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 vehemently dispute that.
Not least because Unions and their members are free to commit
any illegal act they want in conjunction with a strike/work stoppage/extorting businesses...
There have been, by far, more violent acts perpetrated by unions than against them. Any claim that unions are, or have been, nonviolent on the whole is a lie.
edited 19th Oct '12 4:54:44 PM by Swish
Statistically speaking, presidents serve a second term. Granted there have been exceptions but on the whole they make it term 2.
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?It's not a question of whether or not unions have more violence against them than they have towards others. It's a question of whether unions are disproportionately violent as a whole.
For the record, the US has a really bad comparative track record regarding labor violent.
edited 19th Oct '12 5:27:37 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
Well, to whomever conforted me, thanks - I'll try not to say anything else too negative beyond this - though the fear will be with me, I'm not afraid to fight it...
Still, if Romney does win, he's going to need to do more than BS tax cuts to keep anyone interested in his policies or on his side without something violent/revolt-like happening around here... And as much as I honestly advocate it wit the way things have been between us and the rich/corporates, I'm sure it would only end with whom has the better weapons and ammo if it ever got that bad, anyway.
That's why I die a little when I hear good news about these guys winnig - I know there are better conservatives out there than these guys, though they're not as vocal because thy know shouting of most kinds isn't going to keep one's attention for long.
Regarding your unions statement, could it be a matter of wanting to push back as a result of being pushed around that encourages this?
edited 19th Oct '12 5:30:20 PM by LostAnarchist
This is where I, the Vampire Mistress, proudly reside: http://liberal.nationstates.net/nation=nova_nacioYou know... I would like to address something said a few pages back.
The problem is that to keep wild animals out of the barn, a farmer has to actually be able to keep them out of the barn. The most effective methods of doing that even today are still lethal to the wild animal, and non-factory farms today are still very much like the "log cabin on the Frontier," even if they've accepted modern conveniences. Nominally, government would strike a balance between animal conservation which is the liberal viewpoint, and keeping animals from overpopulating or becoming pests to humans which is the conservative viewpoint.
edited 19th Oct '12 5:36:21 PM by GameGuruGG
Wizard Needs Food Badly
So, a sense of compromise and a balance of both (for the sake of this issue, among other things that benefit from it) - if only so nature can simply take its course; I'd like to think that's what you're trying to say...
edited 19th Oct '12 5:40:45 PM by LostAnarchist
This is where I, the Vampire Mistress, proudly reside: http://liberal.nationstates.net/nation=nova_nacioYeah, that's what I'm trying to say. Not all conservative ideas are horrible, you know... At least, conservative in the sense of its original meaning.
edited 19th Oct '12 6:21:11 PM by GameGuruGG
Wizard Needs Food Badly
Glad you (and a lot of people around here, I'm aware) get it.
edited 19th Oct '12 6:23:10 PM by LostAnarchist
This is where I, the Vampire Mistress, proudly reside: http://liberal.nationstates.net/nation=nova_nacio![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
I just had to check this for myself. (Note: Obama is not counted).
Number of Presidents who served only one full term and failed/refused to be reelected: John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, James K Polk, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Rutherford B Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, William Howard Taft, Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter, George HW Bush .
Total: 12
Number of Presidents who became President by succession and failed/refused to be reelected: John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester A Arthur, Gerald Ford
Total: 5
Number of Presidents who died in office without having served a full term: William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, James Garfield, Warren Harding, John F Kennedy .
Total: 5
12+5+5 = 22 Presidents who only served for 1 term or less as president
Number of Presidents who served as president for more than 4 years: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S Grant, Grover Cleveland, William Mc Kinley, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge, Franklin D Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight D Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W Bush .
Total: 20
20 Presidents who served for more than 1 term as president
So technically your inncorrect.
edited 19th Oct '12 7:27:37 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016True, but the balance in the last hundred years or so is for incumbents to be re-elected most of the time. I also think "decided not to seek re-election" and "died in office before the end of their first term" don't really count for this, since we're talking about the propensity for them to be re-elected, which demands that the electorate have a chance to do that.
A brighter future for a darker age.![]()
In that case it would just be:
John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, Andrew Johnson, Benjamin Harrison, William Howard Taft, Herbert Hoover, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George HW Bush .
Which means it would be 13 presidents (out of 33) .
So @thatguythere is correct.
Hey, he just said:
He didn't say:
So there.
edited 19th Oct '12 7:28:50 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Deviant, you took the time to rewrite the wrong form of "there" in a post you quoted? What? Seriously, you keep using the wrong form by using "there" all the time when often you should be using "their" and "they're". While otherwise using correct grammar.
In any case, the list, pared down for sensibility, basically means that incumbents win nearly twice the number of times that challengers do. So we probably don't have to go into full panic mode about any of this. And with Romney being such a lackluster candidate in general (with the excitement seeming to be among those who support him to begin with) Obama will probably win. It's just becoming questionable by what margin he'll win.
That excitement is only from the most vocal of people against their opposition; usually people who whine and scream before they think and plan accordingly for things... Almost true - Obama hasn't been the best he could've been (even if he did do SOME GOOD for our nation in its time of need); that and we're still dealing with civil rights and general rights violations across the board that Obama could've done more about than he and his fellow allies did.
Truth is, we need someone who will apologize for America's mistakes when we make them, and not just ourselves, either...
edited 19th Oct '12 7:21:38 PM by LostAnarchist
This is where I, the Vampire Mistress, proudly reside: http://liberal.nationstates.net/nation=nova_nacioI just saw a youtube ad that advocated removing all social programs such as medicare/caid, social security, etc. because our government's current amount of revenue doesn't even cover those let alone defense and discretionary spending. They ended by saying that the only choice we have is to drastically rethink the role of government in society.
Or, you know, we could raise the fucking tax rates to get more revenue and cut military spending in half to offset the deficit but that's crazy talk.
Seriously.
Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry@Tomu- Right because we regularly having union riots or workers taking over the government.
I'm baaaaaaack

There's no article?
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian