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'd say it's all of the above. It lets the person naming the bill show off wit, it makes the bill easier to market, it makes the bill easier to remember, and generally can contain information in a more dense area than non-acronym names could.
Leviticus 19:34There's also the fact that (on the Democrat side) these bills are entirely just for show, as even after the Midterms, they won't make it past the Senate. So any proposed bills using such acronyms are first and foremost a Take That! against the GOP than anything else.
i'm tired, my friend
Creating bills with funny acronyms to make a point has been a long standing tradition in Congress.
Anyway, who doesn’t love an incredibly awkward and forced acronyms, right?
Tulsi Gabbard's
campaign seems to be having issues. Her campaign manager is already leaving the team.
I have only one comment on that.
GOOD.
Edited by AzurePaladin on Jan 29th 2019 at 8:15:57 AM
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -FighteerConsidering how incredibly slim her chances are she can hardly afford setbacks, the fact her campaign is in disarray probably just means that it's dead on arrival.
Good riddance to trash.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangI can not conceive of a single individual candidate, policy issue, or skeleton in any candidate's closet, real or imagined, that turns Donald Trump into the preferable alternative. Except maybe Gabbard, but, as noted, she has issues right out the gate so she's probably not something to worry about anytime soon.
Edited by sgamer82 on Jan 29th 2019 at 7:52:24 AM
![]()
![]()
![]()
As I said before, I like Stacy Abrams but I disagree with her, so let me go through her positions on various matters to illustrate. I'm using http://www.ontheissues.org/Stacey_Abrams.htm
for the stances. I'm putting the issues on a -10 to 10 scale on how much I agree, with 10 being perfect agreement.
Abortion - This is a banned topic, but I would be remiss if I didn't say anything about it. She supports its expansion, I don't. Entirely too much said already. -10
Budget & Economy - Some degree of agreement here, but I'm wary of government subsidizing business. 0
Civil Rights - I agree, we shouldn't discriminate against anyone. On the other hand, I feel that the fears of it going too far are somewhat justified. With regards to Stone Mountain, I think there is also agreement here. However, I think that whatever we replace it with should still celebrate all Georgians and be something that everyone in the state can rally around. That's a huge undertaking and one that we can't do lightly. 6
Corporations - See above 0
Crime - There are some agreements here, we do need to reform our justice system. 2
Drugs - I like decriminalization, I don't like criminalization. 0
Education - I like private vouchers. I feel that they introduce an element of competition that is desperately needed in our education system. There are a lot of things that are broken in our education system that I don't think more money can effectively fix. That said, we are spending less then average on our students, so a couple extra thousand per student might not hurt. I think we need to spend our current money better more then we need more money. -5
Energy - Essentially a non-statement. I don't really care that much about the energy. 0
Environment - If hurricane recovery is a ten-month process, then we'll be in recovery all year round. That said there are some environmental disasters that we do need to clean up that don't get enough attention. 1
Families - I tend to think that people can spend their own money better then the government can. -1
Foreign Policy - There isn't a statement here so I'll just state my views on what our foreign policy should be. We shouldn't get too involved in the internal affairs of other nations, but be quick to drop the ax if they start something with someone else. I think I land somewhere around a -5 or so with Democrats.
Free Trade - There isn't a statement here so I'll just state my views on what our free should be. 0 Tariffs on anything anyone buys or sells overseas. If you can get it here, all you have to pay is the same taxes than anyone in your market has too. Nearly complete freedom of movement on the US side of things. (It's easy to get into or out of the US). Our process for people who want to visit or even live here should be easy and quick with few things to get tripped up on.
Government Reform - I agree with voter suppression angle, we need to make informed voting easier and implement range voting. We should also use an objective method such as using a compactness metric to decide districting and eliminate gerrymandering. 3
Gun Control - They made a mistake with our campus carry laws, a professor can't carry in their own office. -10
Health Care - I'm of two minds on this. I think there is an argument for goverment providing catastrophic coverage. However, that's not what we are usually talking about with regards to healthcare. I personally would prefer for the government to be involved less in healthcare. However, if I'm not going to get what I want, we should do things right. We do it right or we don't do it at all. Not this pathetic middle gorund that we currently have. I think a system where we have goverment funded and regulated basic care and then paid for and not nearly as regulated premium care might work. -5
Homeland Security - mostly logical on for what is down. I tend towards a 'I like being able to take on the next three biggest spenders at once' point of view. -1
Immigration - I'm not a complete believer in a borderless society, but close enough. I'm probably to the left of the Democrats on this. -2
Jobs - I don't like the minimum wage and prefer free market solutions. -3
Edit: At sgamer: I'll be voting against him too again next go around if nothing changes. I could see a universe where I get pushed to vote for him, but I don't think it's likely.
Edited by Soban on Jan 29th 2019 at 10:03:01 AM
Harris and Gillibrand both seem solid, but both also have a less than stellar track record in criminal justice and immigration respectively which casts a shadow over them.
Warren seems popular but I don't really trust her. Her acting Ahab on Wall Street and the rest of the financial industry along with antics like her going along with the "DNC rigged the primaries" bullcrap soured me on her.
Gabbard...no.
I don't really know enough about the other declared candidates yet (which is itself telling I guess).
I won't say anything about others like Sanders and Biden since as far as I know they have not officially announced a run, likely as it is.
Disgusted, but not surprisedThe US is a two party system.
If you're not going to explicitly vote against someone, you might as well not bother.
Though on a more particular note... do you realise how immensely idealistic it is to hope that the free market will help with wages and the job market? Minimum wages might have their downsides, but the entire concept of a free market is that unless you're providing some incredibly valuable task businesses will do the absolute minimum to employ you possible. Given that people tend to be stuck with increasingly replaceable jobs due to technological advancement, this is bad for employees.
The free market wants lower wages, fewer safety regulations, no limits on what terms it can impose on contracts... and at the same time the "free market" also pushes for every legal avenue it can to destroy any power unions might have.
One person who needs a job to stay alive against a wealthy company that has half a dozen people after the same position. Good luck on getting a good deal in THAT situation.
(And an increase in higher education or specialised training does not help because that hits a tipping point where the pool of qualified employees immediately means they're no longer valuable enough to demand better conditions)
Edited by RainehDaze on Jan 29th 2019 at 3:34:50 PM

I always thought it was a marketing ploy, y'know, making the thing chatchy makes it easier for the public to remember.