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
You guys know that the correlation between specific parties and unemployment is connecting far apart dots, yeah?
Also, Right revives effort to amend Constitution to ban gay marriage
.
Go ahead, folks. I dare you.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanThe housing crisis was a key indicator of states' economic performance from 2006 onward; if Utah didn't have a big bubble, then it probably didn't have a big crash. That's not to say that Utah's government isn't doing something right; I'd be curious to see an analysis.
However, you can observe direct correlation between taking away union rights, social welfare, etc. and declining economic performance.
Hardly unexpected, but how in the hell do they imagine they'll drum up the supermajorities needed to get it through Congress, never mind a national referendum?
That said, this is the same Congress whose House of Representatives has voted to repeal PPACA 37 times.
edited 26th Jun '13 11:54:07 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"For instance, it's a lot easier to break even in the country than it is in the city. One of the main problems Republican constituency (not politicians) is having is that urban/rural disconnect, where the 'burbs are only just now starting to be hit with the same things cities have been feeling all along, but the people living in them still can't really conceptualize inner-city conditions. I can drive three hours north and see costs of living triple while wages actually go down, and it's impossible to move out because low-cost rural stuff is all privately-owned homes that these people would never be able to afford even the down payment.
The reverse happens too. I've met a lot of Democrats in Portland who straight-up didn't believe me when I told them minimum wage was not only completely sufficient to survive in Eastern Oregon, but decently comfortable. The kind of immense blanket policy they tend to support could actually screw up the area by imposing red tape on areas that don't really need it and can't afford it (see farm regulation, usually aimed at the likes of Monsanto, but imposing insurmountable costs on everyone else in the process).
Also, the circumstances of those jobs are important. I mean, we've supposedly been having a job boom nationwide, but it's all been in wages too low to sufficiently to cover cost of living in a city. Utah is actually one of the higher states by median income
, so I can at least comfortably say they must be doing something right — but it's not a good idea to blindly translate policy because most of the state is low-cost rural sprawl.
edited 26th Jun '13 12:05:56 PM by Pykrete
It's funny that we're discussing gay marriage in this thread and the 2016 election in the gay rights thread...
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Just so we are clear, a constitutional amendment needs (regardless of method):
- 2/3 of the House.
- 2/3 of the Senate.
- 3/4 of the states.
None of these things exist at the moment for the Federal Marriage Amendment.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanYep. It's impossible for that to pass in the Senate, statistically improbable in the House, and almost impossible in the states.
Considering that over 50% of the population has expressed support for gay marriage in polls, for such an amendment to go through would be a clear sign that our democracy is a failure.
edited 26th Jun '13 12:03:01 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Self-serving rhetorical language is nothing new in politics, on either side.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"That is an incredibly unfair statement to just blatantly point out "Oh hey the Dems were like that too",though that may have been true immediately after The Civil War,...they've pretty much been the split party since William Jennings Bryan split away from arch-conservative Grover Cleveland. They've successfully had a progressive left,middle,and raging racist right
This has also been true of the GOP,although until Coolidge (who is rumored to have been a klansmen) they tended to let their progressive left speak more. But after that,it was pretty much a middle-way struggle.
Until Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy",...the divisions were more along North vs South and the Dems just happened to have The South which for some reason budged on that issue,despite sticking with 'em through pretty much every other issue.
To just outright blatantly call them the klan party is a huge discredit,especially since the Dems were also the strongest opposition to that wing to.
The old Dmes really aren't much like today's GOP at all.
![]()
![]()
![]()
Political posturing isn't always empty, either. Sometimes it's worth it to pick a fight you can't win: you put a spotlight on the issues at stake, and maybe drag the terms of the argument closer to your side—both of which could help you in the future. The publicity gives you a platform to make your arguments, and maybe sow some seeds among some voters that'll pay off in the longer term.
edited 26th Jun '13 12:53:57 PM by Jhimmibhob
@Jhim: Except that in this case, public opinion has been swinging steadily in favor of gay marriage for years, and shows no signs of swinging back just because some rednecks got their Bibles in an uproar. What constituency are they pandering to that isn't already on their side?
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The Dems only had the racist south due to welfare. Most of the racists were poor and took those benefits and were distrustful of the Republicans because of the fact that they were the party of rich, wealthy northerners.
The Democratic party had been a progressive party since the progressives split from the Republican party when Teddy Roosevelt did. This was further solidified when Roosevelt's cousin, Franklin Roosevelt, ran for president with the Democrats. The union between the racist south and the Democrats was tepid at best. The southern racists were only with the Democrats because of the welfare laws, but when the Democratic party pushed through the civil rights act they left it in droves.
It wasn't so much the party being racist, it was the party having a base that included racists because racial minority issues weren't considered important by either party so the Democrat's policies on welfare were more attractive to the southern racist faction.
edited 26th Jun '13 12:58:28 PM by Completion
![]()
It might be less pandering than persuasion, Fighteer. If public opinion isn't going your way, and principle keeps you at odds with it, you find a way to say your piece and maybe persuade some voters to swing back towards you. At least putting up a fight gives one some openings to do that much.
edited 26th Jun '13 1:00:28 PM by Jhimmibhob
@Jhim: Republicans have been trying to court Hispanics for years. It's why they keep trying to get Texans into power as that wing of their party is particularly friendly to Hispanics and is the only faction of the party that Hispanics trust. Social conservatism is still plenty strong in Latino families. That's who they think they're pandering to with this issue.
News tidbit: FDR wanted to get universal health insurance as part of the New Deal, but couldn't sell it out of fear that it would drive away those same southerners and scuttle the whole project. The reason why was because it would have required integrating hospitals.
I only wish I were kidding.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Then Wisconsin's just aren't working... Slightly less of a success story.
The most edgy person on the Internet.