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
On one hand, MJW has prosecuted mobsters.
On the other, she's defended Bank of America in court.
Ehhhh......
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.@the tax code: there are (usually) good reasons for why every bit of that complexity was implemented in the first place. If you look at any one tax topic as a whole, you can come up with a reason to have it in the tax code. We can't just say "let's start over" or "simplify it", we need to carefully cut down on it till we are left with the "essince" of what the parts are trying to accomplish.
Besides, some of that complexity is there to stop people from taking advantage of deductions that they don't actually need or increase their taxes. That is the whole point of the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) and why so many deductions "phase out" if you income is over a certain amount.
Part of the problem with our economy/tax code is that people come to expect that "help" as normal, eventually demand more, politicians give them what they want to keep/get their jobs. people get used to the new levels, ask for more, etc. in a seemingly never-ending spiral. People are complaining that their pay-checks have gone down because of higher taxes while having forgotten that their pay-checks went up 2-3 years ago because of lower taxes (in order to help them during the recession). It was always supposed to be temporary, but no one remembers that even though it was within the last few years.
...I'm not sure how much sense that all made, but I am a bit tired at this point and don't have the energy to further edit it all.
Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!John Kerry at confirmation hearing: U.S. will 'do what we must' to stop Iran nuclear weapon
That's not ominous in the slightest.
Anti-Defamation League: Stop using Nazi analogies in gun debate
Senator Rockefeller (D-WV) reintroduces bill to study video game violence
Moron. Violent video games have shit-all to do with it and even if they did there's nothing the government can do thanks to the 1st Amendment. I've also always felt that pissing off gamers is a good way of Waking the Sleeping Giant, given the power of online protest seen with SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA, plus the potential for online direct protest, like DDoS attacks etc. I can certainly see a few people in my friendship group sitting on sites like Low Orbit Ion Cannon
and "participating in reasoned political protest" if such a thing goes through.
Also, regarding Feinstein's gun ban - I never thought I'd be glad of a Republican House.
edited 25th Jan '13 12:11:06 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiAny Red/Purple state Senate Democrats (Begich, Pryor, Hagan, Landrieu, Harkin, Baucus, etc) who are running for reelection in 2014 would do well to avoid Feinstein's Gun Ban like it was the the Black Plague.
edited 25th Jan '13 12:20:32 AM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Studies can be manipulated to achieve any result. Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Science_(book)
and you will find out just how true that is.
Science can be manipulated but facts remain facts. Peer review and follow-up experimentation will uncover faulty work, and almost always do.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Yeah, but as the previous link touches on, then the media just focuses on the result they like more. See global warming.
Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.Reid backed out of his own provision to the reform, which would have ensured the minority needs to have 41 votes in order to filibuster.
He never wanted serious filibuster reform in the first place. Most likely because there will come a time where the Senate is controlled by Republicans, and the Democrats want that tool still.
edited 25th Jan '13 8:14:12 AM by Sledgesaul
Bah. Reid, you weaken your entire bargaining position when you whiff on stuff like this.
@48114: What the media says about science is often unrelated to the actual science. While I agree that science needs better press, that doesn't mean that the press determines the validity of the science.
edited 25th Jan '13 9:06:23 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I've been saying forever that's the reason I don't give weight to "overwhelming" science and "studies clearly show" and the favorite "Stats indicate".
The media, and the public, oftentimes ignore the actual evidence and focus on the assumptions gleaned from them by a select few, who may or may not be impartial.
@Thread: How far should the US go to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power? I get sanctions and embargoes. But....are we really ready for an all-out invasion??
I'm not trying to be cheeky but, haven't we had enough of dictating policy in the Middle East??
It was an honorAll out invasion would be a bad idea. Iran is better equipped than Iraq was and it would likely be a rather bloody conflict. Plus no one is in any shape economically to wage another major occupation in the region anyway. Plus Iran could really bugger oil prices by creating shit in the Straights of Hormuz, even if its temporary.
