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
Blocking Garland (though that wasn't impeachment, granted) didn't backfire on the Republicans. Blocking any picks he comes up with if/when we we have control back is the only option we have if impeachment isn't realistically on the table.
As a serious question, though, why would impeaching Trump's picks and blocking any replacements be political suicide?
I doubt Puerto Rico would be a red state, especially between demographics and the way Trump handled Hurricane Maria. They will block it if they can.
Edited by Raptorslash on Jun 27th 2018 at 10:21:05 AM
Blocking or impeaching Trump's candidates would provide ammunition to the fauxgressives and cranks who sit around waiting for an excuse to scream "both sides are equally bad (and that's why you should vote Green/Libertarian/stay home)".
Now, personally, I don't know whether it would be political suicide. Not like those people are reliable voters anyway. The biggest problem would be getting the press to resist the urge to "both sides" the issue in the name of ratings.
I know a Puerto Rican family who are socially conservative (in the traditional, Catholic family values sense) and any who weren't already Democrat changed their tune after Hurricane Maria. Similar to a lot of my family who are also old-fashioned but vote Democrat because of the Republican' sheer racism and the Democrats' role in allowing them to immigrate in the 60s. It's funny how the Republicans' opposition to minority voters creates this tautology.
Ambar Sonof Deshar: If that is sufficient to say that it is no longer a democracy, but an authoritarian government, then it's a moot point because American Democracy is by your standard already gone.
Me I see people willing to potentially allow every progressive gain made in living memory be undone in the name in the name of persevering "norms", to see justice ripped away in the name of preserving order.
Yeah, as noted, Puerto Rico is full of people who are
- Liberal-leaning
- Nonwhite
- With an ax to grind against President Trump
If you want to know why Republicans are reluctant to give them any voting power, take your pick.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.But it's not really about us. It's about the people who will follow us.
Amen. We'll probably never see the better world, but if we fall apart now people are going to die. The America I wanted to see is dead, but we need to do what we can to keep things from getting worse. And who knows- maybe we'll get a decent ending.
I can attest to this. I sometimes ponder whether or not my mother would be a Trump supporter if not for being a black woman.
i'm tired, my friendTrump says he got 84% of the Cuban vote but Trump is a firm believer of the principle that 87.9% of statistics are made up on the spot. So take that with a grain of salt. In fact, just take the salt and leave the bullshit on the table.
The Miami Herald
estimates Trump's numbers to be closer to 50-58% of the Cuban vote.
Me I see people willing to potentially allow every progressive gain made in living memory be undone in the name in the name of persevering "norms", to see justice ripped away in the name of preserving order.
Says the guy arguing for the subversion of justice in the name of expediency. If American democracy is "already gone" then the objective becomes restoring and improving it, not replacing it with an authoritarianism that's more to your taste.
I'm all in favour of placing restrictions on the right of bigots to express their bigotry openly, but taking away their right to vote is legitimately an antidemocratic move. Which tells me you aren't in favour of democracy; you just want to "win".
Trump's destruction of democratic norms is the single most dangerous thing about him, and it has to be stopped. And that goes beyond removing Trump. It means that once he's gone he has to be replaced with someone who will restore the norms he trampled on.
The line of thinking you're pushing here is what destroys so many young democracies. Once they get one would-be autocrat, it's over, because the opposition, rather than opposing autocracy, decides to oppose autocracy-that-they-disagree-with and replaces it with their own version. Rinse and repeat until one side or the other imposes a fullbore dictator.
You're pushing a line of reasoning that will ultimately bite you, and every one else, in the ass.
I have to ask simply:
With Kennedy gone, how can the Dems and their supporters actually fight the GOP's bullshit? What can we actually do besides voting Democratic over four months from now? Like, if we are going to convince people to actually get their asses out and vote Blue, how can we actually convince them if the SCOTUS is now under the GOP's control, and matters such as Roe v. Wade are certainly going to come under immediate attack?
"Somehow the hated have to walk a tightrope, while those who hate do not."

I could imagine Trump impulsively agreeing to this just to have the bragging right of being the president who got the 51st state.