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
He's been busy today
“GOP Lawmakers asking Sessions to Investigate Comey and Hillary Clinton.” @Fox News Good luck with that request!
Sleepy Eyes Chuck Todd of Fake News NBC just stated that we have given up so much in our negotiations with North Korea, and they have given up nothing. Wow, we haven’t given up anything & they have agreed to denuclearization (so great for World), site closure, & no more testing!
....We are a long way from conclusion on North Korea, maybe things will work out, and maybe they won’t - only time will tell....But the work I am doing now should have been done a long time ago!
edited 22nd Apr '18 6:42:53 AM by megaeliz
In honor of Earth Day, here's a piece about the corruption of Scott Pruitt.
Scott Pruitt Before the E.P.A.: Fancy Homes, a Shell Company and Friends With Money
The meeting was set up on behalf of an executive associated with Smithfield Foods, the world’s largest pork processor and hog producer. Previously, Mr. Hart and his lobbying firm, Williams & Jensen, had maintained that Mr. Hart never lobbied Mr. Pruitt in 2017, when Mr. Pruitt was living in a condo co-owned by Mr. Hart’s wife, or in the time since then.
Late Friday, Williams & Jensen revealed in a filing that Mr. Hart was a registered lobbyist for Smithfield Foods in the first quarter of 2018 and said that he lobbied the E.P.A. on the company’s behalf. Details on the filing were first reported by The Hill.
Then, on Saturday, a spokesman for Mr. Hart, Ryan Williams, told The New York Times that Mr. Hart had met with Mr. Pruitt in 2017, along with Dennis Treacy, a former Smithfield executive vice president. Mr. Treacy now serves on the board of directors of the Smithfield Foundation, which the food company describes as its philanthropic arm with a focus of combating hunger.
Both Smithfield Foods and Mr. Hart dispute that the meeting was lobbying for the food company. However, the fact that a previously undisclosed meeting took place, around the same time when Mr. Pruitt was renting a $50-a-night Capitol Hill condo from Mr. Hart’s wife, is the latest example of Mr. Pruitt’s professional actions overlapping with personal relationships in ways that his critics have been quick to call inappropriate.
A spokesman for Smithfield Foods said that the work Mr. Hart did was on behalf of Mr. Treacy personally, as he is also a member of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, a government entity that works to improve the water quality in the largest estuary in the United States.
The E.P.A. has its own Chesapeake Bay program office, and it has been working for more than a decade with area states and the District of Columbia to restore the bay’s water quality.
“Smithfield Foods, Inc. has learned Williams & Jensen has advocated in support of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) programs to help the Chesapeake Bay,” the company said in a statement Saturday. “The objective, while laudable, was not undertaken at the direction of or on behalf of Smithfield Foods. These activities were conducted at the request of a then former executive and current Smithfield Foundation board member, Dennis Treacy, in his personal capacity.”
Mr. Hart disputed on Saturday that his story had changed, saying in a written statement that his work with Mr. Treacy was not compensated and not on behalf of Smithfield. “I assisted a friend who serves on the Chesapeake Bay Commission, and this is inaccurately being tied to Smithfield Foods,” Mr. Hart said. “I was not paid for this assistance and any suggestion that I lobbied for Smithfield Foods is inaccurate.”
The Smithfield Foods disclosure was made the same day that Mr. Hart announced he was stepping down as chairman of Williams & Jensen — instead of waiting until his planned November retirement — citing the negative publicity that had been caused by the Capitol Hill condo rental to Mr. Pruitt.
“Considering the last couple of weeks, I think it is easier on my family and the firm to expedite my departure,” Mr. Hart wrote in a note to his work colleagues on Friday. “I am very much looking forward to devoting myself to an independent legal practice, some strategic business counseling for a few clients, golf, and shooting (not in that order),” he wrote.
No details were released by Williams & Jensen or Smithfield about the meeting between Mr. Hart and Mr. Pruitt other than that it took place in early 2017.
Patrick Creighton, the spokesman for Williams & Jensen, said in a written statement on Saturday that the firm was now reviewing its 2017 lobbying disclosure statements and “will make adjustments if needed once that review is complete,” to acknowledge, if necessary, that the meeting took place.
