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
Electric Heart
No individual thought necessary, I suppose.
I know that the jobs issue is something entirely separate that we're probably on the same page on, but "labor is optional" is a really shitty outlook in my opinion. I'm not crazy like a lot of the folks in the GOP when it comes to this issue, and I recognize the good reasons for having a social safety net, but people need to be working. I don't like freeloaders, and true to life freeloaders aren't welcome. Not everyone on welfare is a freeloader, but I firmly believe that the people who are freeloaders need to be denied. Don't want to work? Tough, you can starve. Can't find work but are still looking? Sounds good to me, you could use a hand. Absolutely cannot work because of a disability? Cool.
Wandering Jew
Donald Trump: GOP will get 'drubbed' without perfect nominee in 2016
Electric Heart
And of course... he said he'd be a good candidate.
Please, Trump, you're embarrassing yourself.
Trump's correct..but the perfect candidate is impossible. It has to be someone who doesnt piss off the nutbars in the primaries yet doesnt terrify the independents and moderate conservatives.
The perfect GOP candidate would probably scare away the independents. The Democrats would have to nominate a real screw up to lose to someone like Rand Paul or Santorum. Christie or Paul Ryan stand a better chance but I still think they'd have trouble.
Electric Heart
I think Paul Ryan's a little too far to the right for the moderates, but that's just me.
Wandering Jew
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Given the fact that he didn't tank Romney's campaign like Sarah did I don't think that's the case.
to be fair, Romney's campaign didnt need help tanking given it was running off coked up numbers.
I know he was in trouble to start but he certainly could have gotten hurt by his announcement of Paul Ryan more than he was. 47% of the popular vote is still a pretty good portion.
Yeah, the Republicans don't really stand a snowballs chance in hell in 2016, but I really hope Hillary doesn't run and they find someone else.
Then again, the GOP will most likely focus even more on making sure they can conquer as much of the house and senate as possible, as that's where the real power lies, and it's easier to get at least a partial victory that way.
So, ironic fun fact... The #2 contributor to CA Dem Senator Barbara Boxers campaign contributions? News Corp, AKA Fox News. #1 is a womens rights movement.
edited 10th Aug '13 7:59:14 PM by Barkey
A single guy getting $200 in food stamps?
I've got to find my caseworker and start squeezing. I barely get half that.
@Barkey: Regarding "labor is optional," I think it's a better system (trying to speak objectively, usual disclaimers apply) than one where we try to determine whether a poor person is freeloading or not, mainly because most people, like you, do want to work, and the social cost of controlling freeloaders is almost certainly greater than that of giving handouts to layabouts.
Also, if the alternative is working at Wal-Mart, I'd support freeloading on principle.
edited 10th Aug '13 8:05:28 PM by Ramidel
I despise hypocrisy, unless of course it is my own.
I'd only be ok with that if we made special tenement style government provided housing for those folks. Now I'm not saying shitty housing, but I mean full stripe programs involving government funded housing for those folks to live in, and job placement programs to specifically guide them to becoming employed.
Don't want to work? Want to just get handouts? Your ass can starve. But I'm a massive supporter of job training and job placement programs for people who need them. Offer incentives for businesses to hire those people. But I want a mechanism to be in place for cutting the cord on the people who just don't want to do anything with their lives but live off the government and sit around all day.
Wandering Jew
MSNBC’s Karen Finney And Howard Dean Rail Against ‘Slap Hillary’ Game From GOP PAC
Remembers its the internet, Please be in the face, please be in the face, please be in the face...
Oh phew, I mean yes thats so evil and violence to women prompting.
@Barkey: If you don't mean shitty housing, then don't say "tenement." Unless you're Scottish, "substandard" is included in the meaning. 
Anyway, while I have a degree of sympathy for "if you won't work, I don't want to pay for your food," the problem is that that leads to people having to take shitty jobs that don't even pay enough to live on. If people didn't have to work to survive (but needed to work if they wanted any kind of luxuries beyond basic survival), then Wal-Mart and Mc Donalds would have to make jobs that people would actually want to work.
Now, what I would like to see is the welfare state in general fixed so that it isn't economically preferable to not work. For example, I am not going to go out and get a job if it means I lose my Medicaid eligibility and it pays less than I'd earn just by sitting on my ass and collecting welfare. That needs to be fixed, and I say this as someone who benefits from Uncle Sam.
edited 10th Aug '13 8:53:13 PM by Ramidel
I despise hypocrisy, unless of course it is my own.
Visiting from the Hoag Galaxy
Yeah, there's a glaring gap where once you earn a certain amount, the amount you actually have available drops noticeably.
Not Three Laws compliant.
Wandering Jew
Govenor Rick Scott Announces $3.5 Billion in State Debt Paid Down
Okay, if there isn't a catch to that and Rick Scott hasn't engaged in some shell game that will set the state up for a fall down the road...*clap clap*
edited 11th Aug '13 4:06:41 AM by Ramidel
I despise hypocrisy, unless of course it is my own.
scratching at .8, just hopin'
@Barkey: I disagree. If we can live in a post-scarcity society, we should. When people have free time to volunteer, they create shit like Wikipedia.
EDIT: Moving the potential derail off-site.
edited 11th Aug '13 7:00:58 AM by RadicalTaoist
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
Jupiterian Local
(which he's now slowly replacing — though not nearly to the levels it was at before — so he can claim to be increasing the education budget in his inevitable re-election campaign). Or 2.1 billion cuts to Medicaid. Nevermind the fact that this year's budget is the largest in state history...
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Yep. Its pretty easy to balance a budget when you destroy the entire social safety net.
HGW XX/7
Trump slides further beyond parody.
He is now questioning Ted Cruz's eligibility to be President, because he was born in Canada.
Schild und Schwert der Partei
Yep.