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
Presumably, similar to how history has treated Nixon. A few years separation, should allow things to settle in a way they can't, while we're in the heat of it.
This is proof of the Hostile Media Effect, where even truthful unbiased information can seem biased against you.
edited 29th Apr '18 12:53:03 PM by megaeliz
I know during the Victorian Age, the Old Money, tended to look down on the newly wealthy industrialists and Oil Barons, for their ostentatious displays of wealth and tasteless, but I'm not sure what that would look like today.
In terms of Old Money in America, the (very) rough rule of thumb is probably something like this:
- New Money? Silicone Valley types
- Old Money? Wall Street types
- Bad New Money stereotypes? The Reality TV Star types
edited 29th Apr '18 12:55:41 PM 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.@North Korea Disarming: Wyldchyld has hit the nail on the head.
Both the SDF and the CIA said the nuclear program was unsustainable last year, due to costs alone.......... And then China chimed in around October that the Mountian that North Korea was using for testing would collapse if they tested in it again, and requested them not to to avoid spreading toxic fallout through the region.
Problem is that North Korea didn't listen, and caused a partial collapse of there test site, rendering it unusable, and no one knows about weather or not they ended up spreading the fallout.....
Basically what is going on is like a bank robber realizing they have shot all there rounds into the ceiling, and are quickly trying to negotiate because they no longer have leverage.
They are leveraging something they can no longer use to try and get themselfs something they want...... And honestly this is a very good thing, but Trump can take no credit for it, not even by accident.... but he sure as hell will try.
So perhaps not surprisingly, of the key groups outraged by the WHCD is actually Russian.
They'll jump on to anything even remotely controversial, even if it's really dumb.
White House Correspondents Dinner
edited 29th Apr '18 1:29:47 PM by megaeliz
Korean summit puts pressure on Trump's own meeting this year with Kim Jong Un
The images of Kim stepping into South Korea marked a stunning departure from the global insult-trading that he and President Trump engaged in last year, but it also set up an expectation of Trump delivering concrete results from the mostly symbolic goodwill.
Analysts said that will be far harder, and they warned that over exuberance at this stage would play into Kim’s hands. Inter-Korean summits took place in 2000 and 2007.
“The details here really matter,” said Laura Rosenberger, director of the Alliance for Securing Democracy at German Marshall Fund of the United States who worked on North Korea in both the Bush and Obama administrations.
“I worry that, with this president, he’s going to be focused on the optics and getting some big win even if it’s going to be an empty agreement.”
Speaking in the Oval Office during a meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Friday, Trump pointed to his upcoming meeting with Kim. He said back channel negotiations were finalizing the details of that summit and reiterated that he could “hopefully make a deal” or “we will leave the room.”
"The United States has been played beautifully like a fiddle because you had a different kind of leader," Trump said. "We’re not going to be played" note
Trump appeared more optimistic on Twitter, writing in all caps that “KOREAN WAR TO END!” and adding that the U.S. “should be very proud of what is now taking place in Korea!”
Rosenberger and other analysts cautioned against that level of optimism.
Kim is "the one who’s really setting the stage here,” she said.
"I actually think it puts him in a bit of a corner," Heather Hurlburt, director of the New Models of Policy Change at the nonpartisan New America Foundation, said of the inter Korean summit's impact on Trump's own meeting.
"There are no specifics on any of the things that the U.S. cares about," she said. "Trump, I think, can very easily find himself in a situation where everybody else has gotten what they want and he doesn’t get what he wants."
Still in flux is both the timing and location for the meeting between the two leaders. Trump said on Friday that negotiators had narrowed the number of possible sites down to two or three. Negotiators are considering Singapore and Mongolia, among other countries. China and the demilitarized zone are other possible locations, analysts said.
Trump has said the talks could take place in May or June.
Officials familiar with planning for the meeting said they want to see if Kim is serious about taking steps to disarm before they commit.
They also want to know exactly what Kim means by the term "denuclearization."
In the past, the North Koreans have defined it as simply freezing and keeping current programs in place; they have also said it means that the United States give up its nuclear umbrella over the Korean Peninsula, something past governments have been unwilling to do.
Trump himself has cited North Korean violations of past agreements as signs that a deal, and a meeting, may not be in the offing.
"If I think that it's a meeting that is not going to be fruitful, we're not going to go," Trump said last week after meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. "If the meeting, when I'm there, is not fruitful, I will respectfully leave the meeting, and we'll continue what we're doing or whatever it is that we'll continue. "
The White House has been eager to tout its own engagement with North Korea in the days leading up to the summit with South Korea. The administration released two photographs on Thursday of an Easter weekend meeting between Mike Pompeo, now the Secretary of State, and the North Korean leader.
In a statement Thursday, the White House linked the inter Korean summit with Trump's upcoming meeting. Press secretary Sarah Sanders said the administration “appreciates the close coordination” with South Korea and that it looked forward “to continuing robust discussions in preparation for the planned meeting” between Trump and Kim Jong Un.
“They’re making a political effort to link them,” said Jeffrey Lewis, an analyst at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies. “It’s a good thing that they’re talking, but this doesn’t really have anything to do with anything the Trump administration has done.”
edited 29th Apr '18 1:41:24 PM by megaeliz
Like other troper said, the fact Trump is crass and insult another is what make him relatable.
