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
They've also said that a lot of said email weren't classified when they were sent, or were classified by mistake. And given that Comey was later really obviously trying to influence the election, his word should be taken with a grain of salt.
Plus saying 'anyone else would be trouble' raises eyebrows considering a) other people did it and aren't in trouble, and b) why shouldn't Hillary be in trouble, then?
Statehood requires more taxes, a minimum population, and a loooooooot more bureaucracy.
It's not some sort of ideal state of being. There are reasons they haven't done so already.
exactly. Where are the calls to jail Condoleeza Rice?
edited 15th Nov '16 10:53:52 AM by blkwhtrbbt
Say to the others who did not follow through You're still our brothers, and we will fight for you@ Electoral College:
We directly elect our Head of State. The earlier system was somewhat similar to the EC, in which the parliament elected the President, but after 21 years of autocratic rule, it was decided that it will be down to popular vote (there were many other reasons as well). The Presidential powers were also reduced to nothing but "leading foreign policy". Although that can be used somewhat creatively.
A bicameral system would be interesting though.
edited 15th Nov '16 10:56:45 AM by TerminusEst
Si Vis Pacem, Para PerkeleStatehood or not, U.S. territories are still subject to the will of the U.S. government, and this election affects them too.
And if the decisions made in Washington affect them, then isn't it fair that they have a say in it?
Oh God! Natural light!What marriage is, whether abortion should be legal, what drugs should be legal, education, euthanasia, land management (my home state has a lot of federal lands that we have no say in managing), health insurance, the drinking age, the death penalty, most law enforcement, etc. A list of Federal overreach is by necessity a long list.
Basically let the states try different things, and then the ideas that fail will be put aside by those states, and good ideas will be adapted by others. Our current Federal "from the top down, one size fits all" approach doesn't work quite right.
Why exactly do you think states should be able to decide those things in the first place?
Whether a woman lives in Alabama or Ohio, or whether a gay couple lives in New York or Arkansas should have no bearing on whether they can get an abortion or whether they should get married respectively.
As I already told you, some things should not be for states to decide, especially when they involve people's civil rights. I don't know how I can make that any simpler. Your proposal would throw minorities to the wolves, as arguments for states' rights often do, and as states' right themselves often have.
edited 15th Nov '16 11:13:48 AM by Draghinazzo
![]()
![]()
Bull. If the states get to decide who marries you're going to see gay rights suppressed throughout red states. And no it won't result in the states "abandoning those policies when they don't work" because hey, hurting the LGBTQ populace in an end goal in and of itself for some of these people.
edited 15th Nov '16 11:07:30 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar
"They should push for statehood, and gain representation. There's nothing magical about the number 50. Except, of course, that Puerto Rico at least keeps deciding they're fine with remaining a territory."
They had a referendum on the issue, but because critics of the ballot alleged that one option, to stay as a US territory but with greater devolution of power, was omitted, the results were invalid, which is difficult to argue against since the ballot could have included a half dozen other proposals, and would have likely required a second vote for a definitive result.
They're definitely making noise about statehood, though.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."They also voted to keep interracial marriage illegal too, which is hugely inefficient as it means many married couples can't move for a new job or family if it means causing their marriage to be annulled based on their location. It's YUUUGELY inefficient to not have a consistent nationwide standard for this.
x7
Except they don't get "put aside" by those states. Things like slavery and Jim Crow had to be outlawed by the Federal government by force. The south went to Civil War in order to keep their "right" to own slaves, and had no intention on giving them up.
The idea that we should let massive amounts of our population suffer until bigots grow a conscience is a horrific one.
edited 15th Nov '16 11:13:50 AM by SilentColossus
Works pretty okay if you're a black person wanting to vote or a gay person wanting to be allowed to have sex (homosexuality is still illegal in several states).
I get that you want to see states as near independent entities but you do understand that several US states would rapidly approach Saudi Arabia and Apartied South Africa level of tyranny and oppression, right? Because if you gave states all the rights you wanted to you'd have never seen an end to slavery or Jim Crow.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranWe have made a cultural decision (or thought we did) that civil rights, gender rights, sexual rights, religious freedom — basic human equality — transcends the power of individual states and is a national or even global matter. The Constitution is pretty explicit in this regard.
edited 15th Nov '16 11:20:40 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"It was never and never will be the case, even in a country with a perfect democracy, that the basic rights of sub-sections of the population are subject to a popular vote.
Just to make this perfectly clear: if I was president, and 99% of the American population were of the genuine opinion that, for instance, gay people shouldn't be able to marry, and they all voted to that effect, and the decision reached my desk with such an overwhelming popular majority, I would hesitate precisely zero seconds to veto it.
And this goes beyond the personal. This applies to every president, regardless of what their private opinions might be, religious or otherwise. This is a fundamental civic truth. By the very nature of government, it is a leader's duty to stand for the interests of all of the nation's citizens. You don't get to arbitrarily carve out some type of person and single them out for the stripping of their rights. That is simply not your place. If God came down from Heaven and proclaimed it his divine word that gays should not be allowed to marry, well then tough shit, 'cause it's simply not his place either.
Disagree. This is not a matter of culture. It's far more fundamental than that, or at least it should be.
edited 15th Nov '16 11:26:23 AM by Gault
yey

Didn't know who he is, googled and this headline was the first result:
edited 15th Nov '16 10:50:41 AM by IFwanderer
1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KV