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
People are opposing things they support just because Obama supports it. We're positing that this is largely because the conservative media empire has successfully demonized Obama as a radical pinko Commie muslim secularist puppy-kicker. There may be another explanation, but I've never heard one.
edited 10th Apr '13 8:57:00 AM by NativeJovian
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Not true Native; but that is a common conceit.
What we "overwhelmingly" agree on is that there are problems. Healthcare is too fucking expensive, yes. Climate change is an issue, true. We can't have kids getting blown away in school, we agree.
And while the Dems come up with good ideas, they undo with stuff like "You have to get insurance or be penalized." "We're banning assualt weapons." "We're going to adopt emission standards that may or may not be applicable to our infrastructure."
When people balk at this, the Dems cry "See, people oppose us because we're Dems." No, we oppose you cause it's dumb. Come up with something we can get down with, and we'll back you a hundred percent."
edited 10th Apr '13 9:01:01 AM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorI have an idea. Let's mandate "Single Careers".
That is, if you were a lobbyist back then, and you wanna run for office, you cannot. If you're a reporter, you cannot leave your outlet, whether it's Fox News or MSNBC. If you were an NFL player, and you wanted to become a talking head after retirement, you cannot. If you were a janitor who switched jobs to be the cashier, for instance, you cannot. If you're a CEO while also the company president, that cannot happen. If you're a lawyer, you cannot change who your type of defendant is. For example, if your defendant is a murderer, you must only defend murderers.
edited 10th Apr '13 9:08:44 AM by Sledgesaul
Honestly, I think lobbying is one of the bigger problems. When a company can legally buy a vote from a politician, that is a major, major problem. Corporate interests should never outweigh the people's interests, especially as companies cannot exist without people buying their product.
What if you hate your job and you only got it because it was the only one available?
edited 10th Apr '13 9:09:09 AM by Zendervai
The difference Jovian is this; "You have identified a problem. We like most or part of your solution. Please get rid of the stupid/poorly thought-out/impractical parts and we can get behind it."
The Dems answer should be "Okay, let's tweak it," not "Fuck you, we'll just find some loophole and sign in whatever we want anyway.
Especially since we all know that when Republicans do it they're evil dog rapists.
There's got to be an easier way to get rid of lobbying.
edited 10th Apr '13 9:12:38 AM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorFunny, Starship, but "You have to get insurance or be penalized" was originally a Republican idea, floated by Gingrich and company when Clinton tried to get healthcare reform passed, and first adopted by Republican Mitt Romney in Massachusetts, very successfully.
And frankly, "may not be applicable to our infrastructure"... what does that even mean? Did the laws of physics and the rules of logistics magically change because we crossed an ocean, or live in a certain longitude?
As far as gun control goes, the NRA and its political shills in Congress have made it clear that no gun regulation or controls of any sort whatsoever are going to get past them, be it assault weapon bans, clip size restrictions, requiring gun stores to conduct inventories, researching the causes of violence, or in fact anything at all.
Your excuses are laughable when confronted with the reality.
Edited to add: The Republican Party no longer represents its constituency when it comes to most issues. They sell a political philosophy of lies, prejudice, and class warfare, concealed by a smokescreen of Appeal To Freedom. There simply is no equivalent on the left.
edited 10th Apr '13 9:15:26 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"No 'Teer, your strawmen are hilarious when held up to reality, not my excuses.
When Gingrich or any other Republican comes up with dumbass retard plans, they are STILL dumbass and retarded.
Applicable to our infrastructure means that the US has different industry and even topography than say, Sweden, and it makes sense to create carbon emission standards that fit our model. That's really common sense.
And you once again conflate the NRA with the general populace when nobody mentioned them.
I expect better from you 'Teer.
It was an honor![]()
![]()
That was... approximately what I wanted to say but was having a hard time articulating, Fighteer. Thanks.
edited 10th Apr '13 9:16:25 AM by TheGirlWithPointyEars
She of Short Stature & Impeccable Logic My Skating Liveblog"When Gingrich or any other Republican comes up with dumbass retard plans, they are STILL dumbass and retarded."
Except that their plan (a) was sold as a reasonable conservative alternative to universal healthcare, (b) was implemented and proven to work. So what's dumbass and/or retarded about it, other than the fact that it isn't fully nationalized like all other First World countries? You realize that in a national system, you pay for everyone's healthcare automatically through taxes and you have no choice about being enrolled. So doesn't this version give you more FREEDOM, because you can still choose not to be insured (even though you pay a penalty)?
"Applicable to our infrastructure means that the US has different industry and even topography than say, Sweden, and it makes sense to create carbon emission standards that fit our model. That's really common sense."
No, it's bullshit. Those are reasons why we might adapt regulations in some ways, but not reasons to ignore the problem entirely.
"And you once again conflate the NRA with the general populace when nobody mentioned them."
The general populace largely supports gun control, Starship.
edited 10th Apr '13 9:19:43 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Fighteer the point I'm making is that I don't disagree with anyone's plans on the basis of what party your in.
If a gay Nazi (just go with me on this one) said she believed the rich have a right to keep more of their money, I'd say "Dude, I agree."
I oppose compuslive healthcare because I feel people should be allowed to make their own choices and suffer the consequences thereof. So if you don't want insurance, then you just don't have insurance, but you can't bitch when the hospital refuses to see you.
Of course, I realize my Machiavellian view isn't the most popular, so...
Who's talking about ignoring the problem entirely???
Yes, the general population is. And here's a news flash 'Teer, much of the NRA's membership also wants and supports sensible restrictions.
edited 10th Apr '13 9:25:05 AM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorMaybe something to at least stop lobbyists from just writing bills for pols to sponsor pretty much blindly. If they have to write them themselves maybe they'll at least get more scrutiny.
Understand why the mandate was deemed necessary, Starship. Insurance providers can no longer deny you for preexisting conditions, so you can always sign up if you get something unexpected. And hospitals are required to treat emergencies.
edited 10th Apr '13 9:26:28 AM by TheGirlWithPointyEars
She of Short Stature & Impeccable Logic My Skating LiveblogI'm of a mind that even money being able to be injected into the political system indefinitely is not necessarily the central problem so much as it is that we currently are unable to track said money's movements. As long as voters have a way to punish politicians who accept specific bribes and the companies who put up the bribes by taking their votes elsewhere, then there's still checks and balances in the system. Maybe one guy gets to yell louder, but enough smaller voices in unison can still drown him out.
Unfortunately what we have now is an environment where political funding can be concealed until it's no longer relevant. Remember the Colbert PAC? Yeah, all that stuff he was parodying is still around.
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.

I'm not taking that scenario, Starship. That would be Fighteer.
My view is that the Democrats are as complicit as the Republicans over our current state of affairs. They play Good Cop, Bad Cop on us while the lobbyists write the actual laws. This whole "Democrats' arrogance vs Republicans' obstructionism" is a smokescreen for the real issue, one that involves the cost of living adjustment, the effects of climate change and the social programs.
edited 10th Apr '13 8:55:46 AM by Sledgesaul