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'd think they probably last*, but they'd not be a major power in Politics, sort of like the BNP is in Britain*.
Anyway, for a different issue, how would the United States look like with a Standard European Political Landscape? How would if differ from the Political Landscape that exists in Europe, and how it be similar?
edited 2nd Feb '13 4:16:58 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling OnIf the old, white men in the GOP ever left they'd probably just make the Tea Party an official party. They could also merge with the Libertarians. The question remains though. Which side would Fox News back? Logically they'd have to choose one because both being around at the same time would split the vote too much.
Do we have any evidence for the conservatism of Hispanics? I've heard this before but other than a few things I'm not sure what exactly it refers to.
Well looking at the definitions I'd say we'd have the following parties if we got something like that:
- Far Right-Tea Party with the exception of their economic policies being right wing instead of left.
- Classical Liberals and Christian Democrats probably won't exist as major forces of power. I could see a few businessmen that are more left wing supporting the former and some of the less zealous Religious Right would be the latter but I doubt they'd have many members.
- Conservative-Any Republicans that don't agree with the insanity of the Tea Party but aren't exactly ready to jump into the arms of the Democrats will probably become this. Chris Christie is a good example.
- Progressive Liberals-The more center members of the Democrats such as Obama would probably become this.
- Social Democrats and Greens-Probably the same party in this country with the more left wing members of the Democrats merging with the Greens.
- Far Left-Communists and anarchists I guess? I don't think many of the politicians we currently have would become this but I know some kids in school that would be all over this type of party.
As for how this would affect the American political structure it really depends on how much representation each party gets. I think the conservatives as I've described them would be willing to work together with the Progressive Liberals and Social Democrats but if the Far Right controls most things we'll still be deadlocked.
edited 2nd Feb '13 7:03:02 AM by Kostya
My ideal (well not really my ideal world would be a global Somalia but I'm being realistic here). Would be a four part system Greens-Democrat-Libertarian Republican-Religious Right Republican
edited 3rd Feb '13 1:22:16 PM by tricksterson
Trump delenda estDo you mean the American Far Right is playing the Kingmaker Scenario?
Keep Rolling OnThe American Far Right, at the moment, is playing the "If you don't act exactly like us, we'll vote you out of office" Scenario. Basically one huge party purge, replacing as much of the sane with a whole lot of crazy if the more sane and moderate members even think of reaching across the aisle and working together with people they might of worked with for decades on even sane, commonplace legislation like Road repair funds.
Greenmantle: Not exactly. The GOP itself could be counted as one though. It's a coalition of the Religious Right(Rick Santorum), Libertarians(Ron Paul), and plutocrats(Mitt Romney). Logically the former two should both hate the third and even if they work together they would not agree with each other on social issues. However, the three have allied because they hate the Democrats more than they hate each other. If the party ever implodes I think each of them will split off and become their own party. I can't say for certain which would win although I could see some of the more moderate people from all three groups merging with the more centrist Democrats.
Pretty much. Their obstructionism is seen as a good thing because they've used the media to convince people the big bad libruls will wreck this country if they don't take a stand and grind things to a halt. It's a genius system but it seems to be showing cracks if the last election is anything to go by.
edited 2nd Feb '13 7:55:53 AM by Kostya
I don't think the public at large approves of the obstructionism, actually. Congress's approval rating has been extremely low ever since the GOP made the filibuster and other stonewall tactics their go-to backup plans when they can't get the legislation they want to go through. Polls have consistently shown that when the two parties bicker and fail to come to an agreement, it's usually the Republicans overall who are blamed for not compromising enough.
Of course, most people will be happy to blame both parties to some extent, partly to make themselves look like an objective neutral observer and partly because sorting through the complexities of the legislative process to actually make an informed decision about who did what wrong can often be as much of a pain in the ass as doing your taxes.
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.I meant approved of by their own base. Also I acknowledged that it might be starting to backfire when I mentioned the cracks are beginning to show. It worked for the last four years but I think people are starting to get wise to them. If the Democrats win the house in 2014 I think it will have proven that their strategy is a failure.
edited 2nd Feb '13 9:00:55 AM by Kostya
Foreign wars (which mean bigger defense budgets). The 2008 bailout (popular among bankers, but libertarians would prefer that they fall on their own merits). Government infrastructure spending (such as Alaska's Bridge to Nowhere) and similar pork-barrels.
One of the big mantras of the Tea Party (this was back when Sarah Palin was the standard-bearer for the movement, not Michelle Bachmann or Rick Santorum) was to stop Congress from "earmarking" funds for this or that project, because (they asserted) that it was $32 billion worth of pure corruption.
edited 2nd Feb '13 9:55:09 AM by Ramidel
The plutocrats generally tend to be for large subsidies to their favored industries (oil is a classic example) and interfering in the marketplace in a way that blatantly favors the large corporations. That, and the aforementioned bailouts.
