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
Speaking of which, is there any group the Democrat party hostilities? The Democrats are general liberal, sure, but you'd think there would be something or another that they at least don't think too highly of.
As a rule, you don't really see hostility toward any particular group out of the modern democratic party. They might want to take away your guns, but that's about them wanting to protect you and others from yourself. They want to steal your hugenormous fortune through taxation, but that's because they think you can't be trusted to be enough of a "job creator."
"I have no fear, for fear is the little death that kills me over and over. Without fear, I die but once."I do recall hearing one guy who, on a list of "Christian Cults", put Mormonism down as an example (his definition being something along the lines of "a religion derived from Christianity that doesn't fit Christian doctrine"). He then took it off the list when Romney started running to show support for him.
Leviticus 19:34Cults are generally much more closed off, they limit contact with the outside world much more, they also often have as exstreamly strong focus on the gratification and worship of the cult's mortal leader.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyranedited 28th Aug '15 5:05:21 PM by PotatoesRock
Cults, in the more modern meaning of the term, are often very closed off, encourage individuals to cut off contact with whatever support network they have, and tend towards fanaticism, and are not necessarily religious these days. (Kind of thinking of Ayn Rand's group while she was still alive, here.) They also, perhaps stereotypically, require that you hand over vast amounts of whatever personal wealth you may have to them.
Religion is just a broad term referring to a set of beliefs that huge groups of people believe in, of which cults are frequently small subgroups of. As for Mormons, there are indeed lot of them that are cultish, because they cut themselves off so thoroughly from the rest of society, including other Mormons who don't toe the strict line.
As far as I'm aware, very few Mormons practice polygamy today (one is enough, why in god's name would you want three or four?
). The ones that do, seem to be splinter factions who refused to comply with the Polygamy ban.
Honestly, I don't understand why Mormons are hated, most of the Mormons I've met are actually quite pleasant, and freindly.
edited 28th Aug '15 7:08:34 PM by Skycobra51
Look upon my privilege ye mighty and despair.The whole thing about classic Mormon polygamy was 1) only a minority of the original Mormons actually did it, and 2) they were very judicious about consent, with each additional wife requiring the approval of all previous wives. Say what you will, but they did put some thought into it.
The splinter groups probably don't care about being careful about consent, since they're breaking the law anyway. Making something illegal tends to have that effect.
Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)Interesting piece on the recent DNC event
.
“This is totally unprecedented in our party’s history,” he said. “This sort of rigged process has never been attempted before. Whose decree is it exactly? Where did it come from? To what end? For what purpose? What national or party interest does this decree serve? How does this help us tell the story of the last eight years of Democratic progress?”
Mr. Sanders, a longtime independent who was attending his first Democratic National Committee meeting, was warmly complimentary at first, crediting party leaders for fighting on behalf of working people and low-income Americans. But he soon turned, suggesting that the Democrats’ 2014 losses could be repeated if the party nominated a traditional politician.
“My friends, the Republican Party did not win the midterm election in November: We lost that election,” Mr. Sanders said. “We lost because voter turnout was abysmally, embarrassingly low, and millions of working people, young people and people of color gave up on politics as usual, and they stayed home.”
As a Political Scientist, I'm going to have to say they're right on both points. Everyone who knows anything about midterm turnout knows Dems lost because their own voters didn't turn out, whereas the Repubs did. Granted, the Senate race in my state was the closest in the country, but Hagan still managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory when up against the ignoramus figurehead of the most unpopular General Assembly in literally more than a century. In any case, even if I am myself resigned to voting for the lesser of two evils if Hillary is nominated, there is a large, large segment of the Democratic base that is not and will simply sit it out, Trump or no Trump. The electorate is changing, as we already know, and that includes the Dem base and its tolerance for Clintonness. It's utterly infuriating that party leadership seems to be clueless or dismissive of that fact.
Much more importantly, however, Sanders and O’Malley are right that this entire Clinton coronation process - and everyone, everyone, and everyone, knows that's what it is - is utterly antithetical to democracy itself. I forgot about how much I hated superdelegates (and, to my shame, about their existence) until earlier this week, but they are just one example. The lack of debates and their placement in ridiculous times when nobody will watch is far more telling, especially given that the Party's chairwoman, who decides the debate schedule was formerly a top dog in H. Clinton's '08 campaign. A national co-chair, in fact.
I was going to ramble on a little (or lot) more on a related point, but to avoid losing my cool too much, the long and short of it was: HRC claims she's going to help elect more Dems to state legislatures? Absurd bordering on laughable. The Repub base despises her with burning red fervor, and the segment of the Dem base who dislikes her will write in another Dem candidate or stay home entirely. She can win enough of the Electoral College to win herself the White House, sure, but the gerrymandering and low Dem turnout at the state level will mean state Dem politicians in any state that's not solid blue will be crushed underfoot, again. That's not to even mention swings or lack of swings in Congressional chamber control, control which is frankly just as important to getting literally any policy priorities of either Party passed as the Presidency is at this point.
edited 28th Aug '15 11:37:50 PM by darksidevoid
GM: AGOG S4 & F/WC RP; Co-GM: TABA, SOTR, UUA RP; Sub-GM: TTS RP. I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new Empire.A cult is a religion you don't like.
That aside, here
is a list of several groups' "characteristics of a cult."
