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
I don't know about the second part (seriously, where's that?) but it's not a euphemism, it's a hyperbole. Euphemism would be saying that Black people are, I dunno, justice-challenged, or less-than-fairly treated. Or would that just be "understatement"?
Let's instead take a harder traget: Bernie Sanders has stated two seemingly opposite motives for the same action.
As a utilitarian, I find your argument cogent, though I agree that it lacks political punch.
edited 2nd Nov '15 12:12:21 PM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.My greater point was that I'm more concerned with mass incarceration of black people than I am of arrest related homicide. I condemn both things when they occur, but given finite resources to be dedicated towards addressing issues, I consider the former to be the more pressing issue.
You can certainly argue that's a false dichotomy though, sure.
There are cities where there are large black populations. Chicago, New York City and Philadelphia come to mind.
And most of the "working class" jobs are historically viewed as being occupied by white people working in factories, farms and the like.
edited 2nd Nov '15 12:22:30 PM by PotatoesRock
Yeah, I don't think that Sanders is winning the primary among people who are likely to vote. Sad but true.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"In other news, 8 arrests have been made in a gun-smuggling ring
that moved over 100 guns from other States (e.g. Pittsburgh, PA and Atlanta, GA) to New York City via commercial buses.
And for those that exclaim about how stricter gun laws do nothing to deter gun violence, even the guy doing it pointed out the inherent flaw via wiretapped cell phone
.
The wiretap evidence shows Bassier knew exactly what he was doing, prosecutors said. “I’m selling them the right way and the wrong way,” he told his ex. “When I’m out of state, like Atlanta and Georgia and all that, it’s all legal ... but in New York it’s completely illegal.”
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"Well with Lessig, Webb and Chaffe out and Biden confirming he's not going to be in, we should start seeing less ratfucked offline polling results (Biden was basically a distraction that diluted the numbers of the actual candidates). And it's still several months from the primaries, etc. etc. etc.
It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings.
Well, Biden was never a significant entity in the polls despite his strong showing, because he seems to have drawn more or less evenly from Sanders and Clinton supporters. His withdrawal mainly redistributed his votes proportionally among the two of them.
This show is clearly Clinton vs. Sanders, and Clinton would have to do something pretty bad to lose her place at the top. Still, there's lots of time for something to happen.
The distinction between the two is less one of ideology and more one of whether voters favor radical, revolutionary solutions (in context for the U.S., of course) versus mainstream, more palatable solutions.
Frankly, the issues of scandals and trustworthiness don't seem to be having a significant impact. Even voters who say they trust Hillary less than they do Bernie still consider the former to have a better chance of winning the general election. It doesn't help that the Democratic establishment is deeply in favor of Clinton.
edited 2nd Nov '15 12:58:31 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"For me, I want Bernie to win because I really, deeply want the politics that he stands for to be capable of earning a spot in the national election. I want the Democratic Party to adopt unapologetic progressivism. I want a candidate to prove that they can generate a successful campaign without corporate sponsorship or being a 0.1-percenter themselves.
But I would be very happy with Hillary Clinton as well. I know she'll fight for progressive values, I love her poise and her incredible wealth of leadership experience, and frankly, I think it's past time for a female President. She's eminently qualified, perhaps the most qualified person in the entire country. But will she be able to go far enough?
edited 2nd Nov '15 1:17:33 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Personally it's also nice, that so far, Sanders and Clinton are avoiding mud slinging for the most part, which while 'boring', it makes them look like the adults in the room, so to speak. Kind of hoping that does continue.
(On the other hand, if you're looking for 'entertainment', the Republicans are 'winning' on that end.)
But I would be very happy with Hillary Clinton as well. I know she'll fight for progressive values, I love her poise and her incredible wealth of leadership experience, and frankly, I think it's past time for a female President. She's eminently qualified, perhaps the most qualified person in the entire country.
That said, if Sanders doesn't hit it, we're looking at a former first lady, former governor's wife, former law professor, Arkansas attorney general, former U.S. Senator, and former Secretary of State. She's pretty much the most qualified person in the 2016 race, and possibly in the history of presidential races.
edited 2nd Nov '15 1:22:00 PM by PotatoesRock
"Winning", Charlie Sheen style: strung out on drugs and publicly deteriorating, but selling a ton of gossip rags.
edited 2nd Nov '15 1:18:36 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"You aren't familiar with the Charlie Sheen "Winning" meme? I suppose it may not have made it across the ocean. Look it up; a dry description cannot do it justice. If my research is accurate, the original
has to do with the claim that he got booze-free without the help of Alcoholics Anonymous.
edited 2nd Nov '15 1:54:04 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Second paragraph of Potatoes Rock's post above. [1]
He said that Republicans are "winning" because they are providing huge amounts of entertainment, and we all went straight to Sheen.
edited 2nd Nov '15 1:55:11 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Because the Republican debates are "Winning" due to notoriety compared to the Democratic ones.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"

@Aprilla: That exchange in the military thread probably should have been thumped. I am not certain why it got missed, but I do apologize.
edited 2nd Nov '15 11:35:08 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"