Mr. Pruitt’s calendar from 2017 shows a short meeting on Aug. 1 with Chesapeake Bay Commission leadership that does not disclose who from the organization was present. Agency officials did not respond on Saturday when asked if this was the meeting that involved Mr. Hart.
A spokeswoman for the E.P.A., when previously asked by The Times about any lobbying by Mr. Hart, said that “there was no connection between where he lived and any decision he made.” The agency sent out that statement again on Saturday when asked about the 2017 meeting with Mr. Hart.
Mr. Hart had previously been listed as a lobbyist for companies including Cheniere Energy, a natural gas company that is regulated by the E.P.A.
edited 22nd Apr '18 9:48:28 AM by megaeliz
I see responses to the tweet stating they're shocked that Obama never pardoned Johnson, but I've got a question about presidential pardons:
From reading about what happened to Johnson, my understanding is this:
Johnson was married to a white woman. He'd also had a relationship with another white woman who worked at a brothel that was supposed to be exclusive to white men but which he had obtained access to. The Mann Act was used to claim he was sex trafficking these women in order to get him imprisoned.
From reading about presidential pardons, my understand is that they're for people who are confirmed to be guilty of the crime they were convicted for.
So, putting the two together, doesn't this mean that the kind of pardon Jackson needs is that he should never have been accused (let alone convicted) of this crime in the first place, and that presidential pardons therefore are not suitable for his specific need?
Doesn't pardoning Jackson effectively legitimise a conviction that should never be given legitimacy?
He's quoted in the article as saying that he doesn't believe Trump will fire Mueller, but his interest is in making sure future presidents don't abuse it. My suspicion is that the changes he's working on probably won't damage Mueller (which is what the Democrats are currently afraid of). What'll it do is protect a future investigation against Hillary Clinton. Grassley gets kudos before the mid-terms for a bipartisan attempt to protect Mueller while future-proofing any special investigation Republicans might want to bring against Hillary Clinton.
edited 22nd Apr '18 10:51:13 AM by Wyldchyld
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.Naked Gunman Kills 4 In Waffle House Shooting
A man wearing only a green jacket shot three people dead at a Waffle House. One person later died at a hospital where two others are being treated for injuries. Police say the suspect fled on foot, and is still on the loose. Eye witnesses tell police he stripped his jacket off near the restaurant, went back to his nearby apartment and put on a pair of pants. He was last seen wearing only black pants.
The police have identified the suspect as 29-year-old Travis Reinking of Morton, Ill. According to police spokesperson Dan Aaron, Reinking drove his pickup truck to the restaurant in Antioch, Tenn. and shot people talking in the parking lot, then continued on and opened fire inside.
A Waffle House patron who saw that the gunman was "apparently struggling or looking at" with his rifle, and took advantage of the moment by "rushing him," wresting the gun away and throwing it behind the counter - prompting the gunman to leave.
"He is the hero here, and no doubt he saved many lives," Aaron said. The patron suffered non-life threatening injuries.
Reinking is known to both federal and Nashville police authorities.
Waffle House called it a sad day for the restaurant's family.
Nashville's Mayor David Briley also took to Twitter to express his condolences.
Adding on Twitter, "There's clearly more to be said about these circumstances, but for now I ask Nashville to pray for and rally around these victims."
"Good guy with a gun", my foot.
edited 22nd Apr '18 10:35:32 AM by megaeliz
It's pretty much guaranteed that this isn't going to go anywhere in Congress and to a degree it kind of feels like throwing stuff against the wall and seeing what sticks policy-wise. On the other hand if what was said about Kristen Gillibrand having also endorsed a Job Guarantee program last month I think it might mean that this policy might actually be going somewhere in the Democratic Party.
I'm honestly not that big a fan of a Job Guarantee program, particularly when compared to it's usual policy rival Basic Income, but I'm well aware that the former is likely going to be way more politically palatable to the American public then the latter. Hopefully, some people are working behind the scenes to refine the idea and get it ready for 2020.
![]()
![]()
Geez, that almost sounds like the sort of headline that pops up on What the Fuck Is Wrong with You?, except for the part where he actually killed people.
