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
Yep, and you're also voting (probably) for House and Senate seats that do very much matter in terms of who's going to be making the legislative decisions to back President Clinton over the next four to eight years. You are (probably) voting for state and local officials who will form the next crop of national leaders at some point down the line.
Elections don't occur in a vacuum. If you want decent governance by the time you're old enough to have your own family and care about its future, then you have to start now. At the very least, your vote helps send a message about the kinds of candidates you don't want in power, and, for that reason alone, anyone who doesn't show up and check a box that doesn't have an "R" next to it in November is an idiot.
There is so much at stake here — more than there has ever been if you consider what Republicans are trying to do to the country and what will happen to us in 20, 50, 100 years if we don't address serious issues like climate change. Take guns and drugs and our response to terrorism completely off the table if those are things that you have kneejerk opinions on; they matter squat in the long run. Economics, social equality, and climate are what will decide your future. To that extent, Bernie Sanders is 100% correct.
edited 7th Jan '16 9:05:52 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I'm not sure who the "crook" is in this scenario, since there is no substantive or even semi-flimsy evidence that Clinton, Sanders, or even O'Malley have any skeletons in their closet that might suggest corruption or deliberate malfeasance.
In 2016, it's pretty safe to say that if you apply the "crook or bigot" test to any national race, the "R" will be at least one if not both.
edited 7th Jan '16 9:00:01 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Mmm, I'm probably more right leaning that more than a few on the forum and I still find myself going for the dems out of pure necessity if nothing else. Some of the shit proposed by republicans, especially their handling of healthcare, would make it impossible for me to continue living in this country due to circumstances surrounding a chronic illness I have.
And I kinda like living here. I'm sure the Canadians would hate me.
And don't gloss over local elections. A lot of that will have a very real impact on your life and many times I've seen the deciding factor in who wins and loses come down to those very few who abstained from voting.
In my experience the voting polls also have at least a few local issues on the ballot as well as local offices up for grabs. It's not just "vote for president" on the ballots. It's "vote for president, and then maybe make a choice on all the other offices and issues on this piece of paper." All these other things get outshined by the presidential election, but are just as important if not more so.
In any case, Clinton isn't a criminal, so I'm not getting where "better a crook than a bigot" is relevant. "Better Clinton than a bigot" fits better. She hasn't been indicted, just required to testify in inquiries, and hasn't gotten anywhere near a criminal court case for anything. It's mostly the Republicans pounding away on something that wasn't relevant specifically to make her look bad.
Wow this thread exploded since I was on last...
I disagree with the notion that foreign policy doesn't matter in the long run. Everything else mentioned is quite important, but only if you have the focus needed to do it. With the world so interconnected (and growing more so every year), if there is an incident that potentially affects the US domestically (or increases public fear), that will need to be handled so that it doesn't negatively affect social and environmental policy.
Nevermind the fact that something like climate change isn't bound by borders. Gotta make friends and keep them and that requires talking about things that bother them too.
edited 7th Jan '16 10:08:55 AM by PotatoesRock
![]()
It's less that she is or isn't, and more that was my conservative brother's interpretation of her and my rebuttal. He's not a fan of the current administration, feeling that they neglect or outright violate the Constitution for their own ends.
Hell, I asked him to name at least one good thing Obama had done (to convince me he wasn't just knee jerk reacting "Obama did it so it's bad) and he could not or would not answer me, even after I gave examples from Politifact (which be dismissed as a liberal source)
edited 7th Jan '16 10:11:39 AM by sgamer82
Shinra, it's not that foreign policy doesn't matter, it's that it's perceived as not quite as important by large sections of the voting public. That was my point. I think everyone here agrees that foreign policy is incredibly important.
![]()
Yeah, your brother sounds like the kind of staunch conservative that isn't really interested in truth or a balanced view of things. There's lots of conservative voters currently benefiting from the APA who absolutely fucking hate the thing when it's referred to as Obamacare, but love it when what you do is just describe what the law does without naming it.
And these people who cry about violating the Constitution frequently turn out to not have read the Constitution or know very little about constitutional law. Or any of the amendments or restriction that say, restrict you from using your free speech to not incite panic in a crowded room.
edited 7th Jan '16 10:15:59 AM by AceofSpades
& ![]()
which is why I didn't really try convincing him Though in my brothers defense he isn't Stupid Right Wing. He has no issue with homosexuality (and in fact I credit him for teaching me about tolerance in general) but he's big on gun control and state/constitutional rights, so is disinclined to vote Dem since they're about increased federal control.
edited 7th Jan '16 10:16:51 AM by sgamer82
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
And I think that notion is changing with the rise of the internet generation. Sure, they still only care about a few things (humans can't care about everything at once after all), but those things are now affected by events beyond our borders, either because of the internet or because the internet has made them aware of the effect the incident has. That makes foreign policy more important in at least that way.
