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
Personally, I despise ideology. I'm in favour of moral pragmatism and "whatever gets the job done", with "For Happiness" being the one guiding meta-principle. I don't believe in clans, groups, bands, or identities. It automatically leads to idiocy, which leads to avoidable mistakes, which lead to suffering, which lead to hatred, which leads to more idiocy.
edited 13th May '16 12:39:56 PM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Ideology is simply what we believe and live by. For Happiness is an ideology. The Needs of the Many is an ideology. The Evils of Free Will is an ideology. Comes Great Responsibility is an ideology.
edited 13th May '16 12:55:28 PM by flameboy21th
Non Indicative Username@Zephyr: I'm not saying the parties being close to each other ideologically is a good thing, and I would definitely not say I'm idealizing history; what I'm saying is they our politician system is incapable of functioning under conditions where the parties diverge from one another ideologically, as is happening now. Hence why I'm arguing that our political system is in need of major reform; it can never get anything done except when the political elite are more or less all of one mind on most issues, or a crisis results in a major restructuring of the political elite.
As far as the second point goes, believe it or not, I'm mixed race, not white (and visibly so, at least to the point where I very frequently get asked about my ethnic background). My grandparents were an interracial couple in a time where that was flat out illegal in a number of states, and can recount a fair number of stories related to that are frankly quite sickening. If I sound detached it's because I'm in a field where you are encouraged to write in a detached and clinical manner at all times (medical research). Possibly also because I have Asperger's Sydrome.
edited 13th May '16 1:20:10 PM by CaptainCapsase
In other words, that's a feature, not a bug.
Not at any point in the next few decades, but i was using it as an example as the kind of crisis that the US political system requires for significant change to happen.
Whether you agree with me on the comparative stability of parliamentary versus presidential democracies, the anti-deadlock fail safes present in the former system is something the United States could sorely use, since there is basically no way out of our current gridlock barring a mass political movement that results in the obstructionists being removed from power, hence why I favored Sanders.
edited 13th May '16 1:36:03 PM by CaptainCapsase
Don't worry. When civil war breaks out, I will win it.
Or the ducks. Or Iron Man.
edited 13th May '16 1:31:58 PM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34A civil war no, but an armed insurgency in some parts of the country? That's only not going to happen because a lot of people are walking on eggshells to avoid it happening.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranBad news for people lamenting that Clinton is going to sell out to centrism: her progressive agenda seems to be coming along nicely
.
Most of the people who ramble about armed rebellion against the government tend to be Boisterous Weakling types. They talk big, but never deliver, because the deprivations of rebellion are intolerable, except to the extreme desperate.
"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."You know, I've been musing for a while how Hillary would perform in a direct confrontation with Trump.
See, my impression is that Trump is very effective at character assassinating men (see "Lyin' Ted", "Cruz hates New York", "Little Marco", "Bush is running a low-energy campaign" et cetera) but stumbles with women (that debate debacle with Fiorina, the confrontation with Megyn Kelly, the confrontation about Heidi Cruz, the current spat with Liz Warren). Seems like a good omen really.
Finally, I wonder if Hillary isn't becoming more centerist because with Trump at the helm the opposition has no leg to stand on and too much to infight about in terms of "too extreme policies".
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanYeah, there does tend to be a lot of, "It's time for Revolution! Tear down the government! Burn Washington! You guys go ahead, I'll be there in a bit," that goes around.
But there's also certain groups that, while not large enough to be classified as civil war, are sitting with fingers on the trigger waiting for an excuse to launch an insurgency that will inevitably be crushed by overwhelming national force but might claim a lot of innocent lives before it's done.
edited 13th May '16 1:56:14 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Yeah look I go on about the hellhole I live in but really if they were to properly act up I'd give them a week before the 101st kicks them all to the curb.
But I'd really like to avoid a week of hiding from snipers and dodging IEDs on my way to go buy/steal food.
edited 13th May '16 1:58:31 PM by LeGarcon
Oh really when?The guy hasn't accomplished everything he wanted, or nearly as much as he could have with a Congress that was willing to compromise (much less one that was actually supportive), but to portray the political situation as complete gridlock where nothing was accomplished and progress is impossible is clearly wrong.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.That's been my impression as well. His shock tactics and personal attacks have been immensely effective against men like Cruz and Rubio because they're accustomed to a certain level of professionalism. When they compare tax plans, they expect an opponent to talk about their tax plan, not to literally start comparing dick sizes.
But women in Washington have a lot of experience with childish antics and ad hominem attacks. They hear something to the tune of, "A vote for her is a vote that should be making me a sandwich!" on a daily basis. It doesn't shock them, it doesn't throw them off their game, because if it did, they wouldn't have made it this far in the first place. Cruz may be flabbergasted by Trump's tactics but Hillary's been playing that game for twenty years, and that's a good sign.
edited 13th May '16 2:12:27 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.![]()
The problem has gotten exponentially worse over the course of his terms; where were at now is what I'd describe as near total gridlock. Gay marriage was only possible because of the Supreme Court, anything that involves congress is more or less off limits, and I don't see that changing without a paradigm shift:
edited 13th May '16 2:13:59 PM by CaptainCapsase
Blaming the Democrats for that gridlock is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? Do you really imagine it improving with a Sanders presidency?

"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."
When the two parties were close to one another ideologically, neither of them stood for anything meaningful or worthwhile. I'm sorry, but when the two parties were in close concert with each other, vital issues were often ignored simply because it would have rocked the boat, and for our country to go back to a time when privileged white folk got to have their well-oiled political machine at the expense of minorities, women, homosexuals, and all manner of vulnerable and underrepresented communities is unconscionable.
I think you're idealizing the past too much, and to be honest, though I don't know your individual circumstances, talking about political ideology with as much academic detachment as you are indicates you don't have much skin in the game.
edited 13th May '16 12:32:18 PM 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."