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
Corbett won't get primaried. While we do have some nuts here in Pennsylvania (on both sides of the aisle, really, due to being one of the prime big-labor Blue Dog states, where Democrats often tout their pro-gun, pro-life agenda gleefully), ultimately we don't have much love for the Tea Party due to that selfsame labor influence. Without a lot of hard-righters to cater to, the Republicans know that they'll need a unified backing for Tom Corbett to have any hope of surviving 2014, though he's behind in the polls, even though many Pennsylvanians agree with the superficial elements of Corbett's agenda (pro-fracking, getting rid of the post-prohibition era state liquor monopoly, and more funding for roads and bridges), PA residents generally agree that Corbett's approached many of these things the wrong way.
One and done, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette said just yesterday. Though who knows, we could get another Tea Party wave in 2014 if we have some major democratic scandal that actually sticks (though Benghazi, IRS, AP, and Snowden haven't, not sure what could)
RE: trial by jury. It's a double-edged sword, but we've historically had less luck with ones run entirely by handpicked suits. While fine for civil stuff and minor infractions — civil cases rarely involve a jury — they tend to be...rather stacked in cases where the state has motive to prosecute to maintain status quo or gain power (see whistleblower courts, which deny protection almost entirely wholesale).
Moreover, given our current climate of private prisons that have a direct interest in putting more people in prison and have actually been able to throw enough money to influence civil policy to that end, removing the public sway from the equation even in mid-level infractions would be really, really stupid.
edited 15th Jul '13 9:57:53 AM by Pykrete
Really, I have to wonder why some of these scandals didn't stick. Benghazi I think is the more legitimate one, where the State Department was playing politics with safety and security to try to show how well things were going in Libya, leading to the tragedy, and then played shell games with the truth to shield Obama during the campaign, but the reason it hasn't gained any ground is because most Americans don't care about foreign affairs unless there's someone we need to go kill.
IRS ultimately wasn't a conspiracy, and was trans-spectrum targeting anyway.
AP and Snowden can't be scandalized because it's one of those things where establishment Republicans and establishment Democrats are fully on the same page about, so the GOP leadership is unwilling to push it (oddly, also one of those things left-libertarians and right-libertarians agree on. One of the reasons I feel we're due for a reorientation, likely in the early 2020s)
Benghazi didn't stick because Republicans overplayed it so much that people got sick of it. And they conveniently forgot about all the embassy personnel that got killed on Bush's watch.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!""Benghazi I think is the more legitimate one, where the State Department was playing politics with safety and security to try to show how well things were going in Libya,"
Sure?
Anyhow, the scandals don't stick because a) scandals usually don't stick, b) there are no links to Obama and c) too much of the response especially by Republicans was way too transparently political.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman@Fighteer, so what would Republicans get from getting rid of food stamps? Some argue that if we get rid of welfare and the like that it will give people more incentive to get jobs, but if there aren't any jobs (as Republicans love claiming) what good does it do? As someone else on the site put it (paraphrased) "Yeah, let's take millions of people off welfare, that'll make them look for those jobs that aren't out there."
Potatoes Rock: He refuses to tax the natural gas industry despite them poisoning the environment in some places, he keeps slashing funding for schools, he wants to sell the state lottery to a British company which cuts off a revenue stream for programs that support the elderly, and he keeps going after the pensions of various public employees.
There's probably more but that's what I remember off the top of my head.
![]()
![]()
They're either stupid or evil. If they're evil then they get the satisfaction of starving millions of poor people. If they're stupid then they probably think balancing the budget and giving people more of an incentive to work are more important than making sure people don't starve to death.
edited 15th Jul '13 10:10:28 AM by Kostya
Republicans are generally anti-welfare because it goes nicely with their anti-tax policies. Can't really spend money you don't have.
I just wish more Democrat officials would point out things such as Wal-Mart literally causing people to have to live on welfare because they refuse to do things like give their employees pay raises or make them full time employees. It's all well and good to have the infographics and bloggers out there spreading that information, but I think it might have more impact on voters if the representatives would actually say these things.
They don't tell their employees to go on welfare; that would be stupid. They simply pay them absolutely shitty wages. Hell, the corporation recently tried to threaten DC with not building new stores if the city went ahead with raising their local minimum wage. Wal-Mart simply doesn't want to pay their employees more than they do.
@Midget; Someone would believe them. Some people watch things other than Fox, and I just want to see Democrats speak out a bit more directly against bad social policies.
edited 15th Jul '13 10:36:54 AM by AceofSpades
I don't even have to read that article to know what it says. Face Palm.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

It is a Term use for talking about Continental US (use by one of the arm forces I believe when they are leaving a foreign country). I can see why some of them doing that. I doubt the GOP is going to go far.
edited 15th Jul '13 9:44:08 AM by theweirdKiddokun
The Reaper Games starts anew.