Of course Israel is likely to go the precision bombing route before the US/NATO even begin to seriously consider all out invasion and regime change.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Let's be realistic here. We have the resources to crush Iran. The issues are political, not military. For example, can we sell it to the UN, or do we go it alone? How do we deal with the other nations in the area who see Iran as the big bully on the block who nevertheless keeps order? How do we deal with Russia and China, both of whom back Iran and would not be happy to see us take it down? How do we deal with Iran's likely biological and/or chemical warfare responses?
More importantly, are we willing to invest financial and human capital in yet another major war?
Edit: I meant Iran, anywhere I accidentally typed "Iraq".
edited 25th Jan '13 9:46:50 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Hell no.
Iraq and Afghanistan have left me with absolutely zero confidence in our postwar nation-building capabilities. And spending a lot of money (and a fair few lives) to blow up a nation only to let it rot afterward is both a terrible thing to do to that country and a terrible waste of American resources.
edited 25th Jan '13 9:46:08 AM by Karkadinn
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.Oh, I wasn't implying that the US doesn't have the ability to take down Iran. Just pointing out that the human/monetary/political costs would likely outstrip any possible benefits.
And a UN intervention isn't going to happen, Fighteer was correct in that China and Russia won't let it fly. The EU might be in favor... but they have their own issues (ongoing economic crisis and France is in Mali) and would only provide token support at best. The UK and Canada are just getting ready to get out of Afghanistan and it would be difficult to sell involvement in Iran to their electorates.
America would likely have to go it alone, minus some logistical support from powers in the region who want to see Iran taken down a peg. And that's the last thing Obama wants to do right now, he'd rather let them sort out their own problems (Syria) or play a secondary role in support local forces with major allies (Libya).
edited 25th Jan '13 9:51:46 AM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.D.C. Circuit Appeals Court Rules Obama's Recess Appointments Unconstitutional
(USA Today
, NYT
) They're specifically referring to the appointments made when the Senate was literally on vacation, which they (and the senators who were making the case) said was actually a "pro forma" session in legal terms.
And now, I'm going to insert my opinion. Frankly, this is total bull. As we know, Bush made quite a few recess appointments with exactly the same rationale back in his terms, and the courts didn't seem to care about it then (I can't remember what the appointments were off the top of my head; I'll look them up and report back). The only difference, if there is one, is that in this case there was a single person on the Senate floor to declare the Senate "in session" for four seconds and then "out of session" again once every couple days. "Pro forma" sessions are a complete mockery. All three of the judges on the appeals panel were Republican appointees, and maybe I should give them the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not feeling particularly inclined to right now.
Do they even realize what they've done with this? They just invalidated hundreds of rulings from the NLRB made in the past year, and also whatever rules and regulations were made by the similarly-appointed Bush officials, and what did they predicate their legal argument on? A slippery slope fallacy! A fucking slippery slope fallacy!
“An interpretation of 'the Recess' that permits the President to decide when the Senate is in recess would demolish the checks and balances inherent in the advice-and-consent requirement, giving the President free rein to appoint his desired nominees at any time he pleases, whether that time be a weekend, lunch, or even when the Senate is in session and he is merely displeased with its inaction."
If they were so worried about the President defining when a "recess" is for the purpose of recess appointments, they should have attempted to define it themselves, instead of giving us this awful reasoning. ...Well, I suppose they did, if only to keep it at the utterly absurd status quo, but still, I can barely even begin to imagine the bureaucratic nightmare this is going to produce and what the ultimate results are going to be for the nation's workforce and employers.
edited 25th Jan '13 9:55:08 AM by darksidevoid
GM: AGOG S4 & F/WC RP; Co-GM: TABA, SOTR, UUA RP; Sub-GM: TTS RP. I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new Empire.

The "complicated" part of the tax system is the sheer enormity of the details. The vast majority of your tax results are decided by the first few lines that get filled in with your W2 and basic family information. What takes so much time is tracking down deductions.
When people say "I'm gonna simplify the tax code", they want you to think "get the same deductions with half the paperwork", but really mean "remove most deductions you can get without a team of paid lawyers doing it for you" or "replace everything with flat/sales tax".
edited 24th Jan '13 6:49:15 PM by Pykrete