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
![]()
![]()
Because that's clearly abusing a loophole to rig an institution to get it on your side. It's an anti-democratic measure commonly used by dictators like Maduro and members of congress know it.
Edited by Grafite on Jul 2nd 2018 at 7:35:29 PM
Life is unfair...Can't say I'm particularly convinced by arguments about packing the courts. Mainly because I've only seen the conversation here, from people who have no practical effect on the composition on the court, and no one in actual positions of authority has said anything about it and are probably not expected to.
I mean, considering the Congress apparently needs to sign off on such things and the one time it happened got stopped by Congress, does anyone really expect it to happen?
![]()
![]()
From Wikipedia: "Zero Hedge's content has been classified as "alt-right", anti-establishment, conspiratorial, and economically pessimistic, and has been criticized for presenting extreme and sometimes pro-Russian views." All sourced.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge
When I Googled them, the similar sites included Breitbart, RT, and The Blaze. So yeah, they sound like right-wing cranks. Or worse, pro-Russian agitators.
I'd write it off.
Edited by Rationalinsanity on Jul 2nd 2018 at 3:28:13 PM
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Reuters: FBI nabs man it says planned July 4 attacks on Cleveland, Philadelphia
Good on them, but damnit, the Cheeto and his base are going to pounce on this since the guy claims allegiance with al-Qaeda.
@Yomegami: Pretty sure they're right-wing trash, if I'm remembering correctly.
Also, as a response to the issue that brought it up: For the faults Obama's immigration policies had (which you can probably find more substantial data for from actual immigration activists), they were not deliberately cruel and designed to cause suffering and misery.
And more from the Dumbfuckstan
Ohio state reps offer bill that would make teachers 'out' students to their parents
Two Ohio legislators are pushing a bill that would make teachers inform parents that their children may be transgender.
Republican state Reps. Tom Brinkman and Paul Zeltwanger’s legislation would require any “government agents,” teachers included, to immediately report to a child’s parent or guardian if they demonstrate “a desire to be treated in a manner opposite the child's biological sex.”
After receiving notice, parents would then have the choice to receive “treatment” including “Educational materials, classes, or programs,” or “Medical, psychological, social, or other professional treatment, therapy, counseling, or other services.”
Without permission from a parent, teachers would be charged with a fourth-degree felony if they try to share sex or gender counseling resources with a student.
Should parents decline to provide counseling or resources to their child, the bill would prevent this from being used against them in custody cases or abuse and neglect complaints.
Brinkman first introduced the legislation after an Ohio county court granted custody of a teenager to his grandparents, CNN reported.
The parents of the teenager, who identifies as male, had tried to push him to stop receiving treatment and therapy, however, his grandparents supported his decision to seek hormone therapy.
"Parents have the right to decide what is best for their children," Brinkman told a local news outlet in defense of his bill.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jul 2nd 2018 at 11:41:50 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang![]()
What Mc Connell did is not at all what you are suggesting. I would agree with a tit-for-tat. I do not agree with a partisan authoritarian rigging of one of the most important institutions in the US, which the Republicans could later turn on us in return.
Edited by Grafite on Jul 2nd 2018 at 7:53:42 PM
Life is unfair...It’s not rigging, it’s undoing the rigging that the Republicans have done under Mc Conell.
As for the chance of court packing getting past Congress, Congress was a lot less partisan in FDR’s day, though it would require killing the filibuster.
Edited by Silasw on Jul 2nd 2018 at 7:00:27 PM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
![]()
Scalia died in early February, Trump entered office at the very end of January. So yeah. Almost a full year.
Meaning, according to the GOP, basically presidents aren't allowed to exercise their power for 1/4 of their terms.
Edited by Larkmarn on Jul 2nd 2018 at 3:01:36 PM
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.![]()
![]()
And the point the posters here are making is this is NOT tit-for-tat, and has been rigged for 40 years-the only chance the Democrats had to break that nakedly Authoritarian grip was flushed away in 1 swirl when the GOP prevented a confirmation hearing, followed by destroying the Judicial filibuster. The GOP initially expected to lose the presidency and signaled their intent to block any SCOTUS nominations until they had the White House again-there is a reason Kennedy and the other Justices are serving into their late 80's, and only stepping down when they can be replaced by GOP rubber stamped reactionaries.
The GOP is not ever going to allow the Democrats to appoint another SCOTUS justice as long as they hold the White House or Senate, which is why this topic came up.
To me, the whole court packing discussion feels like all our backs and forths on changing or removing the electoral college. Mainly that it's so far outside the realm of feasibility that it seems not worth talking about.
If I recall past posts correctly, FDR couldn't pull it off in what sounded like ideal conditions. The Democrats sure as hell aren't getting those anytime soon, so the idea that court packing could actually happen seems like wishful thinking. I'd sooner believe we could impeach the Trump chosen justices if Trump's presidency is declared illegitimate.
That said, I think that I'm also bring influenced by my belief that going to such extremes is an inherently bad idea. Between terrorism, the GOP, and the Unicorn Brigade types, it seems like nothing good comes from extremism and trying to solve problems by radical means.
Edited by sgamer82 on Jul 2nd 2018 at 1:44:50 PM
Worth a read
. The whole thing is good, but here's the relevant part, since a lot of it is just recapping trump's behavior.
Trump’s Rage Junkies
Let’s be clear about the demographics of this base: While the overwhelming majority of blacks and Hispanics have an unfavorable view of Trump, just as many white people have a favorable view of him as have an unfavorable view of him, according to a Suffolk University/USA Today poll conducted last month.
