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
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/7/david-duke-praises-rep-ilhan-omar/
David Duke loves Omar.
(Because why not three times invoke the Devil)
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.Late agian but...
Its never enforced because the ruling was that goods are not considered debts, and it is legal to not accept cash in exchange for goods.
Said came about due to the fact that high value items exist, And well imagine if some one wanted to pay for a car in paper, even using the highest denomination bill it is just too much of an inconvenience to be valid.
Now if they give you that car, and you get a debt from it.... you can use pennies to pay that off all at once if you really hate some one, and they cant say no to it.
But they have to pass that initial exchange for the good in the first place.
Edited by Imca on Mar 8th 2019 at 1:52:56 AM
![]()
![]()
![]()
Elizabeth Warren is the gift that just keeps on giving, her candidacy is win-win in my book. Even if she doesn't win I feel very confident that a hypothetical President Gillibrand or Harris would almost certainly adopt a good chunk of Warren's policy. She's pretty much in the best position possible to push her wonderfully wonkish policies.
Also, that article title is a gem.
![]()
Seconded.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Mar 8th 2019 at 5:10:46 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangThis sort of feels like a false equivalence, since in the past few weeks alone, we've had Republican politicians outright proclaiming themselves to be white supremacists, or bemoaning that white people won't have the most electoral college power anymore, or flat-out using racial slurs. While I can see where the criticism of Omar as antisemitic comes from, it's very clearly being used by bad-faith actors who readily turn a blind eye when their political cohorts say things that are much more bigoted.
they're gonna find intelligent life up there on the moon/and the canterbury tales will shoot up to the top of the best-seller listThere's certainly precedent for it, Obama did choose Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State after all.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang![]()
Nope, that's not the idea. Amazon, Facebook, Google, they have a primary purpose- being a platform. But they also do a lot more.
Here's the actual proposal and an explanation of how it would work.
TLDR; Google wouldn't be able to nuke competitors in its result, Facebook wouldn't be allowed to buy and take over all its competitors, Amazon can't keep running a marketplace AND selling their own versions of products by tracking sales data of the companies that sell on Amazon and then undercutting them and driving them out of business.
Edited by wisewillow on Mar 8th 2019 at 6:08:17 AM
So this post is from a few pages ago and its flaws were pointed out already, but I thought I'd give a more in-depth response:
The impression I get is that you are listening so hard for racism that it's all you hear. I tried to write this a dozen times trying to explain a republican position and why the arguments the right believes about it aren't coming from a bad place (which should be simple because their not. They might not be correct, but that's not the same thing). However, every time I did, I ran into the problem of racism. Not because the position or arguments are racist, but because the left sees racism in everything to the point where there are many on the right who wonder if they are projecting.
There's a lot to unpack here.
First of all, your argument seems to be made in a vacuum without considering the context of modern US politics. The president of the United States is a man who has a history of unambiguously sexist, racist, and xenophobic statements. Many of the GOP's politicians are only becoming more extreme, or are being defeated by candidates who are more extreme in their primaries, with positions that are fairly similar if not sometimes even more extreme than the president's. Inhumane policies towards non-whites are already being implemented, such as separating children from their parents and apprehending people in horrific conditions for indeterminate periods of time, and Trump just made a huge hullabaloo of building his wall (which, mind you, is not even a good solution to the problem he claims exists) to the point he shut down the government over it.
It is difficult to deny that this is a political environment where racism runs amok; to pretend otherwise is being willfully ignorant. So often, the accusations of racism are being made at well, people who are openly racist.
Secondly, you seem to be making a classic mistake when it comes to discussing racism, which is centering the conversation on the supposedly racist person's inner feelings and "what's really in their heart", which in essence is just an appeal to the unknowable nature of people's true intentions. This is flawed for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it ignores the effects of people's actions on the real world, which is far more important.
Even if your reasons for supporting a policy are purely benign and well-intentioned, how much does that really matter when the policy itself has an effect which is demonstrably racist? If I run you over with my car without meaning to, I still ran you over with my car and I have to deal with the consequences of that.
That's not to say that people's intentions are never relevant, but it's mostly so in maybe convincing people to change their mind and devising strategies to oppose them or prevent people from falling prey to those ideas in the first place.
Thirdly, your statement also ignores the long history of politicians exploiting "the benefit of the doubt" in order to stir up racial resentment for votes, i.e dogwhistles. This isn't an invention, multiple GOP officials already admitted that this was the case with the southern strategy and it continued under politicians such as Reagan. Racists can be far more clever than people give them credit for; they know that open bigotry isn't acceptable (or at least, that used to be the case) so they devise strategies to get around this and manipulate public opinion in their favor. It is a well-known tactic of the far right to sow dissent (by getting well-meaning people to argue in their favor) and get recruits/appeal to their base (who understand what they are saying).
So sure, it's easy to understand why someone might get the impression that the left is in a hurry to call everything racist. However, that ignores the broader context for why they do that. So far in most of your recent posts you seem to be implying that a compromise needs to be be made or that the left "isn't listening", but you have repeatedly ignored the arguments that show why that is a bad idea and refused to address the fact that many GOP politicians are openly racist and that by supporting them, GOP voters are at the least being complicit. I don't think you're trying to argue in bad faith but it's hard to really have a prolonged discussion with you when you aren't responding to what people are saying.
The problem is that we can never have a "colorblind system" if we do nothing to make the world more equal. Because right now ignoring racial issues and doing nothing to try and help minority communities will just perpetuate an unequal system. You don't fix problems by pretending they don't exist; if anything that just makes them worse.
On top of that, having a colorblind system isn't necessarily ideal anyway. I get the intent behind it, but it also comes with the connotations that differences in experiences and heritage are not acknowledged, which is not what most minority people want. They want their identity to be acknowledged, but treated as equally valid.
Edited by Draghinazzo on Mar 8th 2019 at 7:27:10 AM
Did you not experience birtherism with the rest of us? Or do you consider it either not racist or not representative of Republicans (despite a huge proponant of birtherism being the highest elected republican representative in the country)?
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI'll be honest, part of the problem with, e.g., breaking up the shopping-related functions or the "sell own products" one is...
That's just what shops do.
Sure, you could split AWS from the marketplace, but if you then try to break up the marketplace further you're sort of... inherently arguing that the thing that makes people go to large stores shouldn't exist.
Part of the issue with online services is that they've actually created a system wherein a monopoly is almost desirable for the consumer. A lot of these services are valuable because they're all-encompassing.
For example, with Facebook, part of what makes it useful is the fact that everyone uses Facebook. If social media like FB was competitive, then all those services would be pretty useless.
Same thing goes with say, Steam. It's an inconvenience to the user to have to subscribe to other services.
Leviticus 19:34There's always the danger that because companies like Amazon do everything and have very few competitors, they can do things like have shady business practices, lack of concern for privacy, jack up prices for services, etc, and don't suffer any repercussions. All the problems of monopolies, but the solutions aren't quite the same as they once were.

Elizabeth Warren Is Going to Keep Dumping Big and Interesting Ideas on You Friggin’ Dolts Until You Pay Attention
(that’s the article title)
• The creation of a U.S. Office of Public Integrity to enforce new rules against the corrupt lobbying practices that essentially function as a way to bribe members of Congress and the executive branch.
• The creation of a federal system for funding locally run child care providers that would guarantee that no one in the U.S. has to spend more than 7 percent of their household income on child care.
• An annual 2 or 3 percent “wealth tax” on fortunes larger than $50 million.
Ma’am, you have my attention. The tech monopolies are a huge problem that need addressing.