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
Department of Homeland Security has announced a "strengthened northern border" strategy.
I'm still waiting for people to hold Sanders as accountable for his ties to the gun industry and the military industrial complex as they hold Clinton accountable for representing Wall Street.
edited 12th Jun '18 7:42:09 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedI noticed that one of their reasons was to combat terrorist threats. Terrorist threats. From Canada?
When is the last time a terrorist went through Canada to attack the USA? When is the last time anyone from Canada launched a serious attack on the USA? And no, the War of 1812 doesn't count.
Disgusted, but not surprisedMy guess is that, for now, the idea is mostly just red meat for the isolationist, xenophobic morons in the GOP's base, but that it will find use in keeping people from trying to flee from the US into Canada once Trump and his cronies decide to completely pull off their mask of democracy and go full-fascist.
"Cynic, n. — A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be." - The Devil's DictionaryI'd vaguely heard about the nuclear waste thing but it was in passing. Hearing the full details.....wow. That's pretty awful. And I mean it.
You said "I'd vote for Warren" is not, and never has been, an appropriate response to someone suggesting your critique of another female candidate might be rooted in sexism. Not even if it's true."
I actually agreed up until the very last sentence. I think that if something is true it's entirely appropriate to say it. So the "you can't say you'd vote for warren if it's in response to accusations of sexism even if it's true" just seems utterly ridiculous to me.
With Harris a potentially innocent man's life is on the line (the guy's appeals have run out and he's already cheated the executioner once so once the execution protocol's arranged he's probably gonna be the first to go barring some miracle). It's entirely fair to see her failure to get involved when she had direct ability to do so as moral cowardice (it's nowhere near as bad as the toxic waste in texas, but it's still pretty fucking bad).
edited 12th Jun '18 8:12:21 PM by LordYAM
I think you guys have it in reverse: the border's being strengthened not to protect the US from Canadian invasion but so that US troops can mass to invade Canada. See, some folks in the Trump Administration might genuinely believe that the Manifest Destiny, contrary to popular belief, has not actually been completed without the conquest of Canada that the US has attempted and failed twice before. Since the damned canucks under their pasty Prime Minister have developed the gall to throw a wrench in the gears of making American great again, it's about time that we teach the Canadians a lesson in American greatness! The Canadian Corridor
between Alaska and the mainland US is a national security threat that cannot be ignored, while the discrimination and cultural oppression of English speakers in Quebec is a blemish upon the freedom of white North America! RULEEEE AMERICAAA!
Not meaning to be snippy, but isn't it incumbent on someone who makes an assertion to do the legwork to back it up?
You didn't spell out that you didn't mean that, so it's not an unreasonable jump to make. I'm sorry if I misconstrued you.
Do we have absolute proof that anyone is doing that?
Edit: By the Wheel this thread is fast.
edited 12th Jun '18 8:09:28 PM by TroperOnAStickV2
Hopefully I'll feel confident to change my avatar off this scumbag soon. Apologies to any scumbags I insulted.I can't verify this, but I have heard someone argue that the Canadian border poses a security risk because immigrating to Canada is really easy (according to them), and if you have a Canadian Passport you can go anywhere.
Leviticus 19:34@Eschaton: Unfortunately, the majority of people threatening to leave the US should Trump win did not follow through-which is it would have been one of the few positive things to come out of his election.
Leviticus 19:34BREAKING NEWS: House Speaker Paul Ryan to allow two Immigration Bills to be voted on next week
, potentially killing the Discharge Petition from Dreamers (although the head of the Discharge Petition is planning to continue it). One of the Bills is from Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) (known as the 'Secure America's Future' Act, such a 'wonderful' title), the other will be written by Moderate Republicans.
I sure as hell hope that the 'SAF' Act fails, because from what I've read about it, it's basically everything Trump wants with only a minor concession to Dreamers (a 3 Year Legal Residency, and that's all). Hopefully the Moderate Bill will be a lot better.
Well, as said, a couple of Republican incumbents lost to primary challengers, the most notable being Mark Sanford, a former governor of South Carolina, who was caught in an affair and coverup that ended his time as governor, (he was the guy who claimed he was hiking on the Appalachian trail when he was out of contact, but it was discovered he was actually in Argentina with a mistress) he later ran for Congress and got in when the Republicans made gains in 2014. He had apparently made some occasional criticisms of Trump, so he was primaried by an opponent who labeled him a "disloyal Never Trumper."
