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
6,
7: Yeah. Between that, the gerrymandering/voter suppression, the bakery case, and one about those right-wing clinics allowed to falsely advertise as abortion clinics, and things are looking worse and worse.
I did see that a Democratic senator (I believe it was Coons) is introducing an anti-discrimination bill to keep the travel ban from having the funding to operate. But even if there were enough votes in both houses (which there probably aren't), 45 will never sign it and they don't have enough to override the veto.
Edited by Ingonyama on Jun 26th 2018 at 1:49:03 AM
x5
A little buggy too. Was getting a different other random account every time I looked at my profile page earlier, and the "save draft" button doesn't send you back to the thread.
Re: Supreme Court, didn't they originally overturn or block bits of "Muslim Ban 2.0, don't call it a Muslim Ban" on the grounds that everyone including Trump was calling it that and intent was fairly obvious? Guess he just found a variation that worked.
Is Trump Voldemort now, or is using the presidential number as shorthand the regular thing?
Edited by DeathorCake on Jun 26th 2018 at 8:53:18 AM
I've been getting that too, I've been logging out right away but you seem to be able to fully access the random account which has some less-than-pleasant security implications. There are also some minor gripes and glitches, like the mark as read and mark all as read both working differently from before and not working at all.
From the Hill
regarding the Supreme Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, one of the justices that sided with Trump apparently warned him not to make against making "statements that disfavor any one religion".
And in more depressing Supreme Court news (from NPR)
it seems so called "pro-life" pregnancy centers in California also have the SC on their side.
also from NPR
, it seems that the SC invoked the interment of Japanese-Americans during WW 2 in the travel ban ruling.
Edited by MorningStar1337 on Jun 26th 2018 at 2:08:51 AM
I know one of the big conservative goals for the Supreme Court is ultimately overturning Roe v. Wade altogether.
I'm surprised, though I know I shouldn't be - the internment camps and the court decision that enabled them are generally not looked back on as good things and are seen as a stain on FDR's presidency.
Edited by Raptorslash on Jun 26th 2018 at 5:12:15 AM
I think this Supreme Court ruling gives those the left two sobering lessons:
- "Resistance" to Trump can only go so far if it's a topic Trump doesn't much leeway over, like Obamacare repeal. In cases where the Constitution gives the president major leverage over, like immigration, national security and trade, there's not much public opinion or public pressure can do to prevent him from acting on instinct. If he wants to make America 90% white again, or register Muslims and Jews, he can cite national security reasons, and no one, not even public pressure, a Democrat-controlled Congress, or protestors, will be able to stop him without resorting to extreme measures (and God knows where that will lead to).
- Democrats who plan to hold Trump accountable in the probably event that they win the House or the Senate this year are going to be very disappointed when Trump decides to challenge Congress's authority to rein him in on the aforementioned subject. With this ruling, he can bet the Court will side with him again, after which a Democratic-controlled Congress is legally unable to do their job.
The Constitution that has barely changed for the past 230 years is no longer capable of fitting into modern times. It's time to completely rewrite it.
Edited by Mario1995 on Jun 26th 2018 at 2:11:40 AM
"The devil's got all the good gear. What's God got? The Inspiral Carpets and nuns. Fuck that." - Liam GallagherIf I've heard correctly, one of the dissenting justices compared the court's decision to an infamous SC ruling that OK'd the Japanese internment. The majority response was along the lines of "nuh-uh, these are totally different."
Milo Yiannopoulos Encourages Vigilantes to Start ‘Gunning Journalists Down’.
I'm fairly certain that in the end, the 2018 midterms will be way too late to be meaningful. The 2006 midterms couldn't stop the recession nor could it get the troops out of the middle east. Do people really think that a Democratic-controlled House will be able to hold Trump accountable if the courts neuter their ability to do so?
"The devil's got all the good gear. What's God got? The Inspiral Carpets and nuns. Fuck that." - Liam GallagherIt gives them control over bill passing (so no risk of the ACA being fully gutted, etc), and key investigative bodies. If they somehow take the Senate (~30% according to some guys 538 spoke to), they can pull a Mitch if, God forbid, a liberal SC Justice dies or retires.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Questions I've asked before that are now on-topic again. Do the Republicans get another crack at this budget reconciliation yearly nonsense before the midterms take effect, and will they get to redistrict stuff via their state legislature control before the 2020 elections?
Edited by DeathorCake on Jun 26th 2018 at 9:54:19 AM
I really hoped Milo had shut up and gone away.
Milo's a bigot and his whole schtick is saying extreme, provocative, and bigoted things under the cloak of being a professional troll. From my knowledge of him, he's hard to decisively defeat because he can spin either response to him as a victory - let him speak and he'll act like a bully and call his supporters after you. Don't let him speak and he'll call you a bully/SJW/enemy of free speech and call his supporters after you.
On the subject of executive orders, what limits do they actually have? What part of the Constitution gives Trump the power to undo regulations, ban Muslims, kick trans people out of the military, etc.?
I actually wasn't as aware of how powerful executive orders were before Trump, but I am under the impression that they've become more far-reaching and powerful in general.
Edited by Raptorslash on Jun 26th 2018 at 6:09:20 AM
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
That might not matter in the event that Trump unilaterally crashes the economy with 100% tariffs on all foreign goods, registers Muslims and/or Jews, puts them in concentration or death camps, punishes corporations and radicalizes more white Americans to embrace eliminationist white nationalism.
And as long as Trump uses all this in the name of national security, Democrats can't do shit even if they control Congress, because the Supreme Court will certainly rule in favor of the executive branch.
![]()
Since 9/11 the executive branch's power over national security has greatly expanded to the point where they're literally unchecked. They can launch a war at any time without Congress's approval and can detain war/terror suspects indefinitely without having to worry about the courts butting in, making habeas corpus irrelevant.
Edited by Mario1995 on Jun 26th 2018 at 3:12:15 AM
"The devil's got all the good gear. What's God got? The Inspiral Carpets and nuns. Fuck that." - Liam Gallagher![]()
So far he's been a standard Republican president with more openly obvious racism and a lot of sturm and drang attached to his tweets as far as I can tell. Sure, that's bad enough, but people will stop him from turning America into Mad Max before he gets there. The Right might not stop themselves from slapping a Balanced Budget rule on the books and literally sending America's crisis-response back to the seventeenth century, but that's unlikely since they still need more states to change the Constitution.
Micheal Bloomberg considering a run for president as a Democrat in 2020.

No problems logging in, but every page is locked to editing... unless I'm not logged in, in which case you can click the Edit button and do so, but it won't actually save properly.
I know for a fact that this was the motivation of an evangelist (Bible Baptist, iirc) I know - he voted for Trump explicitly because of the judgeship, and in spite of Trump's objectionable qualities.
The one thing we can take minor solace in is that the one being replaced was Antonin Scalia, rather than one of the liberal justices.
Okay, didn't hear about any rulings regarding the Planned Parenthood Impersonation stuff. And keep in mind, the gay cake ruling was 7-2 over procedural grounds, as the lower courts used language that proved bias in the ruling. The court system, ideally, is meant to be above such bias - at least overtly.
Edited by ironballs16 on Jun 26th 2018 at 1:55:02 AM
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"