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
Country has always been a conservative music. It's in the name. There have been a few exceptions to the rule (Kacey Musgraves comes to mind, but I'm only assuming that).
edited 11th Oct '15 10:49:19 PM by tclittle
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."{Goes to work. Leaves the toilet seat up.}
{Is fired.}
I'm honestly a bit skeptical of the "gun-free zone" concept. In certain places where there are security issues (airports, courthouses, etc) are one thing, and private property is another (there are plenty of businesses with "no weapons allowed on premises" signs, which is certainly their choice), but places like schools, university campuses, etc... Do they actually do anything, or is it just a feel-good thing that doesn't actually make any difference one way or another?
I'd be interested to see if there's been any hard data collected on the subject.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Well they make it less likely that some idiot is going to pull a gun in class and shoot his classmate/teacher for disagreeing with him. Didn't the Texas uni have a guy quit specifically because he considered the risk of getting shot by an angry student to high?
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThat's the question — do they actually make that less likely? If someone has a grudge with a teacher or a student, then declaring the building a gun-free zone doesn't actually prevent them from bringing a gun to school to settle the grudge with. What it does do is make sure that no one who carries habitually will be able to pull out their gun and shoot someone spur of the moment, but I don't think that's exactly a common occurrence, especially among students who are generally too young to hold concealed carry permits in the first place (most states require you to be either 18 or 21 before they'll issue you a concealed carry permit).
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Actually on a level it does, because it makes them much more likely to get caught before they can do anything.
Think about it, if guns are allowed then if you see someone with a gun you ignore it, they probably have a CC licence after all, they're just carrying it for whatever reason, it means nothing. But if guns aren't allowed, you spot someone with a gun and there's no question or doubt, that person is up to no good and you need to run like fuck and raise the alarm.
As for how often spur of the moment fights/attacks occur and who tends to be part of them, that I don't know. Though it's a fair question.
Oh and I'd just like to note how crazy it is that you guys will let an 18 year old walk around with a concealed deadly weapon, but you won't let them drink.
edited 12th Oct '15 12:08:29 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyrani do also find that a little strange. 18 is also the age one is suitable for military enlistment, so that's both permission to own and carry a deadly weapon AND permission to sign up for extensive, rigorous training to defend your country with your LIFE, but permission to drink a few pints is still three years away from that.
edited 12th Oct '15 12:18:16 AM by wehrmacht
Essentially, we have a national drinking age of 21 because Bill Clinton forced it on the country, and we still have it because there isn't much push against it anymore. There isn't widespread active support, but there's a lot of acceptance of the standard, and it's not like 18-21-year-olds are a potent political force in this country.
"Old enough to fight, old enough to vote, old enough to drink" is not an unreasonable position but it's not one that'll carry any weight.
After Vietnam, there was something of a pushback against the idea that kids who were too young to vote could be drafted to fight.
edited 12th Oct '15 12:43:51 AM by Ramidel
From my understanding, "old enough to fight, old enough to vote" is actually what got the voting age lowered. Specifically "old enough to be drafted and sent to Vietnam, old enough to vote for someone who won't draft them and send them to Vietnam."
And ninja edited. Darn.
edited 12th Oct '15 12:45:10 AM by rikalous
A lower drinking age can help promot a healthier drinking culture. As people will do it earlier and thus get though the crazy binge drinking stage earlier, and because drinking teen drinking underground means the teens don't ask for help when they're in trouble, and they're drinking off the grid as opposed to at an actual bar where someone can cut them of before they get to drunk.
Though really the US just has a ton of issues with its drinking culture that need to be addressed.
edited 12th Oct '15 12:54:35 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranYeah. I hear, though have no stats to back this up, that Continental European countries have much less of a problem with alcohol, because they introduce children through the occasional glass of wine with dinner under parental supervision. My parents would have done the same with me if I'd had any interest in alcohol, but aside from my twenty-first birthday (credit me with some trace of humanity...), I never really did.
In America, by contrast, it's practically a Rite of Passage for a kid to get illicitly sloshed.
The national drinking age being 21 was under Ronald Regan. Clinton had nothing at all to do with it. He was governor of Arkansas at the time and had no national power. Please get your facts straight. If you want to blame a president for it, blame Regan.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickActually in America, children who are given alcohol by their parents are more likely to end up as alcoholics. I know I posted an article about that study, I think in the Parenting thread, only a few weeks ago. I think the bigger problem is that when most people in America talk about drinking, they mean getting utterly hammered, aka binge drinking - 5+ drinks in only an hour or two - something reinforced by the frat party style of drinking. Most Americans don't go down to the bar, have two beers, and head home again.
That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - SilaswThe podium placement for the Democratic debate
has been posted, and I didn't even know some of these people were running. With no sign of Biden, anyone think it's safe to say he's not getting into the race?
On either side of Clinton, the highest-polling candidate, are Bernie Sanders (to Clinton's right) and Martin O'Malley (to her left). Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee, the fourth- and fifth-placing candidates, bookend the stage. Should Vice President Biden decide to enter the race and take part in the debate, there would be a podium placed on the stage for him as well.
