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
![]()
In my case, the first I heard of him was my fifth grade teacher saying "Columbus is overrated, which is why this region is named after an Italian guy named Amerigo."
edited 5th Apr '16 8:39:51 PM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34The system is complicated so the powers that be stay in power and prevent Tyranny of the Masses (i.e. the common man cannot be trusted.)
Specifically, the big issue is she's working with Republicans to defang the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from touching or cracking down on Payday Loans, because most of her bankrolling for her campaigns are Payday Loan companies in Florida.
My biggest issue is that DWS seems to have nuked the idea that Democrats have to actually compete in a competent way in all 50 states, and turned her back on the gains that were made by doing so back in '06 and '08. Yes, those gains were made by adding Blue Dog democrats in conservative areas that were never likely to keep them for long, but you have to get your foot in the door somewhere and you have to chip away at Republican attempts to completely insulate large areas of the country from Democratic reach. If you reach into those areas, argue on behalf of your ideas and beliefs, you can bring them to your side and make headway.
Since she's been in, it's been a reversion to the train of thought that some Democrats have where they seem to say "We don't have to work hard and convince people that we have the right ideas they should vote for, they'll just naturally gravitate to us!" And this is exactly the wrong way to approach a competition of ideas.
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |I don't understand where this anti-democratic logic came from. Or rather, this specific form seems like an incoherent mishmash inherited from diametrically opposed political philosophers.
As I understand it, the tyranny of the majority concept had nothing to do with the political philosophies of Hobbes or Malthus per se, rather came from pro-democracy, anti-aristocratic folks who believed strongly in individual rights and were concerned the anti-democratic potential of the emerging corporate and financial interests. As far as I know, they were bitter enemies of the "hate poor people, the rich should rule" school of philosophers.
And likewise, on the part of the anti-democratic philosophers, their opinion of the harmfulness of democracy had nothing to do with it violating individual rights per se. In fact, they were very critical of the idea of liberty.
Not entirely sure though, but that's my impression. Seems a little odd.
So in the opinion of AP as relayed by Politico, Cruz wins Wisconsin 48.3-35.0% against Trump and 33 delegates vs. 3
and Sanders wins there as well 56.4-43.3% and 45 vs. 36 delegates.
![]()
Incidentally, the first person to use the phrase "Tyranny of the Majority" was John Adams. And also, you mean Adams and the rest of the Founding Fathers, and philosophers like Thomas Paine
?
edited 5th Apr '16 11:34:56 PM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling OnIn the US, you can blame James Madison and his Federalist N.10 for this line of thought (though plenty of other founding fathers shared similar sentiments as well as other republicans in Europe at the time with the exception of J. J. Rousseau). He made it quite clear that he opposed democracy and saw it as a danger to liberty due to people being led by their "unruly passions". He advocated instead a republic of representative government, where the aristocracy (defined as ruled by the best, the most excellent) would be composed of elected representatives.
If James were alive to see today's representatives in the United States... I wonder what he would think?
"It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few."edited 6th Apr '16 1:57:12 AM by Medinoc
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."It should be noted that the American Revolution was forced on the country at gunpoint by an alliance of Northern merchants and Southern planters, who controlled the country's media and colonial governments. It wasn't about democracy, even if it was about taxation without representation.
But yeah. The Founding Fathers wanted a republic of the wealthy, which morphed very quickly into a representative democracy once they all died off.
One man moving out of New Jersey threatens budget forecasts
The downside of relying on taxing the rich.
As I recall most modern historians believe the conflict was a genuinely radical political upheaval motivated by a combination of economic interests and political ideology. It also had wide, though certainly not total, support from the general populace including the white lower class, as evidenced by the widespread involvement of angry mobs in the early conflict. Ironically the idea that it was conservative was started by conservatives in the 1950's who wanted to relate themselves to the revolution, and adopted by progressives suffering from the culture cringe in the 1960's.
I find historiography fascinating. Often the way we write our history says as much about us as it does about the past.
Edit: Oh and CNN says Sanders got 56 percent in Wisconsin to Hillary's 43 percent. Does that count as a big win for Bernie?
Republicans are pissed at Roberts
This is one area where I feel both sides are equivalent. Whenever the court rules in their favor they say it's doing it's job and interpreting the Constitution correctly. When it rules against them they scream about "politicization" of the court.
edited 6th Apr '16 4:57:20 AM by JackOLantern1337
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.U.S. politics in particular have aligned against the idea that the majority of the people represents "the people" and that geographic spread should be taken into account. In the modern day this creates a bias towards the GOP, but back when the cities were small and everyone was on farms, it helped them too. But you can see that in a lot of the stranger rules like in Wisconsin, where the idea is that you don't just win the state, but the views of each CD also matter, to prevent something like where Hillary overwhelmingly won Milwaukee to the point where that creates a majority, but Sanders won everywhere else, they feel like the latter better reflects "the will" even if it's not majoritarian.
