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
@Blueninja: Rubio threw a football and it accidentally got a kid in the face. The usual kind of thing that happens when you're just fooling around at a picnic type event. Not really a big deal except that it was done by a presidential candidate this time.
Srsly, accidents happen and the kid didn't look to be hurt badly.
That's kind of what I thought he meant but I hadn't heard anything about it and wanted to make sure.
I imagine that if Rubio gets three wishes and becomes Pres, that kid will run around bragging about the time the President hit him in the face.
What would his other two wishes be, I wonder?
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Most Americans support Planned Parenthood. Reuters poll
Support for federal funding of Planned Parenthood itself to provide those women's health services was even stronger, according to the Reuters/Ipsos released on Wednesday.
The non-profit's image has taken a hit, the poll found, after an anti-abortion group earlier this year began releasing videos purporting to show Planned Parenthood officials negotiating prices for aborted fetal tissue.
Of the participants who had seen the videos, 44 percent said their views toward Planned Parenthood had become more negative.
Still, the strong support for federal funds to help Planned Parenthood provide screenings, pregnancy tests and prenatal services indicates Republican presidential candidates should tread carefully addressing the issue on the campaign trail.
"We have so many young people having babies when they're babies themselves, and if they can get some kind of birth control or help or education, anything to stop that trend would be very good," said Renee Harrison, 57, of Waldo, Wisconsin.
Harrison said she is a Republican but was not happy with the party's stance on Planned Parenthood. "I may have to not vote Republican," she said.
The Reuters/Ipsos poll shows they should be cautious on women's health issues.
Seventy-three percent of respondents said they supported federal funding for an unnamed group to provide women's health exams, 69 percent backed federal dollars for prenatal services, and 59 percent were in favor of it for contraception.
When the question was asked a different way, more participants said they backed federal dollars for Planned Parenthood specifically to provide those services.
edited 19th Aug '15 6:58:18 AM by AngelusNox
Inter arma enim silent legesI said "for several hours" for a reason, meaning that the "I don't have time" excuse doesn't hold water when you've wasted what could have been a good 45-minute cardio/resistance session on a 3-hour debate about something that quite frankly can wait. If anything, you'll probably have a clearer head and a cleaner argument when you come back to TV Tropes or wherever else you frequent. The people on bodybuilding.com and crossfit forums can debate just as much as we do and yet...
But yes. I did chuckle.
edited 19th Aug '15 7:19:47 AM by Aprilla
But if he does, then that means the majority of the other candidates will not give him their support because they hate him. And let's face it, Trumps supporters are pretty much all angry white Southerners and the only women who will be voting for him are the same angry white people who want DEM JERBS back.
Mmm, if Sanders gets the nomination there will be quite a few southern democrats who will likely abstain from voting. The internet gives him a somewhat vocal fanbase, but the old guys and baby boomers that head things up on the ground still have issues with associating openly with someone carrying the whole "socialist" stigma as openly as he does.
From what I've gleaned from some state level conservative politicians in casual chatter is that they're hoping for a Sanders nomination over Hillary for just such a scenario. In the last state elections here in NC the ultra radical republicans scored a major victory by firing up their base with almost ridiculous amounts of propaganda centered around Obama while the democrats stayed apathetic with the whole "my vote won't matter" bullshit (NC has an almost even 50/50 split between registered dems and repubs. but the 2014 republican turnout was much higher than the dem one).
Both Clinton and Sanders stand to alienate some blocs of Democratic voters: Clinton because she's perceived as a "sell-out to Big Business"; and Sanders because he's perceived as "too radical". Neither of those statements is true but you can believe that the primary will largely be about them, further polarizing the Democratic voter base in a time when they need to be standing together.
edited 19th Aug '15 8:14:42 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Both sides want candidates who will fire up their voters and bring them to the polls. The problem is that both sides notionally incorporate vastly disparate groups of voters, and a candidate who really fires up their base is equally likely to drive the other party's base to the polls to oppose them.
For example, more Democrats will vote against Trump than would ever vote against, say, Jeb Bush, despite their actual politics not being that different.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"A new CNN poll shows that Trump may be competitive in the general election...
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/19/politics/2016-poll-hillary-clinton-joe-biden-bernie-sanders/index.html
Now Clinton still has an edge over Trump, and narrowing is to be expected as the race goes on. But the fact that Trump hasn't crashed over the shit he's said...
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Aprilla had a great quote I'd been thinking about:
- Naomi Klein
I can think of many examples throughout history, but a modern political example - even if it isn't directly part of our political process (you see no candidates expressing it, for instance) - is the manosphere.
From what I've seen of them, they flip out at the existence of things like married unmanly men, egalitarian marriages that succeed really well, happily married gays (some, like my brother, are apathetic towards gay marriage), and anything that is a threat to their utopian worldview of submissive feminine women and masculine controlling men and people being happy in their limited roles. So they gotta attack anything that might prove them wrong.
The love of "perfect" ideas really does seem to lead to a reflexive need to protect them from uncontrollable elements like human randomness, and other competing ideas that are successful. Human beings just can't be controlled though; they can't be expected to not have wants or needs that the "perfect" system can't give them.
Now that I'm thinking about it, I think the sheer difference of human needs and wants will prevent ANY inflexible system from succeeding. You can't force either inequality or equality; some people will want to know "their place", while others will want total freedom to decide, and others will want something more inbetween. Any totalitarian or anarchic system would be a disaster in the making.
There is no perfect system. Only ones with individual good ideas that can be taken from them.
edited 19th Aug '15 8:34:22 AM by BonsaiForest
![]()
I expect that the "anti-Trump" vote has yet to be fully engaged, and Clinton and Sanders have yet to go big time with their debating/campaign spending. There's a lot of ramping up on the Dem side that will occur in the months to come, whereas the Republican side is in full-blown party mode.
You show the beginnings of wisdom, grasshopper.
edited 19th Aug '15 8:35:17 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Also on the subject of imperfect or horribly flawed systems having good ideas, my brother showed me a website that had a list of ideas to see if you agree or disagree with them. I clicked "agree" to every one of them and clicked to see the results. It then claimed I was a libertarian, as every single one of those, like marijuana and gay marriage legalization, were libertarian ideas.
Sorry, but I am not a libertarian. They just had certain reasonable ideas that I really liked. The more I learned about their philosophy, the more I disliked it... save for those particular ideas.
???
I trust Sanders far more to handle the income gap between the rich and the poor. That's kinda his big thing.
Libertarians have some great ideas, but no way to make them happen given human nature. I've read Heinlein; I've dreamed of a world in which personal responsibility is key and you can shoot someone who cuts in line, but unfortunately it wouldn't work, because the ratio of assholes to nice people is too high. Any environment that allowed the nice people free reign to murder all the assholes would have the same reciprocal effect, and the assholes are, by nature, more inclined to violence, so they'd probably win.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

he never said human sacrifice was strictly a bad thing, did he?