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've really made here a couple mistakes which were just wrong, and I need to apologize for those."
"I used the wrong words in the wrong way. What I said was ill-concieved and it was wrong."
That's not even a typical unpology: he and said straight up that his statements were not only ill-conceived but just wrong. I don't know what more you could ask. It's certainly a world away from Grayson.
I wasn't aware that "apology" meant "magically see the light and whole-heartedly support his opponents, who are clearly right". Neither Akin nor anyone else needs to apologize for his views on the issues: apologies are for when you do something wrong (like lie or make offensive personal attacks), not when your beliefs offend someone.
edited 29th Oct '12 8:18:43 AM by EdwardsGrizzly
<><As far as I'm concerned with his political history, he was apologizing to get votes, not because he actually learned anything. And the moment it becomes politically convenient for him, he'll go back to thumping on Legitimate vs Unlegitimate rape.
![]()
@ Morven: Surely that's Slander, and can go to court? Anyhow, is there some form of regulator to stamp down on things like that?
edited 29th Oct '12 8:18:05 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling OnI'll drop the point here because I can't make an argument about dog-whistle statements and rape-victim-blaming segments of the electorate before that other thread gets made. I'll end it with noting that he had the opportunity to say "I should not have demeaned rape or tried to categorize its victims" and he did not do so. The nature of his apology makes it ambiguous as to whether he's apologizing for his position or his wording, and does not make it clear if he understands why he was wrong.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.When entire political ad campaigns are based on objective falsehoods, I'm not so sure how much more attention can be had in the first place. We're past the point of no return in that sense.
Insofar as I can tell, at this point in time, the 'right to lie' as freedom of speech has superseded the right to not be slandered. I think this is tied in to how Americans have a very dim view on aggressive litigation by individuals (as opposed to companies), so no one wants to be the 'bad guy' and start suing their way up the courts over something like slander, and the few who have the guts for it seem to fare poorly in the courts overall.
In fact, and I just now found this out, there are no FEDERAL laws re: slander/libel in the US, it's all state-based. Which is one more reason for me to hate on states' rights, I suppose. God forbid we have consistent standards or anything.
edited 29th Oct '12 10:23:53 AM by Karkadinn
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.
Not to derail or anything, but what is wrong with State's right? How can letting States take decision for themselves be bad?
More on subject, we're what, 1 week away from the actual voting. Are we seeing the same pattern we had a week back for the third debate, where both candidates had 46-something percents of the votes and we feared Romney might cheat his way to victory?
There's nothing wrong per say with State's Rights, it's that people want to apply them to things that really should have federal standards. Like how voting is conducted allotting winner take all or proportionally. Or gay marriage, in which people are using State's Rights to prevent it from spreading. And various other things.
So yeah, it's more in how politicians are using it to bad ends.
![]()
![]()
It's not so much giving it to states so much what's being given and why.
Often the argument is used in a myopic fashion as to suppress what doesn't fit narrow values,usually used by conservatives,but it has been used by the left to.
The best case as to what rings wrong with someone proclaiming "states rights" is the Civil War and Jim Crow.
edited 29th Oct '12 10:46:57 AM by terlwyth
States' rights is one of those vague ideals that sounds great in abstract but implements poorly in practice. Why should what's considered 'slander' be defined differently in South Carolina from New York? Lies are lies no matter what state they're told in. We've also got different voting procedures, voting COUNTING procedures, ID laws, that are all coming to the forefront in this election because the system is being manipulated on a state-by-state basis to achieve the desired results, even if that results in a philosophically inconsistent platform at the national level.
People like to think of the federal government as the tyranny-in-waiting and the state government as the little guy in their corner, but the truth is that having federally consistent standards for many things that currently lack them would REDUCE the expense and bureaucracy and inefficiency of government overall.
Ultimately, states rights is a red herring, a sound bite that sounds good without meaning anything in practice. Republicans support it when they can exploit it to achieve the policies they want. If they can't achieve the policies they want, they're against states rights in that particular area.
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.![]()
Its more that anytime someone tries to create federal standards the republican party will invariably start screaming about "big government" or "socialism" or "libruls taking away yer rights"
Yes, but doing so would make every republican in a 5 milllion mile radius insist it was part of some evil liberal plot to steal elections.
edited 29th Oct '12 11:04:11 AM by Midgetsnowman
What Midget said, basically. Part of the difference between factions is that moderates and left are fragmented - they don't want a big, overarching ideal like 'federal rights,' they just want functional solutions to their pet issues, so they focus on their pet issues whilst the right has a united, one-size-fits-all 'But that would increase the federal government's size and is therefore bad' response.
I'm reminded of Jon Stewart's calling Fox the 'lupus of news,' elaborating on their general mindset as a out-of-control defensive overreaction to even the slightest hints of progressivism anywhere about anything. It seems equally applicable to most rightwing politicians and their most avid supporters.
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.

And if Akin is so sorry, why does he saying pigheaded shit again and again?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/todd-akin-abortion-providers_n_1934305.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/27/todd-akin-claire-mccaskill_n_1920271.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/20/todd-akin-voting-rights_n_1810228.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012