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
Well, in France and Spain, people are sick of voting Socialist because the PS and PSOE end up doing the exact same things as the right, fiscally speaking, and also in foreign policy. The problem seems universal; someone seizes power promising to get you what you want, and, once they're there, they have other priorities.
At any rate, haven't we discussed an article here where it was shown that laws passed in the US had zero correlation with what the public wanted at any given time, and only about 30% correlation with what the top 10% wealthiest wanted?
edited 8th Dec '15 7:11:12 AM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Where does the other 70% come from? Do lawmakers just throw at a marked dart board or something?
I see two problems with drawing any kind of inference from that study:
A: Congresspeople are representatives, not delegates. They aren't there to vote exactly as the public wants, all the time, they're there to govern on the public's behalf.
B: Most Americans don't really care about politics in their day-to-day lives enough to have a view on most topics that would be worth their representatives considering.
edited 8th Dec '15 7:50:37 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiSpeaking of Cheney: He's publicly criticized Trump's policies banning Muslims.
To quote him: “I think this whole notion that somehow we can just say no more Muslims, just ban a whole religion, goes against everything we stand for and believe in,”
Leviticus 19:34Are we sure Trump isn't a plant of the Democrats? Lately every time the President gives a weak speech or it becomes painfully obvious that his policies have some major problems and the public starts to think "hey, maybe the Republicans could do better after all," here comes Trump to the rescue with the perfect statement to make his supporters (and by extension all other Republicans) look like foolish, ignorant bigots and grabbing all the headlines.
"every time the President gives a weak speech or it becomes painfully obvious that his policies have some major problems"
I think you've been watching too much Fox News. That's unhealthy for your brain. I have yet to see any such thing. Just because one disagrees with Obama's position on a topic does not make that position "weak".
edited 8th Dec '15 9:11:37 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"According to JK Rowling, "Voldemort was nowhere near as bad" as Trump.
Personally, I think it's a bit of an overstatement, but an amusing one nonetheless.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.![]()
![]()
Y'know, it actually wouldn't surprise me that much-at best I'd call him The Load. And he was a former Democrat, IIRC.
Having said that, him being an intentional spanner in the works for the Republican party would require coordination and dedication that I'm not sure that Trump would be capable of.
On the other hand, being an unlikeable jerk is what he's good at. Maybe he realized it, so he intentionally joined the side he doesn't like to pull them down.
edited 8th Dec '15 9:13:43 AM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34![]()
![]()
That isn't just a Fox News perception. He essentially isn't changing course despite the seriousness of the speech otherwise. He chose to make this about gun control despite the fact that neither perp was on a terror watch list prior to the attack. It comes off as non-sequitur to the more immediate problem of Daesh.
edited 8th Dec '15 9:14:15 AM by FFShinra
Their arsenal was bought through perfectly legal means. So he addressed gun control, as he should have.
They were radicalized Americans, not foreign infiltrators so he discussed that, as he should have.
The only real argument to be had that he seems weak is if you agree with Trump that we need to go full Nazi Germany on any Muslims in the US.
Oh really when?Not agreeing with Obama does not mean one agrees with Trump.
And no, Handle, it isn't non-sequitur. They weren't on terror watch lists. Calling for ban of guns to those on such lists, while useful, is non-sequitur to the concerns Americans have post-San Bernardino. They wanted to know what would be done about Daesh, and Obama basically said nothing would change beyond what he is already doing. Considering the half-assed nature of what he is doing over there, that is a non-answer and he does come off as weak.
"And unfortunately Republicans really are that bigoted and monstrous. We can't afford to pretend otherwise anymore."
You're painting with a very large brush there. No, we're not really that bigoted and monstrous. Or at least, not all of us are. I might not think Trump is really as bad as a fictional dark wizard responsible for the death of thousands, but I'd certainly never vote for him.
The guy behind Trump in the polls is an evangelical fundamentalist who stands on stage with and touts the support of a man who's attacked abortion clinics and has publicly called for the execution of gays. He believes that liberalism is bringing on the Biblical apocalypse.
The third place guy doesn't know where the Middle-East is on a map and believes that the Egyptian pyramids were grain silos.
There is no longer a Republican party.
Regarding actions against Daesh, Obama has repeatedly asked Congress for an Authorization for the Use of Military Force so he has legal authority to prosecute the war. Congress has failed to deliver. If he acts unilaterally, he's a tyrant. If he asks Congress to help, he's weak. Make up your minds.
edited 8th Dec '15 9:30:40 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The terrorist problem isn't really guns, it's people willing to kill innocent people because they think they will become martyrs and have an eternal reward as a result. Even if the San Bernardino terrorists had been completely unable to acquire firearms it seems likely they still would have attacked - it just would have been a bombing instead of a shooting.

Absolutely. I'm addressing the claim that those Trump supporters make.
edited 8th Dec '15 7:09:19 AM by speedyboris