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
I'm just pointing out that even if you think his opinion is shit in this case, he's not actually doing something that's particularly shady. It's a standard thing with all politicians; you support the people you've worked with largely because your experiences with them let you know how in line with your own beliefs they are and also because this is how people build support networks in this profession. We shouldn't let animus towards Sanders cause us to blow his actions out of proportion, and I feel like that's what happening in this one case.
Also, pointing out that someone is Native American and a lesbian is not exactly extolling her political virtues or stances, which is something you should be doing if you think she's more the more qualified candidate; you can't just state female Native American lesbian as a stand in for what her stances are. (Again, I ask for links to this information because you're the one bringing this argument here and we can't assume that everyone has that info.)
I mean, we can obviously assume some things from the descriptor of "Native American lesbian" but that can't be used as a stand in for qualifications or policies she supports. On the other side of that coin, you're also asking us to just assume things about the guy Sanders supports without actually describing HIS policy positions and qualifications. You've reduced it to the association fallacy and that's not particularly helpful.
Edited by AceofSpades on Jul 21st 2018 at 3:19:54 AM
The Speaker of the house and the Senate Majority leader have complete controller over what's going on in Congress. If there is enough bipartisan push (like a simple majority), the respective house could force the issue to be sent to the floor/heard.
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."Interesting idea, though I would rather that we just remove the filibuster. That way progressive legislation will not be stopped as it so often has been historically. While there is the downside of bad legislation being easier to pass it's not like it can't be passed currently, it did nothing to stop the Tax Bill and other historical harmful legislation. I think removing it would be a net-positive.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jul 21st 2018 at 4:40:22 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangSanders has constantly and endlessly gone on as the driving one true progressive. He's been very clear that "oh, the Democratic party sucks for XYZ"....Bill Welder has barely lived in the district. He's less progressive than Sharice Davids. He has nothing, no indication he would be a better fit to the district or a better opponent for the incumbent Republican.
And yet, a Senator from Vermont is flying down to Kansas to stump for him with a candidate for New York. Not a sitting Congresswoman, a candidate. Ocasioo-Cortez has talked about the need for more 'identity' politics, and yet she is helping an old white guy to stump for a person whose only claim to fame is his loyalty to Sanders try to defeat a historic first progressive? And if we need a link...
. Davids? Is a former White House fellow, former Deputy Director of the Oglala Lakota led CDC on Pine Ridge, and has been an activist for minority groups for some time.
this is another reason I don't like Sanders' attempted movement: it's reducing progessivism to a cult of personality where loyalty to him is the first and most important consideration.
The notion Sanders 'has' to do something here doesn't really work. Nothing compels him to interfere in this primary.
Edited by Lightysnake on Jul 21st 2018 at 2:29:21 AM
Not that I particularly doubt you, but maybe it would help if you explained how this woman running (have you said her name?) is more progressive than the guy that Sanders is backing?
Like Ace Of Spades said, her living in the district longer and being Native American and lesbian are great, but they don't give us anything except vague inferences about what her actual political positions are.
Wlder barely has issues. His website's issue page is a short blurb on various ones with no real depth to them. The only thing he's spoken at any length about is 'corporate corruption' and getting money out of politics.
Davids has actual legislative ends listed, and has a far better history with supporting minority rights in advocacy. And she has been an activist in the district as opposed to the guy who lived in Iowa until he decided to move to Kansas just to run for office.
And one really can't divorce the fact that Davids would be the first Native American woman ever represented to Congress and Sanders is trying to support someone else seemingly based on personal loyalty. Sanders whose racial issues have been, frankly, lacking for a long time.
Edited by Lightysnake on Jul 21st 2018 at 2:49:09 AM
Birthright citizenship is a powerful weapon against racism. That’s why we must protect it
Goes into how the 14th Amendment has served as a defense against racism and how the Trump Administration and its fellow travelers are trying to change its interpretation.
Hugging a Vanillite will give you frostbite.Yes...to serve the interests of bad people. Institutions are morally neutral and can (and have) been used to block reform.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.![]()
![]()
While it's true you can't divorce her from the importance of all that, your argument was coming off as that being the sole reason we should support her, Lightysnake. You were doing her a disservice there. (Also that link appears to be paywalled and I can't see it.)
And I didn't say Sanders had to do a damn thing, I just said that's how this stuff tends to be done. Someone works for or with you, and you return the favor later because you're trying to build teams here. And as he and Ocasio are now both known names, it makes sense for this guy to call them in for help. You're kind of complaining that the guy whose name you haven't said (in fact you appear to be refusing to say anyone's name but Sanders which makes the whole discussion kind of vague and unhelpful here) is doing what is a smart thing to do in campaigns; get the guys people know to endorse you.
