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 was the general thrust of my argument, yes. I don't really see how Bachmann would fit the definition any better, if we're going to argue it.
Well, no, of course not.
Really, this whole thing was mostly just a joke after Michelle Bachmann was brought up.
Oh God! Natural light!@smokeycut: The Indian removal Act would be better classified as ethnic cleansing (not that it's much better) as opposed to outright genocide, given that it's goal was forced migration rather than the outright extermination of the indigenous people of the region, and that wasn't terribly uncommon in the early modern period, though it admittedly became less frequent in European wars towards the tail end of the era.
Genocide in the modern sense only really began happening in the 20th century, presumably because, prior to industrialization, it simply wasn't feasible to systematically eradicate large populations.
Genocide specifically requires the attempted extermination of populations; forced migration and assimilation policies thus don't count, as vile as the former in particular is.
edited 23rd Apr '16 1:42:29 PM by CaptainCapsase
My favorite piece of Michelle Bachman lunacy? She pledged that, if she became President, she would make Iraq reimburse the U.S. for all the money it spent fighting the Iraq War, since the war was fought for their liberation, afterall, so they should be the ones paying for it.
Even Trump's make-Mexico-build-a-border-wall plan isn't quite as insane as that.
![]()
Wait, there are places in the US where felons can't vote? What the hell, America.
... That's crazy. *shakes head* In a democracy, being a felon doesn't make you right-less. I mean, even in here felons can vote.
On empty crossroads, seek the eclipse -- for when Sol and Lua align, the lost shall find their way home.Because voting is an intrinsic right of any American citizen and nothing can strip them of that.
Also that, most of them got busted for small amount of weed or are victims of the three strikes laws. Laws deliberately made to target the poor and minorities.
edited 23rd Apr '16 3:09:58 PM by LeGarcon
Oh really when?![]()
Well, in the United States in particular, a huge number of felons are completely non-violent offenders who were arrested for being caught with drugs, even something relatively harmless like marijuana.
Allowing any citizen, regardless of their legal status to vote also acts as a precaution against using the criminal justice system to suppress certain groups of voters by attaching felony charges to crimes a particular demographic is more likely to be convicted of.
One of the major consequences of the war on crime/drugs for example, was the disenfranchisement of a huge portion of the African American population. That this demographic typically votes democrat and the war on crime was started under a Republican administration is no coincidence.
edited 23rd Apr '16 3:13:04 PM by CaptainCapsase
Just asking, they can't vote while serving their sentence or they can't vote even after serving the sentence? There is a big difference there.
Well then, there shouldn't be any good reason to keep people from voting after they served their sentence.
edited 23rd Apr '16 3:15:34 PM by AngelusNox
Inter arma enim silent leges![]()
![]()
Right now the GOP is on the path to an epic implosion once millennials become the majority of the voting population; in the American sense of the term (support for regressive social policies, hegemonic imperialist foreign policies, and neoliberal economic policies), people most certainly do not become more conservative as they age; at most they become more comfortable with the status quo, but that's usually after a generation has accomplished a decent amount of change.
Both, and the former even applies to people convicted of non-felony crimes.
edited 23rd Apr '16 3:17:46 PM by CaptainCapsase

That's a very loose usage of "lunatic", I think...
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman