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
To make sure the nutcases couldn't breed. You don't like gay marriage, ok! No one can marry and you super religious 'cant have sex before your married' types will be come extinct. Have fun!
There are a few who want to abolish state marriage so that the gays can't get married because gays can't get religious married. They seem a bit blind to the fact that they're throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickCorrect me if I'm wrong but the article didn't say they were removing Marriage but replacing marriage licenses with "contracts." Which presumably gives the clerks denying marriage to gays much more legal leeway to say "this part of the contract isn't structured correctly thus it's denied" in the vein of literacy tests during the civil rights era.
"War without fire is like sausages without mustard." - Jean Juvénal des UrsinsThey're somewhat better, and they're considerably better when they start overseeing the actions of locals.They have all sorts of shady shit going on with them too, the ATF has things like Operation
Furious
(aka the screwup that ''should have gotten all the attention that Fast and Furious got) and while the FBI has improved from its days when crushing any kind of black rights movement, they still have a dubious record when it comes to people they're interrogating and are more than willing to fuck up the lives of either suspects or people connected to suspects. The most famous case recently being the friend of Tsarnaev that they killed under much debated circumstances during an interview, while also imprisoning others or threatening to deport them for not cooperating. (Fun fact, that FBI agent who shot Tsarnaev's friend was an ex-cop from Oakland with multiple brutality and corruption cases, and was investigated repeatedly by Internal Affairs, including over falsifying official statements
.)
The common thread is the lack of any consequences for the abuse of power. As it stands, we do not realistically have many consequences for police or federal agents found abusing power, and we do not have a culture where such incidents are reviewed honestly, fully, and openly. There's a combination of deference to authority, a lack of review of it, a lack of journalistic willingness to challenge and question those authorities, and institutions that tend to automatically close ranks and refuse to allow review or reform due to the us vs them mentality that many people in law enforcement feel.
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |The marriage contract deal might be that a license is something given out by the government, while a contract is an agreement made between two people, and the government's only role is making the participants honor the terms they agreed to. So maybe that idea is that, by making it a marriage contract instead of a marriage license, the government is seen as keeping its hands clean.
"What's Whitewater? These voters know less than you think about Hillary Clinton"
Instead of the heated answers the topic once invited, the focus group responded with confused silence.
“Is that a new type of vodka?” one person finally offered.
The participant was probably kidding, Lake said. But the answer is exemplary of a challenge confronting pollsters, ad-makers and strategists on both sides who are trying to shape Clinton’s image during her presidential run. The youngest eligible voters of 2016 were toddlers when America’s most prominent political power couple left the White House, and what Americans know about Clinton is increasingly defined by what stage of her career she was in when they first tuned in…
...
… “The whole thing of scandal is much harder to pin on her with first- and second-time voters,” said Frank Luntz, a GOP strategist who helped counsel House Republicans through their battles with the Clintons in the 1990s. “The ’90s are as irrelevant to 20-somethings as the 1950s are to 50-somethings. If you didn’t see it and you didn’t hear it and you didn’t live it, it doesn’t matter.”
To some young voters, even Clinton’s marriage seems irrelevant to how they think of her, which is mostly as a presidential candidate or secretary of State.
“Most of her career that I followed has been when she was operating by herself and he’s been kind of a background piece,” said Marilis Dugas, a 21-year-old student at Clinton’s alma mater, Wellesley College. “I don’t have nearly as many associations of the two of them together.”…
TL;DR: What happened in the 80s and 90s with Hillary Clinton doesn't matter to younger voters, they care about what she's done since the 00s and 10s.
edited 14th Aug '15 3:14:04 AM by PotatoesRock
Uh-oh, that might encourage Mr. Internet ...
When asked if he's joining the race for President, Al Gore responds, "Are you kidding?"
Buzzfeed reported that supporters of Gore had begun talking about a possible presidential run, though some Gore advisers poured "lukewarm water" on the speculation. "This is people talking to people, some of whom may or may not have talked to him," one Gore adviser told Buzzfeed. The former vice president lost the race to succeed President Bill Clinton in 2000 — despite winning the popular vote — and would be competing against Clinton's wife, Hillary, were he to enter the Democratic race.
Whitewater could be said to be one of the interminable non-scandals that Republicans keep trying to pin on Democratic leaders in order to discredit them, in retaliation for all the legitimate scandals that keep getting exposed on their side.
Which is not to say that Democrats are all squeaky clean, and there may have been some wrongdoing, but nothing was ever proven despite years of "investigations".
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Did the news about Whitewater work like with Benghazi? I'm still not completely sure what the deal with Benghazi is because for the past year and a half, the coverage basically boiled down to Fox going "What about Benghazi, hmmm?????" without actually bothering to elaborate, and the other news stations barely mentioned it at all.
My political memory is fuzzy about Whitewater. In the end, it amounted to little more than a giant conspiracy theory — that the Clintons were murdering people to cover up their corrupt involvement in a real-estate venture. As no wrongdoing was ever proven, it turned into a perennial whipping boy of the Right, much like Benghazi: they kept insisting that if they investigated enough, they'd find the smoking gun.
Because that is what the Right does, let's not forget. Lacking substantive scandals, they latch onto everything that even vaguely smells of one in the attempt to deflect media attention from their own corruption and inability to govern. I mean, Bill Clinton got impeached for lying about sex with an intern, something that had nothing whatsoever to do with his effectiveness as a President.
Frankly, I have little doubt that Bubba was involved in a few shady deals in his time as governor of Arkansas, but without proof it will forever remain speculative.
edited 14th Aug '15 8:49:47 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
