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
Maybe this thread should get locked. The upcoming fiscal cliff showdown deserves a thread of its own.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.There are things happening in American politics that are unrelated to the Fiscal Cliff.
Another Republican lawmaker ditches Norquist tax pledge
Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss (Ga.) on Wednesday said that addressing the nation’s looming “fiscal cliff” took precedence over honoring the anti-tax pledge he signed for conservative activist Grover Norquist.
“I care more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge,” said Chambliss to local Georgia television station 13WMAZ. “If we do it his way then we’ll continue in debt, and I just have a disagreement with him about that.”
edited 22nd Nov '12 8:01:38 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016I would propose limiting this thread to issues that are currently being debated within the US political arena, and that "big picture" or academic perspectives on single issues be given threads of their own. IOW, I think it makes sense to discuss what is being said about a wide variety of issues within this thread, while at the same time starting independent threads for the purpose of going into more detail about particular topics.
edited 22nd Nov '12 7:53:39 PM by DeMarquis
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.Jeb Bush Jr. wants father to run for president, calls Rubio remark 'strange'
Unfortunately, legalizing it has the marked tendency to make the black market and human trafficking into the area balloon even further rather than shutting it out. It increases demand by legitimizing the practice, but the black market thrives by dodging costs from regulation, health, and oversight — in some cases, eclipsing the legal avenues several times over. See Australia, where in the relevant areas you have a 9:1 ratio of black market to legal trade.
Yes, the Swedish Kvinnofrid approach — criminalizing the purchase but not the sale, giving unwilling prostitutes an out free of reprisal. It caused prostitution in the area to drop by an entire order of magnitude within a couple years because, surprise, that was the vast majority of the industry.
EDIT: Apparently this is off topic now. That's what I get for not refreshing the page after dinner.
edited 22nd Nov '12 8:20:36 PM by Pykrete
Go Chambliss! Finally Georgia has something to not be embarrassed about.
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's PlayBoehner wants to put Obamacare on the Fiscal Cliff Negotiations.
Hopefully that results in the scenario that I want most: sequester happens as planned, Dems successfully pressure GOP to retroactively restore the Bush Tax Cuts for the 98% under pressure from the public, and vital programs like Medicare and SS avoid cuts.
Either way, Boehner is an idiot for proposing such a thing.
As for prostitution, it is still illegal in Clark and Washoe counties (over 2/3rds of Nevada's entire population live in JUST those two counties). On top of that, protection is required, and disturbingly, Nevada prostitutes have a FAR lower rate of ST Ds than Hollywood porn stars.
I'm getting tired of all this talk about prostitution. (Beat) Not really, but I just want to make the point that unless a current train of conversation has clearly become empty or has devolved into flaming, it isn't fair to get impatient because others discuss it simply because it doesn't jibe with your sensibilities.
Now on to it: going back some pages.
I'd like to introduce a new trope, Perfect Comparison Fallacy. A logical fallacy that posits that a comparison is invalid because the two things being compared have differences.
To use the phrase above, even in the case of two apples, they are still two different apples, even if the differences between them aren't evident to the naked eye. Additionally, there are a great many comparisons you can draw between oranges and apples; they are fruits grown on trees, they can be used to make juice, they're sold in supermarkets, etc.
One troper made the point that my comparison of the persecution LGBT people has parallels to the treatment of Christians wasn't valid because they're not the same. No kidding, of course, they're not the same. In short, two different things can still share a characteristic and thus have a legitimate basis for drawing a parallel.
We're not being unfair to fundamentalist Christian conservatives here; they have the chance to express their positions in ways that don't harm people, and too often, that's not happening.
I'm sorry Taoist, but I find this another variation on the "Well, it's okay if I lie about his statements since they're wrong anyway" and quite frankly that idea is below someone of your reputation.
I have no problem with you finding Mourdock's views misogynistic. You'd be wrong, but that's your right to interpret that way. The problem is when you take his statements, conflate them with your interpretation, and then say "That's what he said", You are now doing what we call "lying".
Additionally, while I see the logic of your "framing" argument, I'm uncomfortable with the implications. This argument of "Well, if he wanted people to not misunderstand him, he had a responsibility to frame it better," takes the responsibility off of people to actually listen openly and honestly to the statement being made. I've lost count of how many times a post of mine, written clearly and accurately, is conflated to something else, simply because someone read it with their own agenda and biases rather than what was on the screen.
People might get annoyed with me and Grizzly belaboring this point, but that's really too bad. This is a bad habit that happens all too often here and in Real Life, and somebody has to call it out when it happens, whether it's the right-winger who hears a left-winger someone say "We need to fix social programs" and hears "We want to take more money from those who earn to give those who mooch,".....or.....the left-winger who hears a right-winger say "We need to fix social programs" and automatically assumes they mean "Let's get rid of them once and for all."
It was an honorBoehner's either a moron for thinking he can pull this off or a simpering ninny for not being able to stand up to the Tea Partiers.
As for your statement on standards of proof, I see your point, but the thing is, you can control what you say. You cannot control how other people interpret what you say. Nobody, however, can control the consequences of what you say once you've said it. So you should pay attention to the context in which you are speaking and know how you've framed your argument. Before accusing other people of misunderstanding your position, it falls on you to understand your own position, including all the possible ramifications of you expressing your position. If saying something a certain way would have consequences you don't agree with, even if it makes clear you don't agree with those consequences, you might want to find another way to express yourself.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.You're Taoist, of course you didn't pull anything out of what he said that wasn't there. You, like many tropers here, do a good job of reading what's actually there.
My continuing issue with your position is that it seems to place unreasonable onus on the speaker. Of course it's the responsibility of the speaker to be as clear as possible on what they say and to make sure they give considerable thought to the implications thereof. On that point, I'm 100% in agreement with you.
However....I think there's a line in which reasonable responsibility morphs into a paranoid and counterproductive desperation to never say anything unpopular or controversial lest the backlash devour any intelligent discourse. It leads to a point where true incisive thinkers shave off every edge, water down any bitterness, and obfuscate any controversial point until the statement they make is a toothless cartoon shadow of their original point.
This is the THE problem with US politics, with the culture divide between right/left-conservative/liberal-theistic/nontheistic, and with societal discourse in general.
The classic Republican bloc I was proud to be a part of devolved into this immature caricature known for blinding stupidity and arrogance precisely becase the minute someone said "I think there needs to be some oversight in the finance industry", they responded with "This evil socialist wants to destroy the free market and turn us into a communist state!"
Could the people who called for such oversight have "framed" the issue better so that the populists didn't "misread" them? Yes, perhaps. I mean yes, take the Paul Krugman fan club around here (no offense guys
). Would they be better served if there was more to Krugman's articles than "I'm so smart, why don't people listen to me"? Disclaimer Perhaps.
My question is But WHY is that necessary? Why can't people learn to parse a statement accurately and agree or disagree with it on its own merits? Why should we lower the intellectual bar rather than raise it?
Imagine if people were dedicated to honestly appraising arguments. We'd never have Churches spreading malicious and evil lies that gays caused AIDS or that homosexual orientation is caused by child abuse. We might've gotten that financial regulation sooner and this Recession might never have happened. Liberals might realize the conservatives want many of the things they want and we'd have more meaningful progress on economic reform, expansion of social programs, and mitigation of global warming.
That is why I'm so adamant about that ideal.
edited 23rd Nov '12 8:59:01 AM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorHmmm. The question, then, becomes how do we get to that point?
Because saying "I'm so over bad communication and I'm willing to understand people's positions" is probably going to be as effective at improving communication vis a vis politics as saying "I'm so over racism and I'm willing to understand people of color" is effective at removing racism. I'd rather compensate for the problem in a way that improve the problem so that the compensation becomes obsolete. It's kind of academic at this point.
Speaking of racism, where's our thread on the War on Drugs? I wanted to link this video
and can't find it.
This thread is about some news item to do with ending the War on Drugs
. The newest post is from April.
Here's something about a global commission coming to the conclusion that the War on Drugs has failed.
This was last posted in over a year ago.
There's no general discussion about this topic. You can create one, if you like; just remember to write a good OP that defines the War on Drugs and maybe opens up (or at least lists) some of the questions that've been raised about it.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.I couldn't disagree more. You know that as a civil libertarian I reject the notion that since it's just too darn difficult for people to grow up, let's just let them live out their lives and will keep away all the sharp objects and heavy machinery.
I don't think fixing the discourse will happen overnight, but I don't think it's an 'academic' exercise either. As has happened throughout history, we force people to face uncomfortable truths. Climate change is real and is a problem. Slavery can't be tolerated. Neither can homophobia.
It's not that complicated. Difficult, yes. Complicated, no.
It was an honor

Well, they manage to make it work in Nevada, Cats.