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
With State's rights, it depends on the specific issue. I'd argue that saying that state's rights are bad just because states use it to do things you disagree with is somewhat akin to saying "people use free speech to say things I disagree with, we should ban it" (there's a vast difference in degree, mind you, but it's essentially the same logic). Hypothetically, imagine if the shoe were on the other foot: Let's say a Republican President tried to use federal power to pass a law that made same-sex marriage illegal nation-wide. The left would be throwing its entire weight behind the idea of state's rights.
Leviticus 19:34What the US need is a sever re-compartmentalization of territories, which should be divided along cultural borders.
Furthermore, given the dramatic difference between cities and rural areas, city-states
should become a thing; call them Free Cities
for that extra punch.
![]()
![]()
That's not a perfect analogy: banning same-sex marriage would be blocked as a violation of the Constitution whether done by the states or by Congress, and if the right succeeded in passing a Constitutional amendment given how hard that is to make happen... it would mean such a total defeat for liberal thought that we'd be utterly screwed. Or on the verge of violent revolution.
edited 27th Apr '16 12:27:52 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"edited 27th Apr '16 12:34:01 PM by FieldMarshalFry
advancing the front into TV Tropes@Protagonist: Not really. The only ones trying to dismantle DOMA (which was a federal refusal to recognize same-sex marriage) on states' rights grounds were the Libertarians (who, as always, are an outlier). Liberals fought against it on a federal level, arguing that same-sex couples had an affirmative right to marry.
@Fighteer: His analogy is valid, it's just unsound. We don't demand that the West Coast and Northeast be allowed to do what they want, we fight to impose liberal values upon the parts of the country that demand to be left alone to discriminate as they please.
edited 27th Apr '16 12:44:31 PM by Ramidel
The question is what happens if the shoe is reversed: do liberals fight for "states' rights" to not discriminate when the federal government is trying to permit it? The answer is, generally, no — we either take civil rights issues to court and fight for a national ruling, or we push legislative solutions through Congress.
The solution of the left when the legislature is against us is civil disobedience leading to federal court cases.
edited 27th Apr '16 12:55:40 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Cruz to name Fiorina as VP running mate
, according to insiders anyway.
Hastert sentenced to 15 months in prison
- seems fairly short of what I would expect with that charge to me.
With the Capitalism/Socialism thing, I have to wonder if that's in regards to purely Capitalistic/Socialist? Because it seems one of the better methods is a blend of the two, as the negatives of one are offset by the positives of the other.
Socialist negative - No incentive to work hard, as you're going to be stagnant. Capitalist positive - work hard, and you see a tangible reward for said work in the form of higher income.
Capitalist negative - tramples the "underclasses" by exploiting their work, to the point of "rinse and repeat" hiring practices. Socialist positive - grants those "underclasses" the ability to bargain as a collective, thereby minimizing the risk of exploitation.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"Not really. Capitalism does not always reward hard work with money, and neither does it do so proportionately to the hardness of the work.
Over here, there is indeed little punishment if you slack off, and quite a few people are indeed slackers and work-shirkers. But hard-workers gladly pick up their slack, not because they want money, but because they like what they do and care about their jobs. It all amounts to people working as much as they want, which is, if you look at the per-capita GDP, either quite a fucking lot or extremely efficient, and they do so without fear or precarity.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Capitalism is not inherently evil. However, unfettered capitalism leads invariably to monopolistic, rent-seeking behavior, and that's where the unfairness arises. Those with money have the ability to game the system to get themselves more wealth without a corresponding benefit in terms of productivity or innovation. Those "rents" accumulate and eventually corrupt the economy to the point where it cannot function.
Even Adam Smith knew this; he called for government oversight and regulation. So did John Maynard Keynes. So did Milton Friedman.
edited 27th Apr '16 1:12:14 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"People keep bringing up the idea that we need to redraw borders. And this last article posted includes Canada in these cultural, and thus isn't useful for the purpose unless Canada decides to be the same country with us.
Just because there's certain cultural trends or influences that pass current borders doesn't mean that redrawing them would actually be useful or accomplish the stated goals for doing such a thing. It also seems kind of elitist/ a waste of time when there's other ways to do such things that don't involve going against the grain in this particular way. Frankly, all suggested new borders aren't necessarily any less "arbitrary" than the borders we have. And it seems kind of wanky to go on about it. (It also seems like it'd bring up endless arguing about just how many cities should be their own state, though it seems like a solution to the whole DC situation. If everyone did it it'd bring up an unwieldy amount of states.)
XD Yeah, I think Canada would have a few objections to us redrawing their borders.
It's not like we can just call them on the phone and be like, "Yo, Canada, our guns would like a word with you. We want Alberta. You can have Idaho."
edited 27th Apr '16 1:19:47 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.I think that having more states is something of a Red Herring, as is the idea to create jurisdictional units (call them states, counties, whatever) along strictly cultural lines. Having everyone get to be in the same district with their ideological pals is a recipe for further dividing and polarizing the country.
Our goal should not be to let everyone rot in enclaves of intellectual isolation; we should be seeking to homogenize the nation, not split it.
Jurisdictional units should be functional, with defined and measurable parameters: X number of people, Y amount of wealth, Z square miles, whatever, and should exist so that general laws can be administered efficiently at the local level, not to let each community decide whether it should let gays marry or tax churches or whatever.
edited 27th Apr '16 1:22:13 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"To be fair, the article itself wasn't suggesting that, it was just about the cultural and historical trends. But this isn't the first time Handle or someone else has brought up redrawing our borders as a necessity and quite frankly I think that's pretty damn low on our list of priorities. And even if someone in a position of authority brought it up it'd be pretty damn difficult to get the sort of momentum something like that would need. I don't think redrawing borders is high on many people's list when asked what worries them about representation today.
Getting gerrymandering out of politics seems like the necessary first step there. Before we take any action as severe as modifying the states, we should first start listening to the voices of the entire state and not just the parts of it we want to hear.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.

The United States is the size of a whole continent has the third largest population in Earth, a republic wouldn't really fit a country of that size.
Inter arma enim silent leges