Not that I have any love for the gun nuts who keep screeching that "the solution isn't gun control, it's better mental health care!", but seriously, there'd be a lot less of this kind of thing if the American mental health care system was good for something besides a punchline.
Someone did tell me life was going to be this way.
I brought this up before, but relevant:
The NRA Sing-along
Now that I think about it, I wonder what would happen if you throw the "gun control won't stop criminals from getting guns" crowds logic back at them. Why try to stop people from illegally entering the country, since people will get in anyway? The applications are nearly endless.
edited 22nd Apr '18 1:35:31 PM by megaeliz
The biggest advantage Trump has left for which we have no counter is Fox News.
It's an entire alternate narrative of reality, consumed by its viewers as constant background propaganda, and propaganda is a poison that kills you drop by drop... It's State Television for Trump.
I don't know how to fight that fight. I'm hoping someone does.
[1]
Let's face it, Russia wouldn't have been nearly as successful in messsing with us and our election, without Fox News. They radicalized an entire section of the population, and helped cultivate a receptive audiance to their disinformation on the Right. It's was always the propaganda arm of the Republican Party, but lately there's been so little difference between Fox News and a Kremlin propaganda outlet, it's practically a proxy arm of it.
In some ways, it's just as much a threat to democracy as Russia and Cambridge Analytica, etc, and I don't know what to do about it.
I was thinking that you could just through it back at them with things that they care about. The point would probably be lost on them, though.
edited 22nd Apr '18 2:49:39 PM by megaeliz
@Megaeliz: I call this form of argument "Appeal to non-enforcement". It's a very common argument in political discussion, and in my opinion not a particularly good one. Not a fallacy per se though.
Common examples include drugs, abortion, guns, among many other things.
edited 22nd Apr '18 2:03:09 PM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34![]()
In a related, but a separate issue, that has a much clearer solution, is the actual Russian propaganda outlets.
From Orban in Hungary to 5 Star in Italy, this disinformation weapon is working with terrifying effectiveness.
The most effective way to strike back would be through OCO, NSA hacking to shut down the social media operation, and an aggressive anti-propaganda campaign for media literacy sponsored by the USG. We countered the Soviets’ information warfare similarly.
But that’s not happening.
What’s being attributed to “populism” is in large part not an organic part of Western democracies, but rather the result of a sustained and unchecked propaganda campaign focused on radicalizing segments of the population.
The Fox News effect, and the Russian disinformation campaign play into each other. Fox radicalizes their base, which makes them a ready audience for Russian Disinformation, and they re-enforce each other's narratives.
edited 22nd Apr '18 3:40:50 PM by megaeliz
That's not an argument against what I said. Nor am I particularly convinced they'd be able to consistently find people like that that aren't the kind that'd outright reject the Democrats as not left enough. They'd still have to give airtime to actual Democratic politicians, particularly in election cycles.
I feel like a lot about the Fox News crowd can be explained by the Hostile Media Effect
.
You know, it just occurred to me that reinstating the Fairness Doctrine now would mean that climate change deniers and creationists would be given airtime in the name of "both sides". Given how rhetorically dishonest these folks are when debating - they're go-to tactic is to stare straight at the camera and shout into the audience louder than their opponents can - wouldn't that giving airtime to literally everyone be playing into the far-right's hands?
Except that’s wrong, because the fairness doctrine doesn’t require equal time, read it.
It requires honesty and balance, giving equal time to climate deniers (as is done now) is neither honest or ballenced and would not be allowed under the doctrine.
The big risk with the doctrine right now is that it would be overseen by the FCC, who aren’t exactly honest or ballenced right now.
edited 22nd Apr '18 4:55:47 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.” ~ CyranIt still requires humoring them on more respected news outlets.
Hell by the wording, it requires humoring flat out nazis and kkk members.

She's an arrogant naive fool who ignores polling data. It's telling that she has utterly failed to leverage any of those things she listed into an actual poll advantage.
It's painfully clear that she's not going to be the one to make O.C. more liberal. If anything, trying to stay competitive will lead to her becoming more conservative.
edited 22nd Apr '18 6:21:27 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised