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
Can anyone confirm or deny that? I know it's come up once or twice, but I can't remember if this angle ever came up.
I think Broderick (who Clinton was involved with while an Arkansas politician before he rose to national prominence) hinted that there had been attempts to make sure she would stay quiet, but keep in mind that I'm no expert on the matter, and I do remember that for reasons I can't recall Broderick's story was considered at rather dubious at the time. I don't know if the events of the past 20+ years would lead us to be more likely to believe Broderick instead of assuming the worst about her though.
And for perspective, Clinton had just turned 17 when that election happened. Going to college made her reassess a lot of things. Yet certain fringe people still like to use that as proof that Clinton is a "Closet Conservative" who didn't deserve their vote because she wouldn't be progressive enough.
I hope at 70 they still have to eat shit for what they did at 17 too.
That... would be an immediate Constitutional Crisis, no need to wait until a possible impeachment or post-presidential criminal charges or whatnot. It would be such an Imperial act that it might actually cause the biggest backlash in almost a century against the expansion of presidential power that has been going on since the early days of the 20th century. There would be no way to sit out that storm, the courts, legislature, and the country at large would have to decide at that point whether they were ok with the blatant expansion and abuse of power in the Presidency, instead of the slow creep that inattention (on the part of the public) and a reluctance to take a stand on anything (Congress) has enabled.
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |Sorry for the double post, but...
I remember a few years ago hearing a British man who had been a part of a Muslim fundamentalist movement left it while he was imprisoned in Egypt in part because he looked around at all his fellow fundamentalists and the thought struck him "Would I really trust any of them with power over a country and the lives of other people?"
Some gun folks are doing their absolute best to make the U.S. think that way about our gun laws. Certainly at least he just showed that some of the hypothetical objections about storage and the wrong person getting ahold of a teacher's gun are not just hypotheticals.
edited 12th Apr '18 11:25:38 AM by TheWanderer
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |I honestly cannot imagine just leaving a gun somewhere. Speaking as someone who occasionally carries a gun that’s legitimately inconceivable, it’s like leaving your pants somewhere or something. Anyone who is able to forget about the gun they’re carrying under any circumstances should not be trusted with one, period.
They should have sent a poet.As we're all fond of remembering, it gets pretty blatant with a bunch of other Republicans too, but there's a certain reason to the madness.
Frankly that, for many of the "values voters", actually getting the policies they want passed are more important than maintaining the image of their "values". With Evangelicals in particular, it makes a lot more sense when you realize that "Evangelical" is more a cultural identifier for many of them than an accurate short-hand for their religious beliefs. Many White Evangelicals don't know, or care, about actual Evangelical beliefs.
Whether evangelicals are hypocritical about their own beliefs or not is, in my mind, mostly just ammunition to discredit them. It's their policy aims that are damning, not necessarily their lack of practicing what they preach. It's kind of worrying when people are fixated on the disconnect between stated evangelical beliefs and their actions — if they practiced what they preached, what they preached would still be abhorrent.
edited 12th Apr '18 12:13:55 PM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."Good point on that, and well said.
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |The point, I guess, is that if they actually practiced what they preached, they'd refuse to support some of the more abhorrent politicians that have shown up on the Republican side, and we'd presumably have higher-quality elected officials as a result. Remember the big fuss about how Utah was going to back some third party yahoo because Mormons were serious enough about their religion to stay away from Trump. Yeah, that didn't end up working out.
The point is that if they really voted their consciences, Republicans would have to field better people as candidates. So the obvious conclusion is that they aren't motivated by their faith so much as by their bigotry. This is part and parcel of what makes them horrible people. If they were capable of the kind of discretion that we're talking about, we wouldn't be in such a political quagmire to begin with.
And yes, FPTP does lend itself to a lot of this because it turns the ballot into an "us vs. them" thing, where keeping the opposite party out of power trumps all other concerns. The place to make their moral objections felt, therefore, would be in the primaries. So yeah.
[Insert mandatory disclaimer about "Not All Republicans".]
edited 12th Apr '18 12:32:09 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"But they won't field better candidates. Trump is right there demonstrating the exact issue with this kind of thinking. They have ridden the crazy train off the rails and over the cliff.
Cause the problem is that no matter how bad the other side is, eventually the sane guys will lose an election. That other shoe is going to drop. And that shoe is getting worse all the time, and shows no signs of slowing down. The problem is the Republican party and even that is a symptom of its voters who are driven by the grievances of white racial identity politics and Christian supremacy. Their response to Democratic victories is to completely refuse to see the Democrats, or people of color as an extension, as legitimate voices for participation on Democracy. and the mainstream media is not willing to call things as they are, because there need to be 'equal sides.' But no matter how good you are, you can always lose to the other party.
And if the other party has gone completely fucking insane by then...well, you get the present situation.
edited 12th Apr '18 12:33:24 PM by Lightysnake
Eh, evangelicals have always been more preoccupied with reshaping society to be in line with conservative theological doctrine and fulfilling Second Coming prophecies. Following Jesus's example never seems to be a priority to these people, so when someone says supporting Trump is hypocritical for them, I have to ask how. Trump is exactly the kind of man, candidate, and leader that emerges from their thinking. He isn't an aberration of these ideas, but a crystallization of them.
Trump's entire presidency violates the norms of pretty much every aspect of American political life, but the loyalty of evangelicals to his faction is basically exactly what can be expected.
edited 12th Apr '18 12:40:08 PM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."Evangelicals' refusal to practice what they preach is both a symptom and a reflection of the underlying causes of our political divide. That is the point I'm making. The phenomena are inseparable from one another.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Revealed: Secret rightwing strategy to discredit teacher strikes
The new rightwing strategy to discredit the strikes that have erupted in protest against cuts in education funding and poor teacher pay is contained in a three-page document obtained by the Guardian. Titled “How to talk about teacher strikes”, it provides a “dos and don’ts” manual for how to smear the strikers.
That "secret strategy" seems like what right-wingers do anyway: tout false meritocracy, blame bureaucracy, dodge the fact that their tax cuts are mostly to blame. It's good we have a document of it, but really, this shouldn't be a huge surprise.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."

But the rift between the Bannonites and Trumpeters was at least something.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.