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
Okay, I'm a little confused about the Washington caucus results - for whatever reason, I keep seeing that it has 101 delegates, yet both Google and Politico say that 25 have been awarded to Sanders, and 9 went to Clinton. Where the hell is the other 67 delegates in that equation? Wikipedia is the only one I've seen calculate it fully, as 74 to Sanders to 27 to Hillary.
Edit - Someone on another forum linked me to this site
, which points out that only 67 delegates were appointed yesterday, while the remaining 34 will be appointed later on... though that still leaves the question of why the math still doesn't add up to 67 delegates on Google or Politico.
edited 27th Mar '16 8:18:26 AM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"![]()
That's not necessarily a problem with corporations as a whole, it's a problem with publicly-traded corporations, and particularly under United States law. In at least some other nations, even those are allowed to place other things above "maximize quarterly profit for shareholders or get sued into space".
And then there are benefit corporations
, which are allowed to place certain other goals (usually environmental or social goals) as being of equal or greater importance to maximizing shareholder value, allowing them to pursue those goals without getting sued or the entire board of directors replaced by people who will squeeze blood out spotted owls to save three cents.
edited 27th Mar '16 8:27:16 AM by Balmung
It also means that when the government wants to do something hilariously stupid like have a company permanently break their own product's encryption opening it up to malicious attacks, a company like Apple can just flat out refuse and take the government to court on the issue. The point isn't that corporations are right and government is wrong or that government is right and corporations are wrong. Sometimes government are right on an issue and sometimes corporations are right on an issue, but whichever side is being stupid will ultimately end up the loser.
edited 27th Mar '16 8:33:17 AM by GameGuruGG
Wizard Needs Food BadlyMmhmm. The real problem is the externalization of losses coupled with the privatization of profits, along with corporate welfare and suppression of competition. The artificially ultra-short time preferences encouraged in corporate culture also. The fact that they control the government is particularly a concern.
Understandably, people behave quite different in those conditions as opposed to bearing the full costs themselves. It results in total insanity, but encouraging regulation without considering the basic facts involved in what causes it is not especially helpful. You can advocate regulation, but the way to do it is not to ignore the basic underlying problem.
edited 27th Mar '16 1:36:28 PM by CassidyTheDevil
![]()
I'm not so sure about that - certainly the tax authorities in Europe are after US firms — firms like Starbucks and Amazon — for moving their profits to the US without paying local taxes first.
The oldest companies still operational are over 1000 years old.
edited 27th Mar '16 11:39:52 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling On![]()
They already do put their own interests ahead of their Allies. The US certainly don't seem to care about what happens to Europe. They only care if a American gets hurt, or if there is a direct threat to themselves. Also, Canada and the UK, the US's two closest allies, have already banned Trump from entering them. What makes him think that them along with the rest of their allies who have been losing trust of them will pay for that?
edited 27th Mar '16 12:48:25 PM by Bat178
And you know what I have to say about the open carry petition? Republicans, you contributed in large to the formation of this Neo-SA, now you've seen the birds come home to roost and they're threatening you instead of your adversaries.
I'll admit, I almost want to be there just to see what might happen.
![]()
Wait, I don't think Trump has been banned from entering Canada. The PM and the Minister of Global Affairs have (indirectly, usually) chastised him a bit but that's it. And I think that the UK didn't go through with that move either.
edited 27th Mar '16 12:40:08 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Sanders says that the US/its allies need to improve their surveillance efforts to combat ISIS. He also praised Obama for his handling of ISIS, pointing to the fact that they are mostly on the defensive in Iraq and Syria.
Looks like Bernie is trying to shore up his security and foreign policy cred, which is nice.
edited 27th Mar '16 12:45:52 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Also depends how much the states Democrats are willing to run against her, so to speak, and how much the Working Family Party, New York's functional third party (due to Fusion Voting) is able to give sway since it's endorsed Sanders.
It's about as much as a mix as it is anywhere else, I think. She ran for the Senate seat off the back of her First Lady popularity, moving to NY pretty much just because the incumbent was retiring and it was an open race, a fact which caused some resentment at the time. But she did get re-elected.
in 2008 she took NY in the primary over Obama with 57% of the vote.
Speaking of New York, I am a bit interested in their Senator (Charles Schumer) who is up for re-election in 2016 (probably "safe Democratic" from what I see) and is pegged as Harry Reid's successor as leader of the Senate Democratic caucus. Apparently someone who likes looking into cameras in wacky situations, but also someone with a close - perhaps too close - tie to Wall Street.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanInteresting article
on what might happen when two Presidential candidates with high unfavorable ratings go head-to-head, which has never happened before on the national level.
certainly the tax authorities in Europe are after US firms
From what I've heard, it's mostly a matter of politicians attacking (foreign) corporations because it looks good rather than any basis in tax law.
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's PlayNo the Europe stuff is a real thing, basically companies (foreign or not) are funnelling their profits to their subsidiaries in other countries, thus technically make no profit in one country and making all their profits in a country with favourable tax laws. It's nothing to do with them being forign companies and everything to do with the fact that many companies like Amazona and Starbucks pay literally no tax in the UK.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI guess the fundamental problem is that apportioning revenues and costs between the various countries a company operates in is complicated and subjective, which makes it easy to abuse. It doesn't help that countries like Ireland explicitly try to attract companies by offering lower tax rates.
Anyway, I don't think corporations are inherently evil or inherently good. They're just interest groups like any other. Large corporations can be extremely powerful interest groups, but they aren't different in principle. Sometimes the interests of a group will be aligned with society and sometimes it will be in opposition, and politics is the difficult task of balancing that out.
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play

Being able to cause massive damages and not worry about having to pay for them is exactly what people criticized the USSR for.
edited 27th Mar '16 1:36:17 PM by CassidyTheDevil