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
It's a case of realpolitik versus election year posturing.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I know that felons can't vote in federal elections without a pardon; which is going too far in my opinion. Once you serve your sentence your civil rights (except those that endanger others, like restraining orders or restrictions on owning firearms or report to a parole officer) should be restored.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.I'm of the opinion that convicts should be allowed to vote. Except for those who receive the death penalty. Ghosts shouldn't be allowed to vote!
Leviticus 19:34For comparison it's been ruled over here by a European court (a non-EU one I believe) that prisoners can't be blanked banned from voting while in prison. Now banns for specific crimes (like voter fraud) would obviously be okay and things like requiring a non-prison address where they could be registered to vote could be don, but a blanket ban was ruled illegal (though the UK has one anyway).
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThey were apparently arrested for unlawfully assembling and blocking traffic.
Lacking further details, I'll assume the DC police know what they're doing. They're the nation's most experienced police department when it comes to dealing with protests, so they probably knew precisely when the group in question had crossed the line.
And myself, I'm in favor of allowing felons of all stripes to vote. Doing otherwise means that those who are most affected by the law have no say in its creation or execution, which to me is inherently unjust.
Honestly, people tend to overreact to protesters being arrested. "Free speech" and "free assembly" does not mean you can do whatever the hell you want no matter what, and things like blocking traffic are illegal, even if it's done for the purposes of speech.
This probably goes back to the Civil Rights movement, where marchers and protesters were arrested en mass by racist shitheads, so "protestors arrested" immediately brings to mind "innocent people supporting good cause persecuted by The Man". Of course, the whole thing with the Civil Rights movement was civil disobedience, meaning they were deliberately getting themselves arrested to prove a point. But people tend to forget that part.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Not sure whether this is the right place to post, but here goes: Sweden's deputy PM referred to 9/11 as "accidents".
@Jovian: As far as the arrests in DC go, it was a deliberate act of civil disobedience by the protesters in this case as well (obstructing access to one of the buildings where congress meets), and while they're getting fined, none of them are getting criminal charges pressed against them as far as I know, and thus far there's been no major altercations with police, nor have the police or any third parties overtly antagonized them.
Thus far it's been a model protest with an appropriate police response, though if this were to reach the scale of Occupy (and basically the premise from what I can gather is Occupy part two), I seriously doubt it'd remain that way for long.
edited 19th Apr '16 11:03:17 AM by CaptainCapsase
Though one thing in that link caught my eye - "Police say they've arrested more than 1,200 people since the protests began April 11."
That translates to ~172 arrested protesters per day, which seems to be a bit of an outlier compared to other protests.
edited 19th Apr '16 10:59:53 AM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"Pretty much. Everyone wants to be a martyr for their cause these days; it's a lot easier to inspire others to carry the fight than to do it yourself. Now that people have found a way to pull it off without that ugly part where you have to die for it, getting arrested while protesting is the hip new fad.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.edited 19th Apr '16 12:09:58 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.I am so confused by this bill.
- We already invaded Afghanistan over 9/11. Then we used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq. Then we caught Osama bin Laden. Now we want to sue Saudi Arabia? When did they become the perpetrators? Is our intention to just keep f*cking with the Middle East and say, "9/11" every time someone asks WTF?
- How do private citizens sue a foreign nation? What would that even mean?
I thought we were done with 9/11. Why is it this still a thing? In our outrage over a terrorist attack from fifteen years ago, I fear we have now moved into the realm of nonsense. I understand the individual words involved in, "Lawmakers want private citizens to sue Saudi Arabia because of 9/11" in isolation, but together they are gibberish.
edited 19th Apr '16 12:15:30 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.So today is that New York primary. Local news have been covering it, according to the news here Trump is clearly dominating on the Republican side and Hillary is up 8-10% over Sanders on the Democrat side.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

I tend to have a "fuck Saudia" mindset, so i'm disappointed in my man Barry on this.
Even with a more sober and less gut-feeling perspective, Saudia is overvalued in the world. Oil is still important enough that we can't ignore them completely, but at the same time their current struggles show that they need the rest of the world too, the oil market isn't so lopsided that they just get to dictate their preferences to the world and watch us all kowtow before them, so a bit of pressure and bad press is a good thing to help make them straighten up.
My guess is that Clinton, Sanders, and Trump would all threaten to veto this if they were actually in the WH though, as it is poor diplomacy even if it's a good thing that should be done to a shitty country.
Obama's counsel also might think that it might open us up to retaliatory suits if we set the precedent and then the pentagon gets sued into the dirt by an Iraqi Class-Action or something.