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
![]()
I think a lot of people would disagree with that last statement.
Ideally economic and social issues should be addressed simultaneously, however it's often been the case that social issues have blocked broader economic issues from being meaningfully addressed, racism being probably single greatest precipitator of this.
Major criminal justice reform is the most obvious first step. Things like decriminalizing certain drug offenses, greater police oversight, etc.
I'm not sure you can call that exclusively a race issue; police officers shoot a ton of unarmed people of all races in America, and the prison population is absolutely massive regardless of the demographic you are looking at. blacks are harmed by this system disproportionately to their share of the population, but it's not what I'd call an exclusively racial issue.
Perhaps this makes this whole discussion a matter of semantics though; in addition to that I would argue for redistribution policies targeted at improving the economic mobility of the poorest Americans, which is another area where blacks are affected at rates far exceeding their proportion of the population.
edited 13th May '16 10:14:23 AM by CaptainCapsase
![]()
![]()
![]()
While it may technically effect everyone the ones most disproportionately effected are minorities.
Many sorts of "tough on crime" measures are passed on the grounds of "dog whistles" and other forms of subtle and implicit racism. Let's not forget who the common image of the "low-life scum", and "super-predators" are.
![]()
![]()
In some cases I imagine that that would make the problem worse, particularly in some of the Deep South. It's also something that would be politically very difficult to accomplish.
I would actually prefer greater federal involvement in these sorts of things, but that is likely even more politically untenable.
You can probably role all that up into White Upper class privilege if you wish.
edited 13th May '16 10:25:52 AM by Mio
Which is precisely what I said; "pure" race issues* no longer exist in the realm of law, and outside of attempts at positive discrimination or targeted resistribution of wealth, legislature that improves the lives of minorities will tend to also improve the lives of non-minorities in similar economic circumstances.
* Such as slavery, segregation, and legislature that specifically discriminated against blacks.
Hence my speculation that this discussion is mostly a matter of semantics.
edited 13th May '16 10:44:47 AM by CaptainCapsase
On Republicans not having a safe nominee, actually they did from what the Republican members of my family have said. They were happy if either Trump or Cruz won and only worried that Marco Rubio might win. It was safe in so far as they didn't care if Cruz won over Trump or if Trump won over Cruz.
Also as a Bernie supporter, I do think the superdelegate system is inherently undemocratic. That being said, Hillary will win her nomination fair and square since her pledged delegates outnumber Sanders'.
Wizard Needs Food Badly![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
They may not technically be pure race issues, but they are treated as such given who is effected most by those issues, who advocates against those issues, who pushes back on those issues, and just generally how they are framed. And of course this all goes beyond just specifically racism against Blacks.
Well who else was going to benefit the most from not having to take orders from Parliament?
Though admittedly I'm not sure if those were the best words to use.
I thought it was more slave traders then owners? Then again I guess that is largely semantic.
edited 13th May '16 11:24:21 AM by Mio
The only thing that would force you to go third party is if you refuse to compromise with the other factions in your party of choice.
I don't think these states are typically considered the "deep south", Texas and Florida not because they have significant regions that cannot be considered to be "deep south-ish".
eta: Misremembered what happened to Tennessee.
edited 13th May '16 11:33:32 AM by SeptimusHeap
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanBy that same token, however, significant regions are Deep South-ish, and that's close enough. If we're talking about it as a political and cultural area, we would be remiss not to include them.
GM: AGOG S4 & F/WC RP; Co-GM: TABA, SOTR, UUA RP; Sub-GM: TTS RP. I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new Empire.The top 10 Senate races of 2016 — now featuring more Trump
.
Yeah, and between the two, the Glory Hound is actually the better one. I can believe both Trump and Cruz starting a massive campaign against the illegal immigrants that violates multiple human rights laws, but once his approval ratings drop, Trump would back out. He's not even in this for power, necessarily; he's in this for the ego.
At heart, Trump's like a big kid with way too much power, wealth, and influence. He says dumb shit because he thinks it's funny. He does things that get him attention because all of his peers were doing it. He's like the GOP's little brother who tags along and, while in public, starts regurgitating all the racist, sexist diatribes the GOP privately told him because he wants approval but doesn't know you're not supposed to come right out and SAY those things. At the core of his campaign is a man who doesn't have much of an agenda of his own; he really just wants to be liked.
Cruz would see his low approval rating as the influence of the wicked and respond by throwing some more witches on the fire.
More or less, yeah. The American Revolution was about a bunch of white people calling shenanigans on the British's attempt to get us to reimburse them for bailing us out of a costly war. We called Daddy to drive us home and then when he told us we needed to pay him for the gas, we turned up our nose and went, "Well, if that's how it's going to be, I'm moving out! See you in Hell, Pops!"
edited 13th May '16 11:50:33 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.People complaining about oligarchy in America, as if it's some new aberration, have been drinking too much of the American exceptionalism kool-aid. From slavery, a property-based franchise, male-only voting until the 20th Century, the electoral college, appointed senators until 1913-ish, and now, crony capitalism, America has always been an oligarchy.
edited 13th May '16 11:56:12 AM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."@Jovian, I'm not sure if you noticed, but I qualified my statement with "when it's functioning properly"; and indeed in periods were the government wasn't horrendously gridlocked/facing a political crisis, the two parties have been very close to one another ideologically; the high degree of polarization is a sign and arguably a cause for our system failing to work properly.
Fallacy; just because America's system has always been oligarchic, doesn't mean it's a good thing.
edited 13th May '16 12:11:14 PM by CaptainCapsase
And, at all times, crony capitalism.
Likewsie, this Guardian article
starts by putting the limelight on the overlap, then establishes how small that overlap is:
A similar proportion of Sanders folk – 8% – gave Trump a positive likeability rating, compared with 48% for Clinton. That figure is unlikely to be causing Clinton campaign aides much loss of sleep.
So, please, Fighteer and al, for the love of honesty, do stop bringing that seven-percent minority up. That's about one in thirteen people. It's pretty insignificant. Likewise, stop complaining about Sanders supporters not going on to vote for Hillary: consider that those probably wouldn't have voted for her in the first place, and that Sanders has gotten people hyped and participative of the election in general, possibly increasing the total number of voters Clinton can count on. I don't know, I'll have to check the math, but it's hardly a ludicrous claim.
edited 13th May '16 12:16:59 PM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.![]()
The times when our system has broken down most dramatically are the ones when the oligarchy has tripped over its own dick badly enough for the people at large to notice. That and the occasional periods of social reform, when a bunch of complacently racist white dudes get up in arms about losing their privilege to oppress minorities.
These are, more or less, constants throughout all of modern history, not just in the U.S. alone.
edited 13th May '16 12:15:37 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
