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
He was ranting specifically about the UK, but you’re correct that the reason for its commonality in the UK is that culturally a British-Muslin family has a smaller pool of names they’re likely to pick from than a other groups in the country.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the 2nd and 3rd most common names were similarly connected to specific cultural groups.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranIf he considers religion in general to be an inherent sign of 'backwardness', let's not forget huge swathes of Africa, and India, and First Nations/Indigenous communities in the Americas, Australia and New Zealand. ...Come to think of it, arguably most of the world. Except Antarctica.
Edited by PresidentStalkeyes on Sep 26th 2020 at 8:10:15 PM
Those sell-by-dates won't stop me because I can't read!@Forenperser If you're responding to me, to clarify what I was saying: The people I was pointing out were not specifically examples of people who were evil because they were motivated by atheism, nor were all of them even atheists.
What I was saying is that they were people who were evil for reasons not especially attributable to religion. For example, Hitler was not an atheist, but Nazism as an ideology is orthogonal to religion.
The position I'm stating is not that religion is good necessarily. I am simply refuting the specifically antitheistic position that religion is effectively the primary driver of oppression and conflict.
To refute this position, one doesn't necessarily need to say anything positive about religion, nor negative about atheism. One simply has to point out enough (and/or extreme enough) examples of evil that cannot explained by religious motivation.
Leviticus 19:34Just as religious people have murdered people in the name of God, there are many authoritarian atheist regimes that have murdered religious people because they view people of faith as enemies of the state. Stalin used the church against the Nazis but massive numbers of religious people were murdered by the State for being religious.
Both persecutions are monstrous. Freedom of faith is fundamental to faith having any meaning or society being free.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.Protagonist said it best
In some great news, 61% of Americans support abolishing the Electoral college
It's obviously not going to apply to this election but this is a great sign for electoral reform.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
The less-voted candidate (like Trump) won’t have a chance to win, is the main thing. Also, campaigns won’t disproportionately favor swing states.
If the president is elected based on the popular vote then:
- Swing states are not super important.
- Being a voter for the minority party in a non-swing state actually has an effect.
How would it not? The less popular candidate is definitively the one who gets less votes. If that's the definition of who wins the election...
Edited by RainehDaze on Sep 26th 2020 at 8:44:39 PM
![]()
In actuality? A constitutional amendment. In practicality? Enough states joining the NPVIC and saying they're awarding their electors based on the results of the popular vote.
Which will inevitably be legally challenged even though the wording in the constitution is that states choose how their electors are awarded however they want.
Edited by RainehDaze on Sep 26th 2020 at 8:46:27 PM
I changed my opinion on the Electoral College abolishment because no one wants to actually make the reforms necessary to make it work like universal mail-in ballots, attacking disenfranchisement, and adding all US territories as voting states like DC as well as Puerto Rico. Oh and the Electors aren't allowed to actually vote against monsters.
I have no doubt that authoritarians will benefit from its removal but they've won in this battle to dismantle a democratic institution. The Confederacy is laughing from its grave.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Sep 26th 2020 at 12:47:12 PM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.You realize the Electoral College was created to prevent universal slavery, right? The American South would have had a supermajority if not for its existence.
But Im not going to argue. The bad guys won. There's no saving it.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Sep 26th 2020 at 12:48:32 PM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.The electors wouldn’t have gotten their position if they weren’t going to vote in monsters anyway given who chooses them.
My musician page

Re: Maher ranting about the prevalence of the name 'Muhammad' in Europe: I admit this is going off-topic a bit, but isn't the reason for that particular statistic got more to do with the fact that several countries in Europe - mostly in the Balkans, like Albania - are Muslim-majority and have been for centuries? I also think that Islamic families are more likely to choose from a smaller 'pool' of names than Christian or Non-Religious ones, and therefore Muhammad is disproportionately common compared to other names, but I don't know if that's true. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Those sell-by-dates won't stop me because I can't read!