Of course, to the older generation, it won't, I concede.
![]()
Fair enough I guess. But I think that notion is changing over time.
edited 7th Jan '16 10:17:58 AM by FFShinra
![]()
Ugh, the state's righters are even more frustrating in their views. I frequently find them quite hypocritical. Hell, that one town that was basically taken over by the state they're in and had their water company changed is a good damn example now. And now their town is basically suffering from massive lead poisoning, with local government unable to do anything.
Frankly, I have no problem with increased federal control. Several state governments have proven they don't give much of a shit about people or about applying that same "local governance" policy to actual local governments. AND it's usually applied in such a way as to attempt to subvert a federal law that gives INDIVIDUALS particular right, like all this bullshit over gay marriage equality. Maybe point that out to him; that state's righters frequently use the idea to subvert the rights of individuals.
edited 7th Jan '16 10:20:42 AM by AceofSpades
I don't have the ability to argue politics well enough to make a case. Hell, I barely have the patience to read about politics outside of this thread and maybe one or two places. We've basically agreed to a "live and let live" about our political leanings. I don't find it worth the potential argument.
I've started to lean towards the federal control side myself, especially in light of stories that make me think states don't often know what they're doing (or trying to loophole stuff like you said)
The Flint, Michigan disaster is epic in scope and is a perfect example of what happens when democracy is deliberately suborned in favor of ideology and power games. To summarize for the unaware or incompletely aware:
- The town of Flint, Michigan — pop. 99,763 (2013) — was taken over by a state-appointed controller under a law that allows bankrupt or otherwise fiscally mismanaged cities to have their local sovereignty suspended.
- Flint had heretofore obtained its municipal water supply from the same source as the city of Detroit, which is also under state fiscal management.
- Last year, Gov. Rick Snyder (R), as part of his statewide austerity push, approved a plan to obtain Flint's municipal water from the Flint River instead.
- In the process of doing so, basic safety and quality rules were ignored, with the result that no treatment was applied to the river water before it entered Flint's system despite warnings that this could lead to problems.
- Sure enough, residents began reporting that the new water looked and tasted foul and was causing rashes and other health issues. Investigations turned up elevated and highly dangerous concentrations of lead in that water. The cause was chemical leaching from Flint's existing pipes due to corrosion from untreated river water.
- The city controller and the Snyder administration ignored these reports, which came in from everywhere: the state environmental agency, the EPA, you name it, instead claiming very publicly that the water was safe to drink. They even deliberately buried the reports and tried to discredit the people issuing the warnings, and ignored the city's elected mayor when she declared a state of emergency, because her authority was suspended.
- The matter has now blown up into a national issue. Even after the city's water supply was switched back to Detroit's, the contamination continued because the pipes are corroded and still leaching lead. Remediating this situation will require hundreds of millions of dollars in infrastructure repairs — basically, they have to dig up and repair all the pipes — and there will be permanent damage to the children who were exposed to it that may require lifelong government assistance.
- In the meantime, residents of Flint are relying on trucked in bottled water to drink and cannot shower, wash clothes, clean dishes, you name it.
- New evidence has recently come to light that the Snyder administration was aware of all of these issues and intentionally ignored them, leading to a Federal probe into possible criminal misconduct. Only after this was announced did Snyder call a state of emergency and offer to do anything at all for the residents of Flint.
So, if accidentally poisoning a town of 100,000 people and then lying about it is the sort of behavior you approve of in your political leadership, by all means vote Republican for your state government.
edited 7th Jan '16 11:23:53 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I am reminded of the Walkerton (right name?) tragedy in Canada - there an outbreak of E. coli infections was caused, according to an investigatory commission, by too lax security standards that the government had not enforced enough either.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanIt's hitting the national media (aside from just the Rachel Maddow Show) and has prompted a federal criminal probe. That's not nothing. Maddow's been covering it for weeks along with the underground gas storage leak in California that's pouring out 25% of the state's annual greenhouse gas emissions and will take months to fix.
edited 7th Jan '16 11:36:48 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Heh, the current governor of NC is a former board member of Duke Energy. They've been responsible for numerous ecological disasters and the governor has always been sure to help them get out of paying fines and cleanup whenever possible. He's still putting delays on the clean up of the 3rd largest coal spill in US history while Duke raises rates on their poorest customers and claims they're to "offset the cost of fines imposed."
Mind that this is a company that gave a CEO a 44 million dollars severance for serving one day.
![]()
Snyder's cut from the Tea Party pattern: committed to austerity and cronyism, openly sneering at democracy. He joins Scott Walker and Sam Brownback in his cartoonish villainy. It's getting a bit too frequent to be a coincidence.
Also, this.
edited 7th Jan '16 11:39:58 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

I hate the political system.
Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?