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
As much as it may seem vulture like, natural disasters do have political consequences. These include: lack of access to polls, the recovery process after the disaster, improper statements made during or directly after the storm. This storm is already political, considering it's hitting a week before election day. You certainly can't say that Katrina wasn't politicized, or the tornadoes that hit in 2010 weren't. Storms are political because they have political consequences.
Anyway, here is an article pertaining to the political impacts of Sandy.
edited 29th Oct '12 11:36:55 AM by Completion
1) I bet someone will try anyway.
2) True, but if things go pear-shaped Obama will be blamed somehow, even if it makes no logical sense.
Hugging a Vanillite will give you frostbite.Much like Bush got blamed for Katrina.
Yeah, it should be noted that you're likely to see a dip in the polls for Obama, not necessarily because less people are going to vote for him, but because a disproportionate number of people who are voting for him might be physically unable to be polled at the moment.
edited 29th Oct '12 11:52:00 AM by Pykrete
I was going to say that. Didn't Bush intentionally tell people to not get too prepared because he didn't think it would be a big deal? Yeah, look how that turned out.
edited 29th Oct '12 12:09:53 PM by Kostya
@what kos linked: exactly.
Click on the comic using Firefox.
edited 29th Oct '12 12:27:20 PM by vanthebaron
Untitled Power Rangers StoryIn regards to Hurricane Sandy: I suppose it's completely impossible that they'd delay the election for a week or so due to the 10 million people affected? note
Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.@Kostya's link: As usual, pro-choice advocates are unable or unwilling to comprehend the concept someone considering an unborn baby to be a person. Because if some group that author believed were innocent people were the ones being killed on this scale, he would never dare to compare it with any of the issues he mentioned.
That guy is free to insist on using the terms he prefers, but his viewpoint is unreasonable to anyone who actually understands the issue.
<><Actually, it's because I see unborn babies as people that I believe that abortion needs to be legal. I believe that the greatest good is accomplished by making sure that there is the most amount of happiness in the universe. Looking at countries that have completely banned abortion has made me realise that doing so kills more people, both children and mothers than having it legal with lots of access to birth control and counselling.
Banning abortion kills babies, kills women, increases poverty, and lowers education rates. There's no possible way I could support something that immoral.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickOne can believe in proper and resonable gun control legistlation, believe that we actually did have somthing to do with climate change and still believe that life starts at conception.
At least I do, anyway.
That link paints conservatives in a very wide brush. We're not always so neatly categorized.
Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.Abortion is an issue on which the people on different sides will not be able to find common ground because they tend to come from two mutually exclusive assumptions. From the Pro-Life activists, that assumption is that unborn fetuses are people. From the Pro-Choice activists, that assumption is that unborn fetuses are not people. When everything comes from those, there will be no common ground.
It's about the freedom to chose what goes on in your body, not "is a human".
@pv: let's the lady chose.
edited 29th Oct '12 12:49:32 PM by vanthebaron
Untitled Power Rangers StoryI thought the comparisons were fair. Gun violence takes lives all the time, and global warming poses a serious threat, particularly to those in developing countries. What's so offensive about that? What would've been more apt? A comparison between abortion and the Holocaust? Honestly Grizzly, I just don't get what you want. I don't think it's a particularly unreasonable or even a particularly notable assertion to say that there are pro-life people out there who don't have a consistent moral framework that supports the sanctity of life, and in the sake of fairness, "pro-choice" is, in itself, an emotionally manipulative term that could probably be phrased as something else. And pro-choice people can have their own problems; I don't claim we're perfect.
But that's just the reality of it all. In the context of politics, this is a wedge issue that is used solely for playing with people's emotions. They don't care, though. Politicians are sociopaths who know that they can get away with fucking us over if they distract us with things like this. That's what annoys me the most, above all.
edited 29th Oct '12 12:53:11 PM by HilarityEnsues
@deathpidgeon: The problem is that pro-choice advocates frequently ridicule pro-life advocates using arguments based on the assumption that unborn babies are not people, which obviously makes no sense. You can't criticize someone's beliefs by showing that they contradict positions that the person doesn't hold.
That's like saying that it would be a good deal to vote for a party that increased wellfare but also forced large proportions of poor people to engage in lethal gladiatorial combat. Sure, it would have economic benefits, and the loss to those killed would be balanced against the gain to those who got more welfare, but nor moral person would ever support it.
edited 29th Oct '12 12:55:25 PM by EdwardsGrizzly
<><You cannot tell me, right here, right now, that you would have shed any tears if Adolf Hitler's mother aborted him prior to his birth.
edited 29th Oct '12 1:01:22 PM by Serocco
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.

Pretty much. The Right's narratuive is rather bulletproof in that it completely shuts out all need for logic.
national standards? Socialism.
Voting rights simplified? Probably a secret liberal plot to deny votes to the right.
business regulations that are aimed at making businesses work more in the public interest? Part of a job killing liberal agenda.
Its simple. Anything a liberal says is automatically suspect, corrupt, and any facts related to it are blatant lies fabricated by people who work for the liberal agenda.