When people think "Elite" they used as political one, carrer and profesional politician like Clinton, while Trump present itself as buissnessmen who gain is entire wealth by honest american ways of being.
Which is bullshit but you get it.
Also people like is teflon trump ways, to just shurrug things up because he can, but that was efective while campaing, not while you are president.
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"I'm not surprised that things that might read as critical or acknowledge that people think Trump is anything but 100% Good would anger his crowd.
The degree to which pro-Trump media lionizes him certainly shows that his supporters won't tolerate or acknowledge anything less. Of the openly pro-Trump books I've seen, he's been portrayed as a literal superhero, Willy Wonka, on Mount Rushmore, as a rabbit, etc. while anyone who opposes him (Hillary, the media, feminists, Muslims, Democrats) is villified.
Trump didn't even earn his money honestly. His father was rich off real estate. Trump was never not rich.
edited 29th Apr '18 2:03:05 PM by Raptorslash
So... in light of yet another rally this weekend, I'm going to say something that goes against everything I've thought until this point. Note
We need presidential Democratic challengers NOW. Not in 2019, not in 2020, now. Because Trump is getting a head start and if we don't start proving we have our own potential replacements, I fear he'll win 2020.
Now, obviously we won't be able to officially select a candidate until the DNC, so there might be multiple candidates early on, but my point is we can't just let Trump keep having these rallies while we sit on our hands. The potential blue wave for 2018 is great, but winning Congress isn't enough. We need someone to win against Trump himself two years later.
edited 29th Apr '18 2:52:28 PM by speedyboris
![]()
That's something a lot of Republicans seem to fundamentally and/or willfully misunderstand, that the same opportunities aren't available to everyone just because one person got rich. And a lot of people have advantages that others don't have.
And the person who legitimately started from the bottom and got rich certainly did it with help - business partners, employees, customers, etc., not an Ayn Rand-esque power fantasy
And it is a very old misunderstanding, as Charles Dickens observed in 1842:
The merits of a broken speculation, or a bankruptcy, or of a successful scoundrel, are not gauged by its or his observance of the golden rule, ‘Do as you would be done by,’ but are considered with reference to their smartness.
I recollect, on both occasions of our passing that ill-fated Cairo on the Mississippi, remarking on the bad effects such gross deceits must have when they exploded, in generating a want of confidence abroad, and discouraging foreign investment: but I was given to understand that this was a very smart scheme by which a deal of money had been made: and that its smartest feature was, that they forgot these things abroad, in a very short time, and speculated again, as freely as ever.
The following dialogue I have held a hundred times: ‘Is it not a very disgraceful circumstance that such a man as So-and-so should be acquiring a large property by the most infamous and odious means, and notwithstanding all the crimes of which he has been guilty, should be tolerated and abetted by your Citizens? He is a public nuisance, is he not?’ ‘Yes, sir.’ ‘A convicted liar?’ ‘Yes, sir.’ ‘He has been kicked, and cuffed, and caned?’ ‘Yes, sir.’ ‘And he is utterly dishonourable, debased, and profligate?’ ‘Yes, sir.’ ‘In the name of wonder, then, what is his merit?’ ‘Well, sir, he is a smart man.’
Eh, that's coming from the man who blasted accounts by native Inuits regarding the whereabouts of the Franklin expedition as being "the gossip of savages" and that no self-respecting Royal Navy officer searching for the expedition should heed them.
I mean, sure it's a case of Jerkass Has a Point, but Dickens is hardly a an all-knowing wise sage that people who cite that passage often imply him as.
I think Trump will have a harder run in 2020 than he did in 2016 - he's likely to face backlash, fallout from his policies, dissatisfaction from fence-sitters, and the fact that he can't win reelection with his core base alone.
We definitely shouldn't underestimate him like he was underestimated in 2016, though.
![]()
![]()
I think it's distinctly childish to imagine that problems elsewhere are an argument against the merit of an idea, the fact that Dickens was flawed and a product of his time is not especially relevant to the validity of a passage from him.
Here's something I've been wondering about.
Why do Cult 45ers seem to think we all worship Hillary Clinton?
Whenever you bring up Trump's faults, they immediately go to, "But her Emails", or Benghazi, or whatever Hillary was involved in, like that automatically refutes any critisism of Trump.
Here's the thing: The Democrats, as a whole, have moved on. (Of course their are exceptions to this, but still.) We don't care about what Clinton did or did not do, because she's not president is she?
![]()
The same reason they talk about snowflakes or people being easily offended, they project everything. They're cultists obsessed with Trump and thus assume that we must be cultists obsessed with Hillary Clinton. Because they simply do not understand anything else.
edited 29th Apr '18 3:50:42 PM by Fourthspartan56
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang

https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/how-educational-childrens-books-are-explaining-president-trump
I've even seen a handful of explicitly pro-Trump kids' books, and all of them are incredibly over the top and allude to very non-child friendly material (Trump as superhero-esque character, caricatures of minorities and his political opponents, direct shout-outs to his supporters on the chans) to the degree that they feel surreal.
(Most kids' books on the presidents in general seem to present him in a neutral light, and most of the controversies involving him are very non-child friendly. I wonder how he'll be talked about in the future.)