My mom asked me last night what was going on in Mississippi and North Carolina, and so, with my online friend living in NC, I set the two up on a Skype voice/video (video broken on my friend's end, but she could see us) chat.
She pointed out that the NC anti-gay bill also includes a provision preventing towns and cities from setting their own minimum wage laws. Cute. She's also really offended by the idea that this is what will define her state, considering she lives in the Research Triangle and is surrounded by all manner of different people of different races, religions (including Muslim), and so on, and yet in the name of religion, this crap gets passed.
The comments section of an NYT article had someone point out that the bill may have been a deliberate distraction to get liberals to focus on the homophobia and ignore the anti-minimum wage clause snuck in there. I doubt that, but if they do roll back the homophobic crap, the anti-minimum wage clause could well still be in effect.
States' rights. Conservatives love them; both to oppose liberal ideas from the federal government, and to oppose liberal ideas from the municipalities within the states!
He is a registered Republican, yet now leans Democrat after what has happened in his state cancelling by the anti-discrimination ordinance of the city of Charlotte. And no, he will not vote for either Trump or Cruz in the election either.
Younger people in the Republican party are finally getting more upset about the 'social wars' their party has started ad infinitum.
This is why I read comments sections. You get insight and anecdotes like these.
PayPal has pulled 400 jobs out of North Carolina due to the anti-LGBT bill.
![]()
![]()
![]()
The only silver lining I can see to this is that there's a much bigger outcry against it even in the more rural areas that I would never have imagined seeing a decade ago. It reeks of desperation on part of the state's conservatives to try to flex whatever power they can show off to a crowd that is splitting between more moderate ones that are becoming more and more disillusioned with their party and the more rabid ones that see the extreme as never extreme enough.
edited 6th Apr '16 7:45:23 AM by carbon-mantis
After Hillary lost by double-digits in Wisconsin last night, CNN reports on their newest strategy regarding Sanders
- "Disqualify him, defeat him, and unify the party later". Looks like they're taking off the kids' gloves, though how the fuck "disqualify him" would work is beyond me.
Also, it seems like they fundamentally misunderstand the appeal Sanders has, as they're attacking his position as being completely unfeasible. I don't know about others, but I support Sanders while realizing that the odds of him getting most of his ideas through Congress intact is equal to a snowball's chance in Hell. The appeal, to me, is that he'd fight for it anyway. While Obama got shafted by an overly-combative Republican Congress, part of that lay with his trying to reach the Compromise position from the start, rather than staking out a far-more liberal idea off the bat, then trading concessions until a happy-medium was attained.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"Hmm yeah, the one-dimensional narrative of America being solely about protecting the interests of wealthy slaveowners who hate poor people, while certainly not without basis, rather ignores the fact that much of actual beliefs of the people they're demonizing do not fit the modern-day narrative of the plutocrat. Not to say they weren't hypocrites, but their thought is more clearly a precursor of progressive thought in many respects, even if modern-day progressives scorn them.
A lot of support for Sanders is derived from the same premises as the support for Trump: a deep dissatisfaction with the smugly elite Washington establishment that apparently exists more to serve itself than the interests of the people as a whole. This is justified in many ways, and there is a certain element of Self-Fulfilling Prophecy to the political elite declaring that a policy proposal by an outsider is infeasible.
That said, Sanders will, should he be elected, have to deal with the reality of governing, in which his goals would indeed be very hard to achieve.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Would they be that much harder then Clinton's? In the end a Republican congress I are public an congress, it's going to vote no to everything, so we might as well make them vote no what we realy belive in rather then what we compromised to after two dozen committee meetings.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranWhile I'm not an American, to me Bernie Sanders seems completely moderate by my political estimation. Most things he's proposed have been entirely reasonable. Apart from that (though I dislike a government of representation) if you must have public servants elected then the quality of their character, their excellence and competence in public service become central and vital in deciding whom to vote.
By principle I could never vote for someone like Trump, even if he did represent something akin to the republican "anti-establishment". His character alone forbids him from being a public servant of any sort.
Yes, this is good and necessary. He will acquire the much needed experience to properly find the balance between social democratic idealism, the practice of parliamentary negotiation and executive decision and policy-making.
edited 6th Apr '16 8:22:52 AM by germi91
"It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few."

Is it wrong that it took me this long to put together America and Amerigo?
Oh really when?