And while we've all been cheering on Bernie, Clinton is still ahead in Nevada and South Carolina
by a pretty commanding margin.
Clinton has the support of 50% of those who say they are likely to attend the Democratic caucus scheduled for February 20 in Nevada — which plays host to the first debate among the declared Democratic candidates on Tuesday and is the first state to elect delegates after Iowa and New Hampshire. Sanders follows at 34%, then Vice President Joe Biden at 12%, with the rest of the field garnering less than 1% support.
Among those who say they are likely to vote in South Carolina's primary, set for one week after Nevada's caucuses, Clinton holds a larger edge, 49% to Sanders' 24%, with Biden at 18% and former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley at 3%. Should Biden decide to sit out the race for the presidency, Clinton's lead grows in both states. In South Carolina, a Biden-free race currently stands at 70% Clinton to 20% Sanders with O'Malley holding at 3%, and in Nevada, Clinton gains 8 points to 58%, while Sanders picks up just 2 points and would stand at 36%.
In South Carolina, Clinton's advantages stem largely from Sanders' unpopularity with black voters, who made up a majority of Democratic primary voters in the state in 2008, the last time there was a competitive Democratic primary. Back then, black voters broke 78% for Barack Obama to 19% for Clinton. In the new poll, 59% of black voters say they back Clinton, 27% say Biden and just 4% for Sanders. Among white voters, Sanders has the edge, 44% to 31% for Clinton and 22% for Biden. Without Biden in the race, it's a near-even split among whites, 48% Clinton to 47% Sanders, while blacks break 84% to Clinton and just 7% would back Sanders.
These two states, along with Iowa and New Hampshire, are the only ones permitted by both major parties to hold primaries or caucuses in February, and the outcome of the contests in these early states can make or break a presidential campaign. Iowa's caucuses will happen first, and a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist poll in the state finds Clinton 11 points ahead of Sanders there, a narrower margin than she holds in most national polling. New Hampshire's primary follows, and several recent polls there, including a CNN/WMUR poll released in September, have found Clinton trailing Sanders by a significant margin in the state.
Clinton's stronger support in Nevada and South Carolina could bolster her campaign heading in to the large batch of "Super Tuesday" contests set to be held on March 1. In both Nevada and South Carolina, Clinton holds double-digit advantages as the candidate who would do the best job handling the economy, health care, race relations, foreign policy and climate change, and is broadly seen as the candidate with the best chance to win in 2016 (58% say so in South Carolina, 59% in Nevada).
The margins between Clinton and Sanders narrow when it comes to which candidate is most honest and trustworthy (in South Carolina, 35% say Clinton, 27% Biden, 21% Sanders, in Nevada, 33% Sanders, 32% Clinton and 22% Biden), and in Nevada, on who best represents Democratic values (44% say Clinton, 37% Sanders) and understands the problems facing people like you (42% Clinton, 39% Sanders). The four other candidates tested in the polls — former Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chafee, Harvard professor Larry Lessig, O'Malley and former Virginia senator Jim Webb — lag well behind Clinton, Sanders and Biden on the issues and attributes tested. None of them top 3% on any of those questions.
The economy is the clear top issue in both states, with 45% in Nevada and 43% in South Carolina calling it the most important issue in determining their vote for presidency next year. Health care and social issues follow in both states, though South Carolina voters are more apt to say health care is key than Nevada caucus-goers (29% health care, 10% social issues in South Carolina, 16% for each issue in Nevada).
Clinton's biggest issue advantage comes on foreign policy (she's up 38 points over Biden in South Carolina and 30 points over him in Nevada), while the margins are narrower on the economy (47% Clinton, 24% Biden, 18% Sanders in South Carolina, 46% Clinton, 31% Sanders, 15% Biden in Nevada) and climate change (44% Clinton, 22% Sanders and 21% Biden in South Carolina, 41% Clinton, 30% Sanders and 16% Biden in Nevada).
While Sanders and Clinton have been sparring over the economy for quite some time, both foreign policy and energy policy have earned attention from the two campaigns recently. Sanders has highlighted his opposition to the Iraq war in 2002 as a foreign policy credential, while Clinton declared her opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline.
The CNN/ORC polls were conducted by telephone October 3-10. A total of 1,009 South Carolina adults were interviewed, including 301 who said they were likely to vote in the Democratic presidential primary. In Nevada, interviews were conducted with 1,011 adults, including 253 who said they were likely to participate in the Democratic presidential caucus. Results among likely Democratic voters in South Carolina have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 5.5 percentage points, for Nevada Democratic caucusgoers, it is 6 points.
There may be more functioning alcoholism, but I doubt "much less of a problem" is accurate. Underage binge drinking is on the rise overall, and it widely varies from one Euro country to another.
Though I guess movies such as The Hangover or Project X share their part of responsibility in these behaviors.

Actually yeah, legally they can.
It's that bad.
Oh really when?