Maine Governor Paul LePage, (aka the guy who was being Trump before Trump hit the political scene) threatened to express his hatred for Maine's new ranked choice ballots by refusing to certify and sign off on the results from primaries in Maine, which threw the state into a bit of a frenzy until the state AG pointed out that certification doesn't apply to primaries and LePage was, as usual, talking out his ass.
In Virginia Republican Barbara Comstock survived a primary challenger who was running to her right but remains a top target for Democrats in the House, being considered one of the most vulnerable Republicans in the House. Also good news in Virginia is that it looks like Dave Brat is going to be in trouble come November. Brat was one of the first major triumphs for Steve Bannon; he's an archconservative by even Tea Party standards and won a primary battle against Eric Cantor in 2014, when Cantor was the 2nd highest ranked Republican in the House and the only Jewish member of Republican leadership. Since then, however, the district has changed demographics and Clinton actually came out slightly ahead of Trump there. Abigail Spanberger, a former law enforcement officer and CIA operative, won the Democratic primary to face Brat.
It continues to be a good year for women candidates.
Trump flexed his political muscles in various places, convincing various people to run for different positions than they originally had planned, (such as getting someone to run for the House instead of trying to primary a sitting Senator) showing how the Republican party continues to be the party of Trump.
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |![]()
Do you even need to ask anymore? Have you paid even the slightest bit of attention to which evil faction is now dominant in the Republican Party (and, through the GOP's control of all three branches of the federal government as well as several state governments, in the US as a whole)?
It refers to two white supremacist slogans created by an evil fuckwit by the name of David Lane, commonly combined with 88 (aka HH; take a wild guess what that stands for), as in 14/88. For the sake of not wanting to feel dirty, I'll not post the actual words myself, but here is RationalWiki's article on the subject
.
edited 12th Jun '18 8:50:27 PM by TrashJack
"Cynic, n. — A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be." - The Devil's DictionaryMaybe he's afraid we'll offer the FLQ Quebec is they whack him. Seriously, this is just a nonsense excuse.
Please don't. We're going to have enough issues with the legalization without adding people immigrating to do drugs.
The fact that you would vote for her does not make you not sexist. It proves nothing, and accomplishes nothing—beyond making you look like one of the people who bring her up as a dodge and nothing but.
Something can be true and still be of zero use in proving your point. I actually have plenty of minority friends—but I'd never invoke them to defend having said something bigoted. It would not prove my point, and it would be using their friendship as a shield.
Not when it's been demonstrated a dozen times over. I'm not going to repeat myself for everyone who wasn't hear the first umpteen times we had this debate. The site has a search function.
It's on you to respond to the things that people say.

It was demonstrated throughout the entire 2016 election cycle. It's been demonstrated repeatedly since. If you can't be bothered to remember or to go find it, that's not on the rest of us. We've been through this already. We're not doing it again.
You are missing the point—and deliberately so, given that I never said that saying something racist makes you racist. I said—and you know this because it's in the text you quoted: " even if you have lots of black friends, that doesn't mean you haven't just said something racist."
Not holding women to a standard you don't hold men to. Period, end of sentence. There is no get-out-of-jail-free card.
Another case of missing the point. And another case of doing so on purpose, I'm sorry to say. You don't get to derail a conversation about clear and obvious sexism by pivoting to "what if I'm falsely accused of antisemitism." In fact, trying to drag in "I might be falsely accused of antisemitism" into a conversation about what to do when you've been acting like a sexist, is pretty definitively antisemitic.
"I'd vote for Warren" is not a get-out-of-jail-free card that you can employ when you've been acting in a sexist manner. "I'd vote for Bernie" is not a get-out-of-jail-free card when you've been acting in an antisemitic manner. Hypothetical scenarios in which you are falsely accused are irrelevant to this conversation, because this conversation started with, and is predicated upon, a clear pattern of sexist behaviour. That's why the original Schumer/Sanders analogy failed—it tried to ignore this fact—and that's why this current pivot to "people get falsely accused of antisemitism all the time" fails as well. Because it's not an analogous situation.
When someone points out the ways in which the attacks on Clinton, Gillibrand, Harris, et al, have been coloured by sexism, turning to "but what if we have legitimate reasons to dislike them" is at best, stupid. It refutes nothing, it proves nothing, and in the best case scenario, it makes you look like one of the sexists when you are not. In the worst case scenario, it demonstrates you have some biases you were not aware of.
When you care this much about Sanders choosing to ship nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic town in Texas get back to me. He had the power to make a difference. He chose not to. Where's the outrage?