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
x5
See. This is why i cant stand christians in my part of missouri. They are so absolutely convinced God's hand is in everything they cannot make any life decision or weather any life event without assuming it was either a handrwapped gift from god or a trial given to them by god.
edited 23rd Oct '12 9:13:53 PM by Midgetsnowman
Supreme Court won't block Montana campaign law ahead of election
- The U.S. Supreme Court will not block a Montana law that limits campaign contributions to candidates for state office.
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Well, most Christians believe that everything happens because God intended it, what with him supposedly being all-knowing and all-powerful and all.
Wasn't Montana the state that challenged Citizens United
ruling by claiming that the state law was a fair exercise? And was overturned shortly after
?
Interesting that now the Court is upholding the limit.
...*reads the article about texas* Intimidation of Election observers...I think Texas claim to freedom and democracy just rammed an Iceberg.
Especially if every country that the US wants to have observed can now scream "hypocrite!" and be right...
good going!
On what charges will that guy arrest them, anyway? That is actually not a rethoric question, does texas/america have a law tht can be abused for it?
edited 24th Oct '12 1:20:23 AM by 3of4
"You can reply to this Message!"I know I'm late with this, but I just finished watching the Third Party Debate, and, while I didn't agree with all of them, in fact I disagreed with Virgil Goode on practically everything, but listening to them showed a lack of difference between the Democratic and Republican Parties by showing candidates who actually are different from them. Candidates who aren't corporatist warmongers. Candidates with a diverse set of beliefs, rather than two candidates who are practically the same on the majority of issues. Candidates who have different plans, rather than spend less on everything but the military, tax less, and increase the already bloated military budget while protecting corporate interests, rather than the interests of the people of this country. I would personally prefer any of the candidates who participated in that debate, including Virgil Goode, to Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, if only to shake the two party system at its core, and to wrench power out of the corporations that so often buy the elections. We should not be choosing between the lesser of two evils, in fact I'd argue that it's a choice of the more effective and less effective of two evils, but we should choose a candidate that actually supports what we believe. In their closing statements, all the candidates made good points on this and similar topics, Gary Johnson made the point that a wasted vote is not a vote for a candidate who won't get elected, but a vote for a candidate one doesn't believe in, Jill Stein made the point about how many Americans do not vote at all, Rocky Anderson made the point about how the playing field could have been changed by just having one of them in one of the Presidential Debates to challenge the two parties that have very little variation, and, finally, Virgil Goode made the best point: "Open up the process, give broader views to Americans, and we will have a better and greater country." I may completely disagree with Virgil Goode politically, but, on that point, I agree wholeheartedly with him.
I know but that just won't happen. I'd love it if we had around eight parties that had a shot at getting in but right now we have two and again, even if one of them got in they're not doing much.
Elect some senators and representatives first. They're the ones that have most of the power and they'll give the party the attention it needs to be a viable option in the eyes of many other people.
I'd argue that it is the assumption that voting for them will do nothing that makes voting for them do nothing. Because people think that voting for them will do nothing, the majority of people choose not to vote for them, even if they would agree with one of them more than the candidate they actually voted for. And, because they made that assumption and did not vote for them, and because so many made that assumption and did not vote for them, the votes of those who voted for them anyway did nothing. The only thing that any individual can do to make a vote for them count more than it does is to do away with that assumption, and convince others to do away with that assumption.
Plus, Obama and Romney are close enough that the only significant differences between an Obama presidency and a Romney presidency that I could think of would be A: tone, since an Obama presidency would hold a pretense of being liberal, while a Romney presidency would do no such thing, and B: effectiveness, since Obama would be much more effective at getting conservative legislation through, since A: he has the backing of the Democratic party, B: many liberals fail to realize how conservative he really is, and C: he will further cement the center in the spot it has been going further right, thanks to the redefinition by the Republican Party of where Obama stands as liberal. Sure, there will be differences, but none of these differences would be as major as those, and the majority of these differences would be in how they would go about doing things, an not what their end goals would be.
I think it would be a good idea to have international observers keeping an eye on American elections. It seems that in most recent elections in the US, thousands of people (and potentially much more than thousands) have been denied their right to vote, with no proper justification and against the law.
If it was proven that a dozen people had lost the right to vote in Finnish elections, there would immediately be a new election. If a party was caught lying about the dates and locations of the elections and someone at the top of that party was proven to have known about it, that party leader would have to resign and probably would end up in jail for it.
One would assume that a country that claims to be the most democratic on earth would set up a new election at least in the states where fraud and voter disenfranchisement occurs. Now, obviously the US is a huge country so it's inevitable that there would be mistakes. But the number of violations against democracy that Americans seem to tolerate is much higher, even in proportion to population, than that in European countries.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.^
I wouldn't be surprised if some Third-World Countries have less electoral fraud than the US. The US might be a First-World Nation, but it has a Third-World electoral system...
Keep Rolling OnThat would be a proper justification if the actions taken to prevent them would actually prevent them without disenfranchising people who don't violate any part of the laws and regulations about elections. Before the 2000 Presidential Election in the US, there were reports that people had been denied the vote because they shared the same name and birthday as someone who had a criminal record, even if they were able to prove that they were not the same person. If this is true, I'm sure you'll agree that that is a much more dire national crisis than the President having sex with someone else than his wife.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.Random question about the Donald Trump thing.
If I understand it correctly, one recurring Republican goal during the campaign was to draw comparisons with the election of 1980, with Obama as Carter and Romney as Reagan. Republicans seem to like Reagan, after all.
If his goal is to claim that Obama has in fact been divorced at least once in his life, exactly which 1980 candidate would that make him resemble?

US civil rights groups ask international election monitors for assistance
And in response:
Texas Attorney General Tells U.N. Election Observers To Keep Their Distance
edited 23rd Oct '12 9:02:16 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016