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
@Tomu: It's a lot more complicated than that, though. Business taxation is complex, and quite often there's good reason for that, for instance all the rules about how quickly you can write off capital equipment (differing for each class of equipment, normally). Your overall point's solid, though.
Of course, the complexity also makes it worthwhile for companies to employ an army of accountants and tax lawyers to try and minimize tax bills, which is in the big picture wasted effort — expenses of compliance with tax law are not going towards anything productive with the economy.
A brighter future for a darker age.Gun industry thrives during Obama's term in office
Now I understand the NRA's fear-mongering.
edited 19th Oct '12 3:41:59 AM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016There's a bit of truth behind it, though; Democrats have, in fairly recent history, been responsible for most changes in firearms law toward more restrictive, and especially for laws that are pointless in terms of actual increases in safety but deeply angering for gun owners.
However, only one of the two men running for President has been responsible for new gun laws; Romney, who implemented a gun control regime in Massachusetts that's one of the most restrictive in the nation. Obama's made some vague noises that he'd like to see stricter gun laws, but has to date done absolutely nothing.
In my personal view, it's unlikely that either candidate would do anything to change existing gun laws, primarily because such would have to come from Congress, and I don't think we're going to see a strong majority in favor of new gun laws from any Congress we'll have in the next four years.
In my view, it should be possible to craft laws that reduce the real, actual harm that guns do in the hands of criminals without stepping on the toes of people for whom firearms are important tools or hobbies. The complete polarization, demonization and distrust between all sides, alas, means I don't see that in the near future.
Democrats need to distance themselves from absolute firearms abolitionists for gun owners to be willing to trust them, at all. Sane gun owners need to distance themselves from fucking nuts.
A brighter future for a darker age.![]()
Yup: makes perfect sense.
edited 19th Oct '12 4:31:22 AM by Euodiachloris
The "trampling over all our rights" thing is a narrative used to fit individual events in.
Example:
Affordable Care Act -> new rules for healthcare by the government -> more government making more rules -> more rules means less liberty -> Obamacare is bad because it tramples over our rights.
By the way, this is why facts alone don't do any convincing for tea-partiers. Because they shoehorn the facts into their preferred narrative—which is that the government is taking away their rights. Obama can do something as innocent as greeting schoolchildren and they'll complain about the Department of Education controlling education and make noises alleging indoctrination.
edited 19th Oct '12 4:45:41 AM by GlennMagusHarvey
There are, though, movements quite allied with the Democrats who are in favor of complete civilian firearms bans, or certainly the degree of such that now exists in e.g. the United Kingdom (handguns banned, hunting weapons very difficult to acquire).
Car enthusiasts would behave the same way if large parts of the automobile regulations were being written or at least collaborated on by people whose ultimate aim was the outlawing of the private automobile.
A lot of the problem is the historic concentration of Democrat support in urban areas, really; urban areas have (comparatively) good policing, but also crime and violence problems, and few hunters and outdoors-people. Urban people are not very sensitive to the concerns of people who live in more rural communities or who engage more with nature; rural people tend not to be very sensitive to urban concerns. The US political divide tends to exacerbate those differences, to the impoverishment of all.
Someone who lives in a place where police response is likely 45 minutes away will be a lot more supportive of the right to armed self-defense, for instance.
edited 19th Oct '12 4:56:23 AM by Morven
A brighter future for a darker age.Guns can't help if he gets sick, his guns aren't responsible for teaching his children, his guns aren't the ones buying his chickens. There IS a hierarchy of needs, and even if you consider all rights (right to life, right to an education, right to bear arms, right to free speech) to be "equal" the NEEDS of the individual still affects those rights that they are still essentially not "equal" at all in terms of importance for an individual.
edited 19th Oct '12 5:40:30 AM by entropy13
More like rage-inducingly depressing...
Because - I feel this is relevant...
http://www.denverpost.com/politics-national/2012/10/five-nightmare-scenarios-for-election-day/
And for the record, I want Obama to win... Otherwise,I'm going to get used to having to utilize vigilantism to get things done in my favor... Becausew I'm black and not that much of a Christian, either - two minorities conservatives hate btw...
edited 19th Oct '12 6:59:48 AM by LostAnarchist
This is where I, the Vampire Mistress, proudly reside: http://liberal.nationstates.net/nation=nova_nacioThe NRA has a perverse incentive to cry wolf about gun legislation under Democratic administrations. The reason, of course, is that by raising the specter of restrictions on the availability of guns, it encourages gun owners or would-be gun owners to go out and buy them immediately, thus boosting the financial position of the NRA and its backers.
This doesn't even require a grand conspiracy. It's just human nature.
As for the election, we haven't seen the full polling effects of the second debate, but I am expecting a significant bounce in Obama's favor.
edited 19th Oct '12 7:11:18 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
*sigh* Please accept my most heartfelt assurance that I and the vast majority of conservatives I know do not hate you. I'm pretty certain the Romney doesn't hate you either. Actually, there's probably a bigger split between him as a Mormon and me as an Evangelical than there is between either of us and the average irreligious black person.
As regards gun control, Morven summed it up nicely. It's not that Obama is a threat on gun control in and of himself, it's that he represents and gives legitimacy to the hardcore antigun crowd (or at least the liberal side of it: my grandmother is severely antigun but she won't vote democrat due to other policies they support).
<><Yahoo's polling ticker shows Obama ahead by 1% on the national vote and leading the electoral college 259 to 237. That's too close for comfort but it is not predicting a Romney win.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I have not been following this thread, though I probably should have been. Ether way, I'm sure you guys could use a little humor.
https://www.youtube.com/user/schmoyoho
Try not to grin at Auto Tuned debates.
Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!Honestly, this whole thing with gun control is a perfect example of what I've been saying: Obama is conservative. He's been weak on gun control. He's introduced a corporatist healthcare law. He's waged undeclared wars in the Middle East and done drone strikes on countries we aren't at war at. He has made deficit and tax reduction a priority. Sure, he isn't anywhere near as conservative as Romney, but a moderate conservative is still conservative.
![]()
![]()
RCP actually has Romney/Ryan ahead by 5 electoral votes assigning the tossups. After the tossups, it's still an Obama/Biden win but Romney only needs to pick up 12 electoral votes to change that.
![]()
That was actually a fairly decent summary of the debate.
By broad standards the United States is conservative, so naturally any serious contender for its highest office is.
edited 19th Oct '12 8:51:28 AM by EdwardsGrizzly
<><Tell that to Al Gore, who very nearly won.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I thought he did. :P
...snark aside, re the opposition to gun control: I have a hunch (unproven of course) that there are three types of these people:
- sportspeople/outdoorsy people/hunters
- self-defenders (to protect themselves and family/friends from threatening people, animals, etc.)
- anti-government (the "don't tread on me" tea-partier type)
Does this make sense at all or is my assessment messed up? If the latter please correct.
replace "guns" with "freedom of speech" and that sentence is still true.
"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story." TwitterAnd the Bill of Rights was written more than two centuries ago, at a time when it was still plausible for some scrappy militiamen to defend a country against invasion or resist a tyrannical government. And there is still quibbling about the precise definition of a "well-organized militia".
These days, freedom of speech is more important than ever, while the right to bear arms becomes increasingly obsolete. The Constitution is not an immutable holy document. It was intended from the very beginning to evolve along with the country.
edited 19th Oct '12 9:35:25 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@Fighteer: ...Except, Al Gore is also a moderate conservative. He wanted to decrease deficit and decrease taxes. He wanted to increase military spending. He was weakly pro-life. He supported the death penalty. Finally, he wanted faith-based organizations to replace government programs. He was a moderate conservative, though more moderate than Obama, but still a conservative.
He was strongly environmentalist, but I take your point. A serious liberal seemingly cannot get elected President in this country.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"For the record, I'm okay with smart gun laws—even full on licensing and competency tests and whatnot—but a full weapons ban is like trying to ban baseball bats because they're the second or third most used thing in home assaults.
Baseball doesn't cure cancer or teach numbers or pay for chickens, either. That's not why we keep it around.
"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story." Twitter

If someone called your dad a liar, how might you feel?