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
His foreign policy just seems to be a milder version of her own. She's an interventionist Democrat, but he's no hardcore pacifist or isolationist. Both support the Two-State Solution on Israel, Sanders recently came out in support of a judiciously-applied drone warfare policy. Standard stuff.
More of Obama for either of them.
That's actually a pretty clever play on words. Major points in my book.
After checking out the web site, I can honestly say I like its design as well.
And while I disagree on some of his stances and agree with others, at least he sounds reasonable and is honest with his answers.
If it came down to Trump versus Sanders, I'd probably vote for Sanders. He is unlike most canidates I've seen before and that's a good thing in my opinion.
edited 3rd Sep '15 9:05:11 PM by Skycobra51
Look upon my privilege ye mighty and despair.Apparently Donald Trump didnt sign a loyalty pledge to the GOP
Instead the GOP signed a loyalty pledge to The D.
That ryhmed
Maybe I've been reading to much Starwars EU stories lately, but Donald reminds me of the Reborn Emperor, or even better yet, Admiral Daala, 'cept he hasn't gotten all the competition in a room and killed them all to consolidate the Republican Party under one banner. Yet.
edited 3rd Sep '15 9:36:42 PM by Skycobra51
Look upon my privilege ye mighty and despair.I got a 404 on the trump thing
And the Daala comparison...fits strangely.
I. Got position due to others (Trust fund vs banging Tarkin)
II. Is hailed as great leader but generally just fucks up (How many times went Trump bankrupt vs Daala's tactical Genius being Informed Attribute)
III. Both have an Ego and tend to run into the wall with their view on things.
Maybe Trump can get Karen Traviss as speechwriter.
edited 4th Sep '15 1:26:14 AM by 3of4
"You can reply to this Message!"From the article it seems less a real legal argument and more a "fuck you" to the SC on the back of that poor couple.
Ie a passive aggressive "Well, if the Supreme Court says my state cannot define what marriage is then I am unable to end a thing I cannot define."
Edit:
edited 4th Sep '15 1:34:56 AM by 3of4
"You can reply to this Message!"![]()
![]()
Because, I gather, letting gay couples get married altars (hurr hurr) the institution so dramatically that nobody can say what marriage even is. Is it a kind of hat? A shade of blue? Am I marriage? Are you marriage? And since divorce is a modification to marriage, we need to have it pinned down whether or not marriage is fish or fowl or good red herring before we can know what divorce is. As it stands, this "divorce" thing might curdle milk or cause traffic accidents. So might this "marriage." It'd be downright irresponsible to allow either to continue under these conditions.
edited 4th Sep '15 1:41:13 AM by rikalous
[[https://youtu.be/5tu32CCA_Ig
This video shows a tremendously interesting Princeton graph on how well popular support of an idea correlates with its being made law], versus how elite support correlates, over several decades].
Obviously, Congress won't be passing the laws that change that any time soon, but these activists seem to have a few ideas on how to change things.
edited 4th Sep '15 2:34:58 AM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.State officials to seek the death penalty for Charleston Church murderer
I'd say that he ought to be spared. However, he gets to choose between watching MSNBC or listening to I Love You for the rest of his life.
...both are going to run afoul of the Eighth Amendment, aren't they?
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot
I can do better than that.
This has some great ideas.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=S35c9igr32M
![]()
But seriously they should give him the chair, without the sponge.
edited 4th Sep '15 5:09:44 AM by Skycobra51
Look upon my privilege ye mighty and despair.![]()
We sentenced Tsarniav to death, and as I recall he killed just as many people as Roof. Plus, sparing him would be more trouble than it's worth. With so many blacks being executed for single murders and rapes, their could be riots if the man who killed 8 African Americans at one of the most important Black churches in the country,was given anything less than the harshest punishment allowed for under the law, their could be riots. This man is not worth riots, or really anything, just fry him, inject him, or shoot him, or however we do it now, and have him try to explain this shit to his maker.
Jack makes a good point (I can't believe I just said that...
), starting to show leniency and humanity when it comes to punishment, when it comes to the white terrorist, sends a pretty iffy message.
Get rid of capital punishment altogether or apply it evenly to everyone as the law applies, with mercy where its due. That's justice, everything else is fiat.
I am myself opposed to it, but as Jack pointed out, sparing him while sentencing a non-Anglo Saxon for a similar crime is injustice. Though, this one is not tried under feral law as the Boston Bomber. (Yet?) Because if not you could make the argument that comparing the sentences here is again measuring with two different meters.
In the end, the prosecution can only demand a sentence, its up to the Court to agree to it or not. While I do not support Capital Punishment, I do think its good the prosecution here is not pulling punches.
edited 4th Sep '15 7:34:53 AM by 3of4
"You can reply to this Message!"
I concur in that I believe that it is more important to apply punishments consistently than to worry about how severe any given punishment is. Not that severity is not a valid consideration, of course.
Through the words of a five year-old.
Wouldn't it be nice if more children could be this trusting of "Government People"?

Could someone explain what Bernie's foreign policy, if he gets elected, will be? I prefer him over Hilary for a lot of issues, but foreign policy is and will always be my single-issue voting.