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
![]()
That's still a strawman and an implication that minority voters are not "true Democrats".
Well, I just heard on yesterday's news that Washington, D.C. has amended its own constitution to no longer require the submission of its annual budget to the President for review, and they intend to use it whether or not Congress consents. The lack of statehood for DC has always been a bone of contention.
edited 15th Apr '16 11:41:43 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I mean, the primaries don't determine who gets to run for president, just who the party's decided to support. And they're free to support whoever they feel like, for whatever reason they feel like it.
edited 15th Apr '16 11:42:53 AM by rikalous
![]()
![]()
The mayor of Washington D.C. wants a vote to make her city a state.[1]
edited 15th Apr '16 11:42:16 AM by Demonic_Braeburn
Any group who acts like morons ironically will eventually find itself swamped by morons who think themselves to be in good company.![]()
They can, but as the America F*ck Yeah party, it may seem disingenuous to their voter-base if they didn't democratically select the candidate they want in the election.
Thing is the Republicans loosing the presidential election is something many of them are probably willing to accept, what they're not willing to accept is loosing control of the House, and Romney beets Trump in that department, he didn't cost them the house in 2012.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranWhenever a nominee fails dramatically in the general election, there is a rush to blame the party apparatus that selected them. This has resulted in some back-and-forth in terms of the rules of the various party nominating processes. Up until the sixties, roughly, both parties tended to choose their candidates in "smoke-filled back rooms" filled with elite delegates with barely a nod to the popular primary vote; indeed, many states didn't even hold primaries.
Most recently, in 2008 (and 2012), Ron Paul put up a huge insurgent fight at the Republican convention, instigating full-fledged revolts among the delegations from some states, prompting the party to change the rules so that he would be more effectively excluded from the process. One of those is the infamous 40(b) that requires that a candidate win eight states in order to be considered no matter how many delegates they earned. Naturally, these rules have backfired somewhat in that, by deferring to the popular vote more and more, they have set the stage for Trump, a quintessential party outsider, to claim the nomination by popular vote.
edited 15th Apr '16 12:01:57 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Also, that is how the weird delegate rules in New York and California arose, if memory serves - which is apparently a big advantage for Trump, a Trump-mander so to speak.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanYep, they serve to freeze out the second- and third-place candidates, making it much harder for Cruz or Kasich to mount a comeback attempt.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The exact scenario currently happening with Trump in the Republican party is exactly why the Democrats have superdelegates, by the way. If someone who is absolutely terrible for the party but enjoys a large amount of popular support looks like they may win enough delegates to secure the nomination, then superdelegates can band against them and freeze them out of the actual nomination. There would undoubtedly be a lot of grumbling about it if it happened, but at least they wouldn't have to change their own rules at the start of the convention in order to do it, like the Republicans would.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.To which the churches no doubt replied, "What the hell? Keep these things out of here!"
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Why are Church's special? If a person is safe to carry a gun they're presumably safe to carry one in Church, if they'd not safe to carry on then they're not safe even if they not in Church. Unless you're serving some super strong sacramental wine what's the different from any other social environment?
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThey aren't special. Most owners and proprietors of businesses or other organizations are uncomfortable by the presence of firearm-wielding civilianry within their building.
The law might say sure, you can take a shotgun anywhere you want, but the guy behind the counter of the 7-11 is going to be watching you like a hawk with one hand on the silent alarm and the other on the self-defense weapon behind the counter as soon as you walk through the door with that thing over your shoulder.
The introduction of a gun to any social or professional environment is guaranteed to cause immediate suspicion as to what you intend to use it for.
edited 15th Apr '16 12:57:32 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Isn't that bribery?
edited 15th Apr '16 12:56:16 PM by Demonic_Braeburn
Any group who acts like morons ironically will eventually find itself swamped by morons who think themselves to be in good company.![]()
Sure, but my understanding is that Churchs had a blanket ban, while in other place it's up to the owner/runner. So does the new law mean that if a Church allows weapons and you pass the training you can carry one inside, or that a Church isn't allowed to tell you not to carry one inside if you've passed the training?
A Krugman twofer:
[...]
The big problem with this argument should be obvious. Mrs. Clinton didn’t win big in the South on the strength of conservative voters; she won by getting an overwhelming majority of black voters. This puts a different spin on things, doesn’t it?
Is it possible that Mr. Sanders doesn’t know this, that he imagines that Mrs. Clinton is riding a wave of support from old-fashioned Confederate-flag-waving Dixiecrats, as opposed to, let’s be blunt, the descendants of slaves? Maybe. He is not, as you may have noticed, a details guy.
[...]
Who’s the target of this ploy? Not the superdelegates, surely. Think about it: Can you imagine Democratic Party insiders deciding to deny the nomination to the candidate who won the most votes, on the grounds that African-American voters don’t count as much as whites?
No, claims that Clinton wins in the South should be discounted are really aimed at misleading Sanders supporters, giving them an unrealistic view of the chances that their favorite can still win — and thereby keeping the flow of money and volunteers coming.
Does Clinton have problems too? Of course — she’s been too cozy with established interests in the past, she shouldn’t have given those speeches, and of course she shouldn’t have voted for the Iraq War. But there is no evidence that she’s corrupt, and lots of evidence that she both thinks hard about issues and is willing to revise her views in the light of facts and experience. Those are important virtues — important *progressive* virtues — that seem woefully absent on the other side of the primary.
But never mind. As you know, I’m only saying these things because I’m a corporate whore and want a job with Hillary.
I think I'm in love
edited 15th Apr '16 1:14:26 PM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiI am less in love with the use of "no" there. Many instances of "no evidence" are actually "highly questionable evidence" - that little controversy about receiving funds from insurance companies and rejecting single payer certainly raises eyebrows.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanBut hey, look on the bright side-this puts us one step closer to real life Paladins! Oh yeah!
In seriousness, I'd imagine that a church, as a private organization, could ban guns on its premises. And it's not like churches never need to defend themselves from things like racist spree killers.
On the other hand I can also see this potentially doing more harm than good as well. It's also not especially necessary, since it's not like we live in Iraq or something.
edited 15th Apr '16 1:19:36 PM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34![]()
The thing is that there is no evidence that Clinton's association with these industry groups is corrupt in the sense that it involves quid-pro-quo. Politicians talk to industries. That's their job. Industries also donate to politicians. It's how the system works. Using that to support a charge of systemic bribery is very flimsy — it also has the problem that said groups may become disillusioned with their prospects of getting heard within the Democratic Party and take their money elsewhere.
Like it or not, business interests exist and they are important. You can't exclude them from politics. You can say that you won't weight their interests higher than anyone else's, of course, but Sanders isn't stopping there, and it's not helping him make his case to establishment voters — voters he needs to win the nomination and, ultimately, the election.
edited 15th Apr '16 1:27:38 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"This is why i like Krugman, he's one of the few talking heads who can act human without coming off all "how do you do, fellow teens?" about it.
My bet is that a DC statehood vote will come around the next time the Dems have full control of congress. Although there are a lot of frankly more important things a Dem-controlled congress needs to do, so it might get passed over if it's a question of political capital.
"Bernie is a racist" is patently untrue, and someone claiming that but not also taking into account that absurd "CP time" gaffe that De Blasio made when on the stage with Clinton this past week is practicing blatant hypocrisy.
No, the problem is that Bernie's fixation on getting the nomination is driving him to make some statements with seriously unfortunate implications in order to motivate his base to keep supporting him. Also, accusing one's Democratic primary opponent of being racist is sort of the go-to dog whistle on that side of the aisle.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Heard something about a vote to create a new state. Any truth to it?