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
Still can't comprehend why my mom is still pro-Romney. I appreciate that we both agree to disagree (she knows my views) but I simply can't understand it.
BTW, Keith Judd ran from jail too. And did frighteningly well in West Virginia.
Dammit! I appreciate moving from a blue state to a swing state and all, and I'm still furious that my only other non Obama candidate I'd vote for is Gary Johnson.
But I guess everyone's right. Without Anderson and Stein available even as write-ins, and living in a swing state, Obama's the best available option. Of course, I love Gary Johnson's views on war.
edited 18th Oct '12 12:31:57 AM by Skatepunk
Earlier conversation and links actually puts third party candidates on most of the ballots, either as options already there or write ins. But strategic voting pretty much requires us to vote Obama anyway, or the split vote will lead to a Romney win. Or Obama, if you're on the conservative side and would vote Constitution or Libertarian.
Seriously, at some point whether or not we should alter our voting system is going to become an issue in this country. Like, a serious one.
It better become an issue soon!
Thankfully CNN had Stein and Johnson on together. So that leaves some hope.
But hope is not enough. Soon (which the consensus is after this election) we need action.
Hopefully Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party (the actual Tea Party and not the pro-Bank congressmen) push for this king of reform.
Of course OWS is already doing so.
@Braebern
You can run from jail, but can you participate in debate from one?
![]()
Well, if you really have a problem with voting for Obama, then might as well vote for a third party. Then it's not a real spoiler because you weren't going to contribute to the major parties either way.
But that's the thing - I haven't seen Obama really done anything that problematic, something that you just don't like about his administration. There just hasn't been many such hit-or-miss moments besides healthcare.
Indefinite detention is kind of a thing
"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story." TwitterIndefinite detention was quickly struck down, with Obama having added the signing statement “"I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed . . . I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists."
Solved before it became a problem.
edited 18th Oct '12 1:04:36 AM by Enkufka
Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen FryWhen did it get struck down?
Also, plenty of people are mad that he signed it anyway, considering that there was nothing in his statement that prevented succeeding presidents from enforcing it. And also don't realize that it was attached to the paychecks of our soldiers. (Or don't care.) Basically, that was a situation that was pretty much gauruanteed to make him come out bad, no matter what. People seem to have forgotten about it by now, largely, but for some it's still an issue.
@Trivialis: the thing about strategic voting is that it's such an imbedded part of our current process that most people wouldn't even consider voting for a third party. In fact, a lot of people will just not vote rather than consider third parties. There's a reason third parties tend to contain nutjobs; they're the dedicated extremists in a lot of cases, rather than those willing to work with others to achieve goals. (I do not consider Greens extreme, but their relatively fringe status allows them to have a foreign policy that largely wouldn't work. IE; nuclear disarmament.)
Signing statements hold no power. They're basically a readme.
If he really wanted it out, he'd have vetoed it, then publicized "Yo dawg, your congressmen want me to pass a bill that says I can shit on due process whenever, and they're holding the military budget hostage to do it." It would've been grade-A ammunition. He signed it because he wanted it, and he did it in a very quiet timeframe to draw as little attention as possible.
edited 18th Oct '12 1:34:34 AM by Pykrete
That's because not voting for the NDAA is essentially a career ender. The Indefinite Detention thing was paper-clipped onto the actual authorization act, which essentially as noted above, budgets money for the entire Department of Defense (sic: The Entire US Military).
Not voting for it is tantamount to essentially saying "Why yes, I really would love my career in politics to end forever." As your opponent could carpet bomb you with ads claiming you refused to supply our troops with money for equipment, and they'd be right.
That and one could argue the president had the moral high ground by deciding to fund the troops over petty political squabbles. And whoever uses the Indefinite Detention for political motivated reasons and gets exposed for it is going to suffer the political fallout for it, not Obama.
I figured it would be taken as condescending, though I meant every word. But no line crossing, got it.
![]()
![]()
Republicans: "Yo dawg, Hussein Osama hates our soldiers and wants to let his no good sand nigger muslim terrosist bros loose."
In other words, Pykrete, you should probably stop thinking facts can actually influence these people.
edited 18th Oct '12 2:24:21 AM by Ekuran
So, short of an armed uprising (something which I hope never happens), what would it take to actually get them to take their heads out of their large intestines?
edited 18th Oct '12 5:14:19 AM by TrashJack
"Cynic, n. — A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be." - The Devil's DictionaryI've said it before,...it's pretty much looking like 1980,...except Carter only debated once and might've won if he didn't sit out because of Anderson
Obama seems to be losing it,despite not sitting out and debating the whole time,...so in a way its worse.
It won't be a landslide though since Romney doesn't have enough charisma to do that
http://xkcd.com/1122/
: xkcd weighs in on the idea of electoral precedents. (And electoral presidents, I guess...)
Of the roughly $50 billion we gave GM, they have paid back just under $7 billion, which technically, was all they owed, because the other $43 billion was paid in the form of GM stock at the price $53 a share. When the Obama administration or GM executives talk about "paid back in full" they are referring to the $7 billion figure. GM stock is currently trading at $25 per share, so the government stands to lose almost half the bailout money we gave them unless something changes drastically, while GM didn't even have to pay interest on that money.
edited 18th Oct '12 5:57:32 AM by EdwardsGrizzly
<><I always fear for a threads safety when i see pink on post.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXkI1sTDoEgMy understanding is that TARP has been mostly paid back, and in many cases returned a profit to the government on the money spent. The auto industry bailout may well have returned less than the amount invested, but it did save the U.S. auto industry and countless jobs.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

That's really happening? Because there was a previous link about it that phrased everything like an Onion article. I mean, it even mentions "guy who owns a copy of An Inconvenient Truth" near the end.