Part of that is undoubtedly due to the increasingly racialized nature of our partisanship, but it is also because Trump has positioned himself as a white power president.
One of the things that his supporters like is the very thing that others detest: His unapologetic, unabashed crusade to fight off all efforts at racial and ethnic inclusion. They may not articulate it as such, but that is the nature of Trump’s policies: Promising to build a wall, disparaging Mexicans, separating immigrant families, the Muslim ban, decreasing even legal migration, denigrating protesting football players.
Trump has vented an American racial anxiety, giving it power and a perch, giving it permission to be vocal and even violent.
Indeed, these are all parts of what fuels opposition to Trump.
The Suffolk University/USA Today poll asked people who disapprove of Trump to put in their own words why they don’t support him. These were some of their top responses:
- Liar/Dishonest/Corrupt: 12 percent.
- Doing a poor job: 9 percent.
- The way he treats people/Bully/Ass/Jerk/Disrespectful: 8 percent.
- Disagree with his views/stand on issues: 8 percent.
- Lack of morals/Not a good person/Poor character: 7 percent
- Racist/Hate: 6 percent.
But no amount of moralizing from Trump’s opposition will affect the fervor of his supporters. Quite the opposite: Nothing quickens the pulse and induces the delight of conservatives more than the consternation of liberals. They would let the whole country collapse for the pleasure of spite.
And this is where we are now: at a standoff. The Trump apparatus is entrenched, and each day burrows ever deeper into the core of what made America greater, better, different: its slow but steady arc toward more inclusion, equality, openness. Only two things seem capable of offering relief: The elections this year and in 2020, or something damning from the Russian meddling investigation.
Last week, an exasperated Representative Trey Gowdy lashed out at Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, saying, “Whatever you got, finish it the hell up, because this country is being torn apart.”
But that’s like blaming the doctor for your illness. The investigators aren’t tearing the country apart. They are trying to protect and save it.
Trump and his defense machine — including members of Congress — are tearing it apart.
Trump-addicted acolytes are tearing it apart.
Edited by megaeliz on Jul 2nd 2018 at 3:53:08 PM
![]()
Depends where you draw the boundaries of extremism, because if you get too strict with the Overton window you wind up ruling out people like Clement Attlee's Cabinet of moderate socialists as well as the violent revolutionary lunatics they had to keep in the naughty box. The Unicorn Brigade (where did that name even come from?) aren't exactly in the same league as the GOP, especially since they have basically no power whatsoever at present.
Court Packing just sounds like a terrible precedent to set. Can I ask what the Supreme Court can do at this stage they wouldn't have done anyway if they could during the last I-dont-even-know-how-many years of right-wing domination? Kennedy was hardly an arch-liberal, and the cases have to actually get there first.
I will say that I like their economic proposals, even if they are completely terrible at presenting them compared with the academics that actually came up with half of them.
Edited by DeathorCake on Jul 2nd 2018 at 8:19:53 AM
![]()
Kennedy and Roberts having the occasional pang of conscience are the only reasons we got marriage equality, the ACA was not dead on arrival, and Roe v Wade was not overturned during Bush Jr's tenure. Those are just the first things that spring to mind; all of those are among the first on the chopping block when Kennedy is gone, along with more of the same-like destroying Unions, ruling in favor of GOP gerrymandering, and setting precedent for religious bigotry trumping rule of law, all of which happened in the last 2 weeks.
Personally I think you should view the Supreme Court as where you go to play defence. Congress is where you go to set the agenda and play offence. You want a voting rights act? Then pass a new one. If the court strikes it down? Then change the wording and pass it again. Keep going until you get something they can't object to.
And you don't have to have the presidency to do this. Honestly, if the blue wave does land then what the DNC should do is launch a Congressional Coup. Don't rush to impeach (let Muller finish, publish and then maybe test the water). Instead, publicly take on some of the responsibilities of the presidency. Host foreign dignitaries for example. You know that Trump just loves the show, you know that US allies just want to be able to deal with someone sane and Congress does have some power in that area re. Tariffs.
Just imagine Congress hosting a big bash for Trudeau or Macron; and Trump deliberately left outside impotent on the sidelines. It will destroy him.
If I recall past posts correctly, FDR couldn't pull it off in what sounded like ideal conditions. The Democrats sure as hell aren't getting those anytime soon, so the idea that court packing could actually happen seems like wishful thinking. I'd sooner believe we could impeach the Trump chosen justices if Trump's presidency is declared illegitimate.
That said, I think that I'm also bring influenced by my belief that going to such extremes is an inherently bad idea. Between terrorism, the GOP, and the Unicorn Brigade types, it seems like nothing good comes from extremism and trying to solve problems by radical means.
Doing nothing allows the Reactionary Supreme Court to block our legislation and roll back progress while court packing (if it's possible) would allow us to do some good and work on unraveling the mechanisms the Republicans use to hold power, I don't see how you can seriously claim the latter is the option that nothing good comes from.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang

Sorry to interrupt, but I'd like to question this site's
credibility. Somebody in a Discord chat I'm a part of linked to it as part of proving Obama wasn't any better on the whole "separating children from parents" thing as Trump, and I'm getting the strong impression that it's biased.
On the whole, is there a good way of checking whether a website is a credible news source or not? Or is that something reliant on personal judgment in this day and age?
Icon by Civvi the Civilian!