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
Assuming the party knows what the hell its interests are or even has a definable list of common interests in the first place. (*cough*current Republicans*cough*)
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.In that I'd say that Republicans have a far more coherent party platform than do Democrats. Given that the GOP is the party of exclusion, they have the luxury of pandering to their most vocal base, and that means a platform that can be as crazy as they want it to be. Democrats, by contrast, have an extremely broad base and must make sure that they include as much of it as possible; this means by necessity a diffuse platform.
Now, if you mean a rational platform, then yes, Democrats have a significant advantage there.
edited 3rd May '13 12:32:29 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"http://www.businessinsider.com/vitter-brown-too-big-to-fail-bill-2013-4
Looks like someone is finally making a move to end Too Big to Fail banking. And Wall Street is already armed and trying to fight.
FDA official calls caffeinated food 'very disturbing to us'
Senator Rubio says 'shortcomings' in Senate immigration bill 'need to be addressed'
Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) challenged Vice President Biden to a one-hour debate on reducing crime.
Bipartisanship on Ted Cruz
, to wiz.
The FDA is doing necessary work. Caffeine is the most widely consumed drug in the world and it's vitally important to study potential negative long-term effects.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"That's not a problem with the FDA, that's a problem with the political environment. The FDA wants to regulate sugars and other crap, but it's being blocked.
edited 3rd May '13 1:15:03 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The FDA tries to do its job, but since that involves regulating what businesses can and can't do, a lot of the Republicans are against the FDA. And hell, shoving caffiene into nearly everything we eat sounds like a fucking terrible idea, even in small doses.
But I'm kind of surprised people don't have more to say about the attempt at regulating banks that actually has Wall Street worried.
![]()
I used to live in a town where a coffee shop experimented with caffeinated bagels. They didn't catch on because the baker could not figure out how to make the bagels not feel like sand was mixed in.
And there's a really, really obvious side effect of caffeine in everything. It will screw with sleeping patterns. Sure, some caffeinated products are fine, but keep it a rarer thing. I like the smell of coffee, but I loathe the taste of strong caffeine, so that's a turnoff for me.
Although I do have it on good authority that Nestle Global isn't currently considering it. Nestle America might be though.
But, OT, the FDA should be listened to. Their job is to prevent the companies from selling food that could kill people or make them very sick. Over-regulation is hugely preferable to not enough, especially as even the companies will take huge hits if their product is dangerous.
They're not trying to prevent companies from making money. They're trying to make sure that the companies maintain their consumer base.
edited 3rd May '13 6:58:13 PM by Zendervai
Who the hell is talking about "adding caffeine to everything"? It's not like they're going to start spiking random foods with caffeine without telling anyone about it. The article was talking about stuff like gum specifically marketed as a caffeinated energy-booster.
Really, without seeing anything on why caffeine in food is any worse than caffeine in liquid form, I don't see what the big deal is.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Welp. This isn't good. Some think we're going to get dragged into this.
Oh, god damn it, North Carolina.
(blogpost, but still infuriating. Not too surprising given we're also the only state that constitutionally banned same-sex marriage. Whee.)
More info on these North Carolina state legislators' douchebaggery:
http://www.southernstudies.org/2013/05/north-carolina-a-banana-republic-for-dirty-energy-.html
Bonus! includes a list of the bad guys
edited 3rd May '13 9:54:12 PM by GlennMagusHarvey
Now I feel glad that in my Alternate Universe I am working on, North Carolina and South Carolina are one state and Puerto Rico + both Virgin Islands another, very leftist state.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman![]()
Can states change their names?
edit: Apparently a 5 year old shot his sister with a gun that was purchased for him. Read that again, the gun was his and he is five. according to this article there aren't many states that have laws saying children can't own guns.
If I had to be 16 before I could apply for my driver's permit and then I had to practice for 50 hours and wait at least six months before I can get a driver's license, something that is pretty necessary to society, then little kids should not be allowed to have guns. That is just an accident waiting to happen.
edited 4th May '13 7:10:23 AM by Kostya

Both parties' political primaries are "tyranny of the minority" given the proportion of people who vote in them. What matters is which minority does the voting and whether they are representative of the interests of the party in general.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"