In the end, you're complaining about what seems to be basic groundwork, which is getting reported because well known names are involved on one side, and a person who could potentially break a lot of glass ceilings is involved on the other. The poor way you've been arguing until now boils down to "I don't like Sanders so obviously the guy he supports sucks, and this other woman checks all the superficial liberal checkpoints so she's obviously better."
All without giving us anything about what their actual qualifications or policies are. This isn't even me disagreeing with you, it's just that your argument so far has kind of sucked.
![]()
So you're telling me that, for instance, the system of checks and balances implemented in the first place was to make it easier for "bad people"? That's absurd; institutions as a whole exist to limit individual power. Whilst this means they get used to block reform as well as hinder it, they're important in not having a total reliance on selfless politicians.
It's the Washington Post. Nothing paywalled there.
So patronage "you scratch my back I scratch yours" politics as usual, which Sanders frequently derides? What team is he building, exactly? Welder can call for them for help all he likes, nothing compels Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez to answer. And also...what are you even on about with 'refusing to say their name?' I said both Welder and Davids' names previously. Sanders 'endorsing' him is one thing. Sanders flying to Kansas to stump for him is another.
Well, if you read what I posted previously, I said that Welder had not lived in the district until he moved to Kansas to run for office there (which should be a bit of a red flag), his only credentials are serving as a Sanders delegate while Davids has been a White House fellow, and as I stated directly earlier: "former Deputy Director of the Oglala Lakota led CDC on Pine Ridge, and has been an activist for minority groups for some time" both for racial and LGBT issues.
Welder sucks for reasons unrelated to Sanders. But Sanders hitching his wagon to Welder's doesn't speak well of him. And you gotta love that Davids is here reduced to 'superficial liberal checkpoints', like I didn't cite her record in a previous post.
Edited by Lightysnake on Jul 21st 2018 at 3:18:12 AM
A twit on Fox news asked Trump if NATO made sense, because if Montenegro was attacked, we'd have to put American lives on the line defending it just because it's a member of NATO. I ask you, does that make any sense?
Trump's answer was that Montenegro was a very small country and that Montenegrans were very violent and aggressive and if they attacked their neighbors, we'd have to support them and then, boom, world war three!
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Reading tropes such as You Know What You Did
For the sake of all the people that are being affected by this Ring of Fire's latest video on Trump deserves sharing. In it they address how Trump's policies, trade wars, are causing his voters to suffer, lose everything, even put on the verge of death. When the people in need try and tell Trump's people about it they reply they do not care.
For the sake of the people suffering under Trump hopefully this will be another nail in the coffin for the tyrant.
Currently reading up My Rule Fu Is Stronger than YoursThe Washington Post has been paywalled for all Europeans since the new digital information laws came into effect in May. Quite a few US news sites have done that as a way of getting around having to comply with the new laws.
Edited by Wyldchyld on Jul 21st 2018 at 4:30:37 PM
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.@Lightysnake: Sanders is a hypocrite on patronage politics much like with just about everything else, but I can’t think of a single politician who isn’t guilty of a fair amount of hypocrisy; convincing people your genuine is ironically quite a bit easier if you are prepared to tell people what they want to hear rather than what you actually think.
Nepotism and patronage are pretty much inevitable in politics, and the only way to realistically remove them would be to cut humans out of the decisionmaking process entirely. Which I support incidentally, but we’re a long way from being at a point where that’s feasible, much less society being prepared to accept such measures.
Eh, I think an argument can be made that institutions can be a net positive or negative depending on how the ratio of stopping good:bad legislation is. Now obviously there should be some institutions but arguments can be made about whether or not an institution does more harm than good.
For example in relation to the argument about packing the court I've seen convincing arguments that the Supreme Court more often then not has been more likely to obstruct progress and serve reactionaries then the other way around. So that institution is one that we might benefit from being greatly reduced.
It doesn't. The point of NATO is that if you attack any of its members you face the full weight of their collective power, thus no-one would dream of attacking a small state like Montenegro because the consequences of doing it would be far too costly. Thus the chances of Montenegro dragging us into some conflict is so low that it might as well be zero.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jul 21st 2018 at 11:46:54 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangAlso, I'm pretty sure that the NATO pact doesn't require intervention by the member nations if one of them attacks another country, unprovoked.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Not that Sanders opinion seems to mean much, but I can believe he genuinely believes this guy would be a good candidate/congressperson.
It sounds like there are a lot of reason to disagree with that but, eh, that's never stopped Sanders before.