidential impeachment to start building a case if you include other countries, but I don't personally have any knowledge of that. I'd be interested to see if Nixon-esque pardons are the norm or not.
Well, okay, that's a second data point. I'm still not really convinced though.
![]()
I wouldn't actually call that a bad thing. An conditioned aversion to purging former leaders on less than perfect evidence is a good sign the res publica tradition still exists. (Even if everyone knows he done it and his walking free seems to frustrate rule of law, that itself is if not quite a law a higher norm). The difference with former leaders may just be that the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard means just that when it comes to deposed leaders of republics. And that reassurance does its part. Alot of history's tyrants know the get 'em before they get me rule.
edited 13th Jun '17 9:10:53 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 livesYou gotta be careful reading certain left wing sources. The Democrats are doing just about everything they can to push back and fight.
The unfortunate truth is, there's just not a lot we can do right now in terms of legislation. And what we can do is gonna take time.
We lost pretty hard this time around, recovery is gonna be difficult.
edited 13th Jun '17 9:13:48 PM by LeGarcon
Oh really when?I mean, how would you expect that to go? If the ones in power are acknowledged to deliberately making unconstitutional laws, you think they're going to jump fixing them? Redrawing takes awhile either way there's not getting around that.
Why would that be feasible? The states refusing to provide tax money to fund the government is one of the reasons the Articles of Confederation failed, and is something enshrined in the Constitution as direct result of it. Federal government denying funds, and states denying to provide taxes are not at all equivalent.
I don't really know who's being patronizing. You're just commenting on how things are bad and proposing things you either know are also bad, infeasible, or both, and complaining when people point that out. You say you know there isn't a quick fix to things but it really sounds like you're looking for a quick fix to things.
Saying "it wasn't originally my idea" doesn't really mean anything if you're the one proposing it now.
edited 13th Jun '17 9:31:02 PM by LSBK
Somehow I doubt that denying the federal government their federal taxes is somehow legal for states to do, and again, denying the federal government HURTS LITERALLY EVERYONE because taxes, hey, those pay for things like infrastructure, education, and healthcare. There's nothing that hurts those things like denying the cashflow. We're not going to have any kind of an economic war within the country itself. It's not a good idea. As you clearly don't understand how economics work, you should probably stop suggesting things along these lines.
As for why weren't protests banned: Again, I'm pretty goddamned sure they were in several places! People kept protesting anyway. Because we have the right to peaceably assembly and make our opinions known. The people involved in the Civil Rights movement participated knowing full damn well they were putting themselves out there, frequently to get the shit beaten out of them. And things got done because people kept protesting, and voting, and generally putting themselves out there in any way they could think of.
And not so much has changed that putting ourselves out there in anyway possible isn't still the answer. Look at the Run for Something campaigns, encouraging people to run for office on various levels and to volunteer to help such campaigns. Maybe you could join one of those. (Don't just assume that because you live in California that you can't do anything to help. Just get out there.)
Get out and vote. Help others get to vote, if you can. Just... Do something other than mire yourself in pessimism. That doesn't help anyone.
Edit: If your idea is to make the government fail, FUCK THAT IDEA. That's the Republican's plan. That should not be our fucking plan. If your solution is anything remotely related to accelerationism, burn it all down, make it fail so we can just dump the whole thing, then it's a pretty bad idea that gives no shits about who will suffer in the meantime. We need plans to repair and build, not to destroy.
edited 13th Jun '17 9:33:01 PM by AceofSpades
First of all, no one is assuming everything's going to be hunky dory if we do all those things. We're suggesting that all those things be done because those things the most feasible way to get the stuff we want to happen to happen. We are all very well aware that this is going to take a hell of a lot of time. For someone who's claiming folks are putting words in your mouth, you're putting an awful lot into the people of this thread.
Second, the phrase "let the government fail" basically implies "let nothing get done", particularly when you're suggesting doing something not even remotely doable like withholding taxes. You know, that flow of revenue that makes it possible for the government do anything at all? Not only would that get states slapped down hard, all the Republicans would do would be to continue to cut funding to the stuff we need to make up the supposed shortfall. If you think withholding funds is a good idea then you need to look at the legislation all the Congress does, where they frequently decide through law making what money goes where and for what purpose.
And I wasn't telling you to butt out. But when you understand something so little you should maybe learn something about it BEFORE you start suggesting things. (And yes, you were suggesting a thing, quite a few things, with a poor understand out how they would work.)
As for getting involved; that's up to you how little you want to be involved. It's up to you to research how best you can help people in your location. We can't help you in that department due to well, living in different states and countries. There's lots of opportunities where they basically just want you to call people up on the phone for maybe an hour a day. You'll never really know if you don't bother to look.
edited 13th Jun '17 10:44:30 PM by AceofSpades
I don't think that the danger in pushing Germany into a position of power lays in the Germany becoming corrupted, it lies in other countries getting nervous should that happen. It's the curse of Germany, it is not powerful enough to be seen as untouchable but too powerful to not encourage challenge.
Anyway, I do think that the Democrats should move for impeachment now, for the following reasons: For one, they actually have more than enough reason to, between Trump obstructing justice and openly funnelling tax payer money into his own businesses. Sure, the investigation might turn up even more, but impeachment is a long process. It would be better if said process is already underway. Let's be realistic here, if the secret services don't find any proof within the next year, it is pretty unlikely that they will find remarkably more the year after.
Also, even if impeachment fails, once everything goes to hell the Democrats can at least claim that they tried. If they wait too long the public will accuse them of having not acted because they were more concerned about a possible a failure or interested in seeing Trump wreck even more so that they could protect their chances for 2018 than actually protecting the US population. They will look nearly as bad as the Republicans.
Trump urges senators to replace 'mean' House healthcare bill
Wait wait... what?
"Yup. That tasted purple."

It's almost unheard of in liberal democracies for a former head of state to be imprisoned or assassinated by agents of the opposing party after leaving power; it's far more common for disgraced heads of state to be allowed to walk away.
edited 13th Jun '17 8:53:15 PM by CaptainCapsase