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
The attitude that "I like the outcome, so that makes it okay" appalls me.
But you can't just just dismiss a ruling as invalid if you don't like it and accept it if you do. That's not how rule of law works.
You know why that's a problem? Because short-barrelled shotguns do have military value. They were used extensively in WWI for clearing trenches (where a shotgun is more useful than a rifle, and the short barrel makes it easier to maneuver in tight quarters). Had Miller been allowed a defense, they certainly would have brought that up and the SCOTUS would have had to take that into account in their ruling.
This doesn't mean that they would have decided that short-barrelled shotguns are constitutionally protected, but it means they would have had to find a better justification for upholding the National Firearms Act than the one they gave. Why is this important? Because shitty rulings are easy to overturn. Someone could have theoretically brought the exact same case all the way back up to the SCOTUS just by pointing out that short-barrelled shotguns do actually have military value and are thus relevant to participation in a well-regulated militia.
Luckily for all parties, everyone seems to understand what a hatchet job US vs Miller was, and it was only cited seven times in further SCOTUS cases. Seven times in 80 years is not much.
Point is, good process makes for good rulings. If you do dumb things in the trial, you end up with dumb rulings. Dumb rulings are easier to get thrown out (or largely ignored, like US vs Miller was). If you end up with a ruling that's well-grounded in logic and precedent but results in an outcome you don't like, then change the law. That's how the system works.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Breaking this down, there are two parts to this: Was she correct to call her a lesbian? Factually, no. Nixon is bi, not lesbian.
But why did she call her a lesbian. Probably not to intentionally misidentify her. Probably instead to emphasize their similarities as queer women running for office. "I have nothing against lesbians, but I prefer smart ones like me to dumb ones like her." That kind of intent. That's what "unqualified lesbian" means.
Does that absolve her of her ignoranance of bisexuality? No, of course not. But I was answering the question of "why call her a lesbian at all?" Not any other question.
IE: I disagree with the idea that it's a dogwhistle. I think the speaker is ignorant, not malicious.
edited 27th Mar '18 6:04:21 PM by Clarste
"Unqualified lesbian" does kind of sound like "bi people aren't really LGBT+" (sounds weird, what with the B, yeah, but I don't know how some people here feel about the other words I could use).
Oh God! Natural light!Someone found this
on Craig's List. I think it's a parody?
SEEKING LEAD ATTORNEY FOR DIFFICULT CLIENT (1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW)
compensation: Client is a hugely wealthy man. Hugely successful. Everyone says it.
Must be prepared to work with a client who is very forceful and opinionated about his defense and is his own best counsel.
Basically your job boils down to keeping him from testifying under oath and hoping the rest comes out in the wash.
Ask about our other openings on our staff and submit your resume to be considered for potential openings in the near future. Perhaps the very near future. Like, hit refresh on your browser now. Now again.
I started a spreadsheet
for all the Hard Russian Bots and Trolls that I found, if anyone wants to check it out. Right now, there isn't a lot on their yet, and it's just ones that I can be confident with identifying as Russian, so it's mostly harder stuff, and not necessarily related to American Politics (although some of it is.)
edited 27th Mar '18 9:16:52 PM by megaeliz
Crossposting from the East Asia thread:
Trump Secures Trade Deal With South Korea Ahead of Nuclear Talks
:
The deal, which is expected to be formally announced on Wednesday, opens the South’s market to American autos by lifting existing limits on manufacturers like Ford Motor and General Motors, extends tariffs for South Korean truck exports and restricts, by nearly a third, the amount of steel that the South can export to the United States. Mr. Trump used his threat of stiff steel and aluminum tariffs as a cudgel to extract the concessions he wanted, helping produce an agreement that had stalled amid disagreements this year.
But winning the deal may have had more to do with the geopolitical realities confronting the United States and South Korea as America embarks on tricky nuclear discussions with North Korea. The United States cannot afford a protracted trade standoff at a moment when it needs the South as an ally.
The trade deal came as the Chinese state news media reported that North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, made an unannounced visit to Beijing to meet with President Xi Jinping weeks before planned summit meetings with American and South Korean leaders.
The political success of the trade agreement — and its ability to be replicated in other negotiations — is not guaranteed. Many countries have reacted coolly to Washington’s pugilistic approach to trade, viewing the president’s preference to punch first and negotiate later as counter to global interests.
So apparently this 90s sitcom, Roseanne, just got a reboot with the main star being a Trump Supporter, just like her actress.
I haven't seen either version so I can't say if it's good, but Here's a review of the first episode
. I do know who did like it though, Russian Bots
.
I'm not familiar with the show or the actress, honestly, so I can't really say.
edited 28th Mar '18 5:38:32 AM by megaeliz
According to this New York Times
interview, she's one of those people who projects their idea of what they want Trump to be onto him. Her Trump is pro-LGBT and a champion of job-creation for the working class.
Also she doesn't like Mike Pence because she thinks Pence is a bigot.
I just wanted to have that dialogue about families torn apart by the election and their political differences of opinion and how we handle it. I thought that this was an important thing to say at this time.
Was it your idea for Roseanne to back Trump?
Yes. Because it’s an accurate portrayal of these people and people like them. In terms of what they think, and how they feel when they are the ones who send their kids over to fight. We’ve been in wars for a long, long time, which everybody seems to forget — but working class people don’t forget it because their kids are in it.
Trump has had tough words for ABC. Did you get any pushback from ABC about making Roseanne a Trump supporter?
Not from ABC, no.
From who?
Everyone else in the world.
Why do you think?
You know, people only want to see — they want to stick to their narrative and they don’t want it shaken up. But, you know, I was like, ‘Oh, here we go. I’m just the person for this job.’
Considering that Trump opposes many of the principles that you and Roseanne Conner have stood for, how can you support him?
No, he doesn’t, I don’t think he does. I don’t think so at all. I think he voices them quite well.
I’m thinking of abortion rights, same-sex marriage rights, labor protections —
He doesn’t oppose same-sex marriage.
He doesn’t favor it. He has not come out in favor of it.
He does. Yes, he does. He has said it several times, you know, that he’s not homophobic at all.
What about labor union protections and blue collar workers, and
What do you mean, the — oh, let’s not get into this.
[A representative for Ms. Barr interjected: “You don’t have to get into it. We can move on.”]
Well, you know, it’s —
Yes, let’s do.
A question people wonder about.
Well, I think working-class people were pissed off about Clinton and NAFTA, so let’s start there. That’s what broke all the unions and we lost all our jobs, so I think that’s a large part of why they voted for Trump because they didn’t want to see it continue, where our jobs are shipped away. So, it’s more, why did people support shipping our jobs away?
Why is Trump O.K. but Pence is objectionable, by your lights?
I think Pence is not as good as Trump, not as accepting, and not as, you know — I think that he’s way more radical.
edited 27th Mar '18 10:17:40 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Meh, I was never a fan of the original series anyway.
![]()
![]()
So like pretty much every single Trump supporter.
edited 27th Mar '18 10:20:52 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised
It's apparently highly endorsed by Russian Bots
, for whatever reason. It's actually kind of weird.
edited 27th Mar '18 10:48:27 PM by megaeliz
I remember Chinese rapper Jin doing a diss track towards her after she made fun of Chinese people in exactly the way you think in one of her standup routines. For added irony, the track featured... Donald Trump.
i'm tired, my friend#MuellerTime has come once again!
New Gates tie alleged in special counsel filing on van der Zwaan sentencing
That Gates and the unnamed person, who had lived in Kiev and Moscow and worked for one of Paul Manafort's companies, were in touch in September and October 2016 was "pertinent to the investigation," a court filing from prosecutors said Tuesday night.
The acknowledgment that Gates knew the person had Russian intelligence ties is alleged in a report prosecutors filed about the coming sentencing of a Dutch attorney. That attorney, Alex van der Zwaan, who worked with Gates and Manafort previously, pleaded guilty last month to lying to special counsel Robert Mueller's investigators about his interactions with Gates and the unnamed person.
The document can be read here
This
goes in a bit more in depth.
Mueller's office says it "does not take a position" on the appropriate sentence for Van Der Zwaan, but points out that he is a lawyer at a major firm and he "lied regarding topics at the center of a significant investigation."
Mueller's office says a prison sentence that would have Van Der Zwaan home for the birth of his child in August "would be within the recommended [Sentencing] Guidelines range."
edited 28th Mar '18 7:08:41 AM by megaeliz

I mean, I don't want to downplay bi-erasure, but in its full context the phrase comes across as just a slightly awkward/amusing rhetorical device.
edited 27th Mar '18 5:48:26 PM by Clarste