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
Boat rockers don't command support from the people invested in the status quo, on either side. This is why the Libertarian Party, for example, will never be able to compete at a national level. They attract no support from anyone but themselves.
The system is specifically designed to elect people who will not disrupt it too much. It's very incestuous in that regard.
The Green Party of the United States
has a platform that I strongly support: they are for anti-corporatism, Keynesian style macroeconomic management, ecological wisdom, nonviolence, etc.
edited 6th Feb '13 8:08:38 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
Jill Stein based half of her platform on an eco-friendly program that slowed down climate change. Rocky Anderson was one of the few guys who actually wants to challenge the banks over their bullshit.
I'm talking about actual politicians, not ones who wanna be elected.
edited 6th Feb '13 8:08:43 AM by Sledgesaul
Neither Obama nor Bill Clinton is a leftist, though. The last leftist (or close to it, anyway) who made a serious run for the White House was Howard Dean in 2004, and while he put up a hell of a fight, ultimately the Democratic Party went with someone "more moderate" who failed to distinguish himself from Bush.
People who get elected have more power than those who don't, you know.
edited 6th Feb '13 8:08:49 AM by Ramidel
The media were looking for any excuse to turn on Dean, and his little screech of enthusiasm or whatever sealed that particular deal. It's the same sort of thing that killed Bachmann; she was made to look crazy and that did her in (although in her case, she actually is crazy).
A truly revolutionary political figure has to be absolutely perfect, and no human being can manage that kind of performance. Even if they were to do so, the consequence is typically fatal.
Sorry, Sledgesaul, but Obama differs from Bush in a number of important areas. You're deliberately being obtuse for the sake of making a point.
- He supports national universal healthcare.
- He supports environmental causes in a broad sense.
- He supports gun control causes in a broad sense.
- He supports regulation on the financial industry.
- He hasn't started any major wars.
- He supports gay rights.
- He supports increased taxation on the wealthy.
There are lots of differences there. You cannot possibly hope to claim that we'd have PPACA or the removal of DADT under a Republican administration.
edited 6th Feb '13 8:13:44 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The only reason he doesn't seem as bad as Bush is because Obama doesn't discriminate towards people.
Really, Obama himself admitted that he would be a moderate Republican if he was in the 80s. That alone pretty much confirms that there's very little real difference between himself and Bush.
edited 6th Feb '13 8:14:41 AM by Sledgesaul
I don't see what's wrong with talking about Obama's many flaws while acknowledging that there isn't a viable alternative.
There's a difference between wanting some fantasy pacifist revolution in which a perfect leader arises from the ashes, and simply wanting to talk about Obama's stances on certain issues - especially ones that liberals hated under Bush that Obama shares - without someone immediately reacting with a defensive "well, there's no other choice!".
edited 6th Feb '13 8:16:04 AM by HilarityEnsues
We have repeatedly acknowledged Obama's flaws. You won't find anyone in this thread claiming that he's some perfect ideal of a liberal politician. He's not. But he's what we've got to work with, and there is no reason to believe that we could have gotten a more liberal President in 2008. Maybe 2016, if we're lucky.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Yeah. He's also reduced the number of total kills by the U.S. forces, along with loss of life. And the increase in deportations is occurring because there are more immigrants in America now than there were four years ago.
Again, pulling America out of the Middle East is not on the political table.
edited 6th Feb '13 8:22:33 AM by Ramidel
You know, Obama also conducted more drone strikes than Thomas Jefferson. And were he not to deport people, he would be failing to do his duty as Chief Executive to enforce the laws of the country.
Further, while you and I may agree that the War on Drugs is a failure, you will not find that sentiment echoed in the halls of either major party or in the mainstream media. A President only has so much political capital to spend and must pick fights he can win.
This, too. Slow and steady wins in politics far more often than fast and radical. We're also making major headway on gay rights.
edited 6th Feb '13 8:29:53 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"That is true. I just think people tend to get overly defensive when these things are brought up, that's all.
Granted, I think critics of the drones - which seem to be one of the most common criticisms regarding Obama - are missing the point. The problem with the drones is the way in which they are being used; I think we've all heard about the cases in which strikes killed people who were attending weddings and funerals. But it's not as though it's any better when we kill civilians through any other means. The real issue is our foreign policy, not one specific weapon.
edited 6th Feb '13 8:44:10 AM by HilarityEnsues
Sometimes, we don't need drones. Look at the Seals versus Osama Bin Laden.
I would be happy as a clam if Congress finally rolls back some of the powers of the executive branch and the security apparatus to perform extrajudicial killings.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.Get over the drones, Sledgesaul. There is nothing about a drone that is inherently any more or less immoral than any other weapon. The exact same objections were raised when we moved from arrows to guns, from guns to artillery, from artillery to airplanes... all of those things "depersonalized" warfare and made it somehow less moral. Technology marches on and you can't stop it even if you try. In the future, asymmetrical warfare will most likely be fought by robots with little direct human risk.
You should be concerned about who we are killing and why, not how.
edited 6th Feb '13 8:43:55 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Well then, we will continue to ignore your obsession with them.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I really would like it drones were on the "discouraged topic list." Or if we started a thread about them. I'm tired of illogical, constant, non-negotiable fear-mongering about them. Every couple of weeks we get on a giant de-rail about them there nothing is accomplished, the same arguments are stated, then shot down, and then it surfaces again later.
It's a stupid debate.
![]()
Agreed.
I don't think you really can.
edited 6th Feb '13 9:25:59 AM by rmctagg09
Hugging a Vanillite will give you frostbite.

@Sledge. More about Gary Johnson, isolation/libertarian. Isolationism doesn't work when you're the most influential nation in the world, not unless you want to lose economic and political relevance. He's also a libretarian, which means he'd do nothing to stop the growing class divide, and let corporations run wild over the US. Probably an austerity/no government intervention freak. In other words, not someone I want leading the country.
Jill Stein...I don't know much about, I'll admit.
edited 6th Feb '13 8:02:57 AM by DrTentacles