I mean, American libertarians - which at this point are dominated by the "NO REGULATIONS, EVEN FOR HEALTH AND SAFETY REASONS/LET THE STATES DECIDE EVERYTHING/RON PAUL 20XX" crowd - have a lot of bad ideas. They're a distinct group, though.
edited 2nd Feb '13 10:15:01 AM by HilarityEnsues
Here's an opinion on gun control from the US Army Special Forces (Green Berets).
http://asmdss.com/page/news.html/_/articles/letter-from-special-forces-to-america-2nd-amendment.html
This is an important opinion coming from the SF community. They take their oath and duty very seriously. However, my two major disagreements are with the extent to which mass disarming correlates with a rise in tyranny and with the direct influence of violent media on today's youth. I'm not denying a working relationship between the two elements in both cases, but I don't think the relationship is as strong as they say it is. Their source on video games isn't the best.
Here's an alternate look on 2nd Amendment defenders. The writer argues that, while the 2nd Amendment is important and still socially relevant, it is strange - and dangerous - to defend such an amendment at the expense of other parts of the Bill of Rights, namely the 5th Amendment. He doesn't say it in the article, but I do find it odd that the conservative politicians who are prone to gutting funding for public schools, higher education and welfare are the same people who adamantly support funding for major defense programs outlined under the Patriot Act, many of which are prohibitively expensive. To defend your population, you need them to be well fed, educated, and able to find work.
The next is titled "Why 'If We Can Save One Child..' Is A Bad Argument"
And here are two from Al Jazeera. I can't watch the videos right now, but they are part of a three-part series on American gun control.
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryamericas/2013/01/2013130134025259143.html
"I definitely feel like it makes me look like a criminal in some ways just because I like guns and have guns and like to shoot guns. I don't appreciate that it seems like almost everyone in the media seems to portray gun owners that way."
I know the feeling...
Here's the other link:
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryamericas/2013/01/2013131145615382701.html
"If you had to break it down [why inner cities youths get guns], a quarter of it is for drugs, a quarter for gangs … fifty percent in general would be for survival, because you know there are a lot of wolves in your city and you refuse to be that one sheep that just gets taken for everything. So, you know in your heart you’re a good guy, and you don’t intend on hurting anybody, but the next man may hurt you - you're gonna get a gun. "
"The problem is right now the people who have guns in the inner city, in Baltimore, are most often drug dealers or gang members and the gun is the tool of their trade. And that is why we have almost 300 murders a year in Baltimore. If you took guns out of those people's hands, the murder rate would go down substantially and the gun violence would be reduced to almost nothing."
At least skim through the links if you have some time to spare. Or don't. Let's just be civil about this. I posted multiple points of view for a reason.
edited 2nd Feb '13 11:18:52 AM by Aprilla
It's important to draw a distinction between "gun crime" and "violent crime". Restricting access to guns does tend to substantially reduce gun crime, but doesn't necessarily reduce violent crime in general. If the people committing violent crimes just replace their guns with knives, then you haven't really accomplished much. There's evidence to suggest that this is what happened in Britain, though the data there is rather confused from what I've read.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Even if you only shift the usage of weapons, you at least make it significantly harder for one person to kill. To kill someone with a knife, you have to walk up to them and stab them. You can't just do a drive-by. How many school shootings would have an equivalent number of victims if they were transmuted into some someone with an axe or an icepick? Chances are better that he'd be overpowered.
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.
Exactly, I believe there was a mass stabbing in a school in China not that long ago. But a large number of the kids survived it. You may not reduce violent crime by reducing guns but you can certainly make the violence much more difficult. You can kill someone with a knife like you can a gun, but it's nowhere near as easy.
I just feel that these prospective measures aren't directly treating the problem with violence. This is similar to the issue of taking away violent video games or putting them in an adults-only store or something similar. It doesn't adequately address a fundamental cultural problem we have with violence. That's the reason why I mention more pervasive elements such as poverty, lack of education, poor healthcare, and the breakdown of domestic stability. The latter is closely tied to a population of parents who are overworked and underpaid, which goes back to the economic element. When you work 12 hours a day and struggle to pay your bills, you consequently have very little quality time with your children. You don't pick up on warning signs of depression, trouble at school or similar mental ailments. In fact, many juveniles turn to gangs chiefly because it becomes a surrogate family for them, and organized violence through beatings or drive-by shootings gives one a sense of validation and self-worth.
edited 2nd Feb '13 12:30:36 PM by Aprilla
The mass stabbing actually happened right at the same time as the Connecticut school shooting. 22 people were stabbed. No one died. That's the difference. Violent crime still happens without guns, but it's not as fatal.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick![]()
![]()
Exactly. Getting rid of guns doesn't get rid of violence. I would much rather treat the underlying cause of the problem and allow people to have guns, then restrict gun access for everyone and say "well, at least getting stabbed isn't as bad as getting shot, right?"
![]()
Their conclusions don't follow from the data. If guns are available, then people will use guns. If they're not available, then people will use other things. Notice that they ignore the fact nearly every country they list has a higher non-gun murder rate than gun murder rate (the exceptions being the US and Switzerland). The graphs they use are deceptive because they're using different scales — gun graph is log scale, while the non-gun is linear.
There have been a lot of school stabbings in China in the last few years
. More victims were wounded than killed overall, but that's typical of any violent incident. The point isn't to say that guns aren't better at killing people than knives (they are), but that restricting guns doesn't solve the problem of violence, which is better dealt with through other means.

Well, if one party could boot out the Dixiecrats, hopefully the other one can too and leave them to rot properly instead of some Nixonhole picking them up for free votes.
edited 2nd Feb '13 1:11:32 AM by Pykrete