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
X3 Except that Brexit was not a properly democratic desicion, it was mob rule, with the mob having been riled up and fed lies for decades even by those that wanted the system to stay in place.
Proper democracy requires voters to at least vaguely know what they are voting for, that didn’t happen with Brexit.
X4 The Republican primary was worse, it needs its own reforms to deal with the anti-democratic factors that let Trump win.
edited 26th Apr '18 7:18:12 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.” ~ CyranBringing up the super-delegate thing now is just more of the Sanders' supporters "anti-establishment" bullshit. Regardless of the merits of reforming the system, it's pretty clear that their motives have little to do with actual sincere desire for more democracy. Especially since Sanders relied on caucuses and his supporters reached out to the super-delegates in a last ditch effort.
Disgusted, but not surprisedThat's a good point - because of all the propaganda and manipulation, Brexit wasn't really democratic, and there were powerful people, like Putin, who wanted one side to win and used the opportunity to make sure it did.
I think making sure voters have a good idea of the candidates and policies they're voting for and pushing better education would help democracy, too.
![]()
I don't think anyone is disputing that their motives are anything other than hypocritical nonsense.
Rather it's just that even a Broken Clock can be right twice a day and I don't see any evidence that there is any point to keeping the super-delegates. I don't think it's a good idea to oppose something just because Sanders supports it.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangThe people in charged (as in, the Republican Party) rely on anti-intellectualism to survive. They are gonna keep education down.
Continue writing our story of peace.Everything about why both sides are so gung-ho about Brexit makes no sense. May wasn't originally for it IIRC but is now pushing for it hard, Corbyn supports it, and as a non-Brit I don't understand why.
A lot of things the Republicans have done - appointing De Vos, killing net neutrality, increasing the reach of Sinclair - seems aimed at restricting access to neutral or opposing sources, or, in the case of De Vos, harming the education system.
The point I was apparently being to subtle about on the superdelegates was that I think it helps stop the "might as well throw my hat into the ring" mentality that turns the GOP primaries into such a circus
As for Brexit, it's generally accepted that it was pushed to a referendum as an attempt to show that the country actually wanted to be in the EU, so would people please quit asking to leave?
![]()
![]()
History doesn't seem to bear that out since there were several of big free-for-all primaries among the Democrats even with the super-delegates. And in all likelihood the next Democratic primary for president is going to be a lot more like the most recent Republican one, barring several people just dropping dead in the intermining years.
I don't really see many, if any good reasons to keep the super-delegates around even as a "break glass in case of Stalinist" option.
The Labour vote is that heavily in favor of Leave? And it's really that important to them that they would vote Tory to keep it going?
Can we not call them the "far left"? That implies they're to the left of say, Clinton or Obama, and they're not. Significantly to the right of them on social issues, actually.
Even with Corbyn pushing Brexit as now being Labour policy there were serious risks of old mining towns (you know, the ones Thatcher gutted) going Tory to bring about Brexit.
You’ve got to understand that we’re talking about a 40 year campaign for Brexit, that involved not just UKIP but also the Tories (including Cameron), Labour (including Brown and I think even Blair) and the entire British media establishment.
Labour started to try and walk it back under Milliband but never admired to lying to the public and blaming the EU for Labour mistakes, Cameron kept pushing the anti-EU message up until his ‘deal’ and only the Guardian and Independant realy started to actully take a pro-EU side.
For 40 years the British public were told by everyone that the EU was to blame for every bad thing that happened or might happen, pensions go down, EU did it (that’s a real one I’ve encountered personally by the way), houses are to expensive, EU immigrants did it, cuts to social services, EU immigrants, fruit looks weird, EU did it, hospital waiting times have gone up, EU immigrants did it, Turkish immigrants maybe getting unrestricted access to the UK, EU going to force it on us, ect...
I do not share your faith in the Guardian and the Independant to be fair to Corbyn.
Also keep in mind that nobody is sure on Corbyn’s end game, to stop Brexit he’d need to win a general election and he’ll never do that with appearing to support it, he may also be engaging in discovery theatre, basicly waiting for the full shitshow fo Brexit to be ‘revealed’ before ‘turning’ against it because it’s not worth it.
edited 26th Apr '18 8:19:10 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.” ~ CyranWhile I don't like Sessions much, at least he realizes that "but her Emails" is just pathetic.
Sessions: Mueller probe has taken on 'life of its own
[1]
Asked by a House Appropriations panel about GOP accusations of surveillance abuse, Sessions told lawmakers that the Robert Mueller probe proved that it was a bad idea to appoint special counsels "willy-nilly."
"I do not think we need to willy-nilly appoint special counsels," Sessions said. "As we can see, it can really take on a life of its own."
He added that the Department of Justice (DOJ) needs to "be disciplined and stay within our classical procedure and rules" before opening further investigations.
The remarks came the same day that the Senate Judiciary Committee approved legislation to protect Mueller from a possible firing attempt by President Trump. Democrats and some Republicans have become increasingly concerned that Trump will seek to fire Mueller, whose probe he has dismissed as a "hoax" and a "witch hunt."
Republicans have been clamoring for weeks for the appointment of a second special counsel to probe the FBI's handling of both the investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia and the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private email server.
