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
Trump to send the National Guard to the US-Mexican Border to help protect it
. Essentially, it's a repeat of Operation Jump Start (2006-2008).
It's not as bad as it could be, but it's still something stupid.
Facebook Says Cambridge Analytica Harvested Data of Up to 87 Million Users note
The new figure, roughly equivalent to a quarter of the population of the United States, is substantially greater than the previous estimate of how many users’ information Cambridge Analytica harvested. The number had been put at more than 50 million users.
Facebook released the revised figure as part of an extended statement about changes it is making to how it handles personal data. The company said it would start telling users on April 9 about whether their information might have been shared with Cambridge Analytica.
“We wanted to put out the maximum number of people who could have been affected,” Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive, said on a call with reporters.
Seems like the problem was a lot bigger than you let on, Facebook.
The problem, at least for me, isn't even that they harvested data from Facebook. It's that they gained the data under false pretenses, and used the data to the conduct what could be considered a psy-ops campaign on the American Public.
edited 4th Apr '18 7:37:38 PM by megaeliz
I have a question. How difficult would it be for either the Republican or Democratic Party to establish authority over its own membership a la a European party?
(What I would rather not see is all of the Nazis trying to migrate over to the Democratic side and ally with Jill Stein and the Bernie Bros.)
Firstly the idea of Nazis immigrating to the Democratic Party is beyond ridiculous, why would they do it when the Republican Party offers exactly what they want? Furthermore I see no reason to assume that either of those groups would be willing to ally with Nazis in large enough numbers. It just makes no sense to imagine something like that happening.
Secondly the parties probably can't develop such authority due to the fact that we're a two party system so it would be rather undemocratic for one or both of the parties to be able to ban members, it's completely different from a Parliamentary Democracy with a dozen parties where being banned from a party does not mean you're frozen out of the political system.
edited 4th Apr '18 7:34:24 PM by Fourthspartan56
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangSo apparently, Manafort tried to sue to say that Mueller's investigation was going to far beyond it's scope, and was more or less laughed out of court today.
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman questioned Manafort's attorney on the legal reasoning behind the former Trump aide's argument that Mueller's investigation has overstepped and should be shut down.
“I don’t really understand what is left of your case,” Berman reportedly told Manafort's attorney, Kevin Downing.
Manafort's civil lawsuit relies in part on a law called the Administrative Procedure Act, which dictates how federal agencies write regulations. Manafort claims that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's order last year appointing Mueller violated Justice Department policies.
He also claims that Mueller does not have the authority to investigate allegations that predate his time on Trump's campaign.
I like the Judge's response.
Also hilariously stupid, @ALTDIA came across a botnet sourced from, and I quote, "Farting For Trump"
Then again, this one
was apparently sourced from "Cheap Bots, Done Quick", so...
edited 4th Apr '18 8:25:08 PM by megaeliz
The UK is de facto a two-party system during normal operation and the parties are free to police their membership if they wish. That's not a good argument.
Well, no, I'm not saying that it's something to emulate. I'm saying that "it's a two party system" isn't automatically a reason to go to "parties should have no control of their membership". There's a missing justification for why it's undemocratic and somehow preventing people from partaking in politics to not let Nazis pick who represents the Democrats when they can still vote.
The general argument that parties should have the authority to kick out their members is one that would automatically go beyond Nazis so acting as if it's just about keeping Nazis out of the Democratic Party is either disingenuous or evidence that you haven't thought it through enough.
We only have two viable parties, thus if they're allowed to kick people out of themselves then one could be frozen out of the political system regardless of their beliefs. This is extremely dangerous and not something I'm willing to support.
Generally hate speech laws are a far better solution to disenfranchising Nazis and are not nearly as broad.
edited 4th Apr '18 8:36:44 PM by Fourthspartan56
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangThis also prohibits anything but a two party system, because you only have two parties so hopelessly broad that anyone can wander in and find some vague tenet to match, and the parties can't exercise any sort of coherent thought for long at all. Restricting party membership so people have a reason to invest in other parties would not automatically be bad.
Except no, that would not change the structural reasons that only two parties are viable and would just lead to the problems I mentioned.
If you want to support reform to make our system have more than two viable parties and support stronger party discipline then by all means, I'd almost certainly agree with you. But it's irresponsible to support strong party discipline in the current status-quo.
edited 4th Apr '18 8:41:52 PM by Fourthspartan56
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangAbout the Oligarchs being stopped by the FBI at airports.
So that's what Trump must have meant by Extreme Vetting. I'm suprised to say that for once, I approve.
edited 4th Apr '18 8:47:08 PM by megaeliz
Yeah it’s kinda impossible for the US to progress beyond an explicit two party system as long as parties cannot enforce discipline, however it’s not the only needed reform. Remember part of why the two big US parties are so powerful is because they have funding dominance (which isn’t an issue in other two sporty systems because the cost of campaigning isn’t so high) and because they are granted special status by the government (if you run as a Republican or Democrat it’s easiyer to get on the ballot (and I’m talking about more than the presidency here) than if you run as a member of a third party), you have to deal with both of those factos alongside the issue of nobody having an incentive to form a third party.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranWell, one thing, you'd have to make the rules about party affiliation more uniform across the states. In New York a candidate can be on many party's ballots, thus allowing an explicit alliance between them, (New York city alone apparently has lots of very small parties) but in Texas you're pretty explicitly not allowed to do that. You can't have a democrat that shows up for the Greens, as well, for instance.
(It's been a while since I learned this, so I may be misremembering how, exactly, it works, but the case remains that in some states it's a lot easier for smaller parties to ally with each other than it is in others.)
It means the ability to expel members, so explicit membership rolls, a removal of the whole “register as an X” and it being replaced with “apply for membership of X party”, personally I’d also make all primaries closed primaries and suggest even looking into membership dues being introduced.
People would still have the ability to break the party line and vote how they feel, but they could be expelled from the party if they did that to often or on something important (though they’d still retain their positon even if expelled from the party).
edited 4th Apr '18 10:34:13 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranNo offense, but if you get kicked out of the Dems and GOP you can still participate in the political process, for a third party or as independent.
Sure, that's way harder, but hey... isn't that the entire point? To make sure elected officials are accountable to the platform of the party instead of just hitching a ride?
The US is a two-party system because of its election system, not because it was set up as two party system, after all.
And if I remember right Parties are, technically, private associations and not functionaries of the state.
Nazis don't have any right to register attendance to my birthday party either
Outside of volunteering as Pinata, that is.
Edit: Maybe an idea would be to allow anyone to register as a party voter, but only members can put the (X) beside the name on State and above elections.
edited 5th Apr '18 2:49:17 AM by 3of4
"You can reply to this Message!"

Mueller and his team have stopped, searched and questioned several Russian oligarchs about their monetary relationship to Trump.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/04/politics/mueller-special-counsel-investigation-russian-oligarchs/index.html
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.