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
Jupiterian Local
Michael Burgess (R-TX): Fetuses can wank, QED abortion after 20 weeks must be banned.
On Monday evening, Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX), an Ob/Gyn by trade, told his colleagues to, “Watch a sonogram of a 15-week baby, and they have movements that are purposeful,” as RH Reality Check reports: They stroke their face. If they’re a male baby, they may have their hand between their legs. If they feel pleasure, why is it so hard to believe that they could feel pain?"
The House’s bill uses the scientifically disputed idea that a fetus can feel pain after 20 weeks as the basis for effectively ban all abortions after that time. Several state legislatures have passed similar bans, though just last month an appeals court struck down a ‘fetal pain’ bill in Arizona, finding that the law was unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade.
This is just coming off as desperate...
edited 18th Jun '13 3:03:50 PM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiCrazy people.
@Native Jovian: What part of the fact that Wyoming voters count nearly four times as much as California voters screams "fair" to you?
The concept of states as anything other than jurisdictional units is obsolete.
edited 18th Jun '13 3:50:11 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
I like it better than the alternative — and I live in Florida, one of the states that supposedly gets the short stick for having my vote "count less". If you expect states to surrender some of their authority to the federal government, then putting systems in place to make sure that small states don't get completely fucked by big states, while still ensuring that big states have more pull overall, as benefits their larger population, seems reasonable.
Answer this: what is the purpose of states? What function do they serve? What makes Wyoming deserve to stand on equal footing with California, other than because we say it should?
edited 18th Jun '13 5:06:39 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"And any non-arbitrary reason the current state divisions are better than this
?
State pride will always trump Electoral college reform.
Also Tule is a stupid name for a State.
NSA chief cites 50 foiled plots in defense of spying programs
Hagel approves plan allowing women to join Navy SEALS, Army Rangers
edited 18th Jun '13 6:34:43 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016For the record, I would have no problem with dividing up electoral college electors proportionally — which wouldn't affect the "some individual votes 'count more' than others" problem, but would go a long way toward making it harder to win the electoral college but lose the popular vote.
Of course, that map is cool anyway, but that's neither here nor there.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.@tclittle: Your state constitution grants Texas the right to split into five smaller states if it so wishes. That's just giving some of the seperated states the chance to join with others.
@Braeburn: State pride is a shitty reason to render voters in populated states inconsequential.
And now, a moment to remember Gary
Webb
.
All voters not in swing states are inconsequential.
Google files petition to publish number of FISA requests for user information
![]()
The problem with that, besides the fact that most Texans may not know about the clause, is that most Texans identify as Texan just as much as they do as Americans.
The only ways you'd be able to split Texas up is to either give Texans a good enough reason to, or force them, and I don't think you could convince a majority to do so.
edited 18th Jun '13 7:15:59 PM by tclittle
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) Says Congress Should Revisit Questions About Obama’s ‘Validity’
~opens mouth~ ... ~closes mouth and shakes head~
I give up for now. Can we please get some saner* minds in office this Congressional election?
* no one who goes into politics right now is 100% sane
edited 18th Jun '13 8:30:52 PM by Belian
Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!Few philosophies are entirely without merit. Libertarians make sense on a number of issues; the problem is that those are outnumbered by the ones they're crazy on.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Senator Alexander (R-TN): Dems won't go 'nuclear' because Reid fears Yucca Mountain vote
edited 18th Jun '13 10:57:16 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016I've heard of that before. I somehow doubt that Yucca Mountain would get a simple majority or that Reid wouldn't have other means to prevent a vote - he's been rather good at obstruction before.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman@Topazan: Libertarians generally advocate for a lack of legislative interference in people's private lives, which seems like they ought to support equality for gays, racial minorities, and the like. They also tend to be against the War on Drugs, in favor of unrestricted migration, and do not support acting as the world's police force. Those are all things that I generally agree with. They have some odd economic ideas, though, which sabotage most of the good will I bear for them otherwise. I am not in favor of minarchism when it comes to social programs, regulation, and taxation.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Their attitude toward global warming pisses me off as well. "Oh, the Earth deserve the damage we make on her! It is essential for successful business!" On their economic belief, I must say, where I came from has a system very close to Laissez-faire. Look how that turns out for the peasants.
Why is there libertarian ads jumping around the page, ad server?