I genuinely like Rosenstein though.
edited 26th Apr '18 9:21:10 PM by megaeliz
The impression I have is that nobody really wants to go through with Brexit, but they feel they have to because of the referendum. That, or they do want to go through with it and the "the referendum says so" thing is an excuse to make it look like they're being forced into it.
Huge segments of the UK population will be pissed off whatever happens, but I'm not sure what's stopping them from calling it off if it's supposed to be non-binding. Especially if there's evidence that things were tampered with.
I am genuinely surprised Trump appointed Rosenstein, and Rosenstein turned into a thorn in his side.
edited 26th Apr '18 8:38:33 PM by Raptorslash
actually, that may have been Sessions who appointed him.
Personally, I have a lot more faith in Rosenstein than Sessions, and actually rather like him.
Like look at him at the press conference announcing indictments of 13 Russian nationals and 3 Russian entities.
Doesn't it give you more confidence than "don't recall" Sessions? There's even subtle signs that he is excited and proud
that this conspiracy to try to meddle in our elections has been uncovered.
edited 26th Apr '18 8:57:24 PM by megaeliz
The entire thing was a bluff, a bluff that blew up in the Tories faces. Cameron promised a referendum to get UKIP votes and win against Miliband, Cameron then tried to make the referendum a small remain win so that he could claim that the mater was settled but not have the EU have any kind of mandate.
Then Boris decided that he wanted to be Tory leader, so he knew his (considerable) political weight being Brexit, he wanted a razor thin Remain win that would cause Cameron to resign so that Boris could become PM.
Then Brexit win, Boris tried to become PM but got stoped by Gove and May won by default. May is now just trying to cling to power however she can.
It was sold to the public as binding, it was campaigned on as binding, it has the entire time been treated as binding.
It won’t be cancelled because whoever cancels it dooms themselves politicly for years and no UK political party is willing to make that sacrifice, hell Labour couldn’t make it even fi we wanted to as we’re aren’t in government.
There’s exactly one Tory MP willing to say that the entire thing was a stupid diet and needs to be scraped, 1 out of 316
edited 26th Apr '18 9:19:12 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.” ~ Cyran![]()
![]()
![]()
I get the sense he is along the lines of Chris Wray, the new director of the FBI: an unexpectedly competent and dedicated public servant, who was not a bad choice even by a competent administration, which is also the reason he has been a thorn in Trump's side.
edited 26th Apr '18 9:19:07 PM by megaeliz
The trouble with that is that anything which contains medical information that can be traced back to an individual isn’t publicly available, due to medical privacy laws, and furthermore medical journals have enormous issues with falsified and non-reproducible studies due to a number of issues including the pressures of “publish or perish”, companies trying to influence findings for their own purposes, etc. (Some estimates say as much as half of the content of such medical and scientific journals may be false.)
So in short, it’s an end run around real scientific findings in favor of less reliable and less objective ones.
Will try to provide sources later in the day.
How Scott Pruitt wants to
permanently undercut the science of the EPA
.
The proposed rule only allows the use of studies that make all data publicly available for anyone to analyze. Pruitt proposed the new rule as a way to make the agency's decision-making more "transparent, objective and measurable."
"The American people ought to be able to have confidence, assurance, that the findings, the record that we build ... can be assessed, it can be evaluated, it can be analyzed," Pruitt said.
The Heartland Institute, a conservative think-tank, has commended Pruitt on the rule. "For decades, the EPA has improperly claimed massive power to regulate nearly every aspect of our economy and lives. It is long overdue that the EPA should make such data and collection methods available for public review and analysis," Tim Heulskamp, the think tank's president said in a statement.
But several scientific organizations have expressed concerns. "Our concern with this is they are quite literally limiting the best available science that can be used by the EPA," says Sean Gallagher, the senior government relations officer for the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
The EPA's regulatory decisions are often based on epidemiological studies looking at the potential health effects of pollutants, like pesticides and particulate matter. "Those studies involve people like you and me, signing confidentiality agreements that the scientists doing the studies won't reveal my personal health information, like my vital statistics, or my death certificate, if I die during the course of the study," says Gallagher. "This is the kind of science that the EPA relies on, whether it looks at chemicals or particulates and their mortality or health effects. It involves private data."
And this private data can't be made public, he says. And so, it limits the studies available to the agency for any decision-making, he adds.
"It would not help make the science any more transparent," says Andrew Rosenberg, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group representing scientists.
When he proposed the new rule, Pruitt talked about a "replication crisis," referring to scientific studies that can't be reproduced. But that crisis applies more to the field of clinical trials, says Rosenberg, where new drugs are being tested for their efficacy.
"That's very different from what the EPA does," he adds. The agency often relies on studies that involve long-term surveys of exposure to certain environmental pollutants and associated health effects. "What are you supposed to do? Go back in time in five years and redo the survey? That's really a false flag."
The new rule would only restrict the science used by the agency and limit the agency's ability to protect public health, he says. It could affect the agency's ability to protect the public from everything from air and water pollutants to household products.

While choosing candidates to represent you is a key part of indirect democracy and I see no reason to limit that.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang