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
Yeah, I'm not saying Sanders was above using that method himself, just that in that scenario, his hands were tied. That more or less applies to Clinton as well, as the first lady, she couldn't not endorse a bill her husband was signing off on, but she didn't have to be as enthusiastic about it as she was.
Again, she's admitted to that being a mistake so it's not like she's doubling down on a previous statement, Capsase. She's agreeing with you. You should probably let that go. The horse is dying.
As for bundling: That's actually part of how we get a lot of really bad stuff passed. It gets put in with stuff that's unrelated. We don't have line voting in Congress, which would let them vote on individual things within a bill, and unless they decide to change that they need to make it so that you can't bundle together unrelated things. One of those two things.
edited 19th May '16 6:29:23 AM by AceofSpades
I really hate the "they made a mistake once, burn them!" attitude in politics. That's how you get people doubling down on stupid shit, because admitting that you were wrong is worse for your political image than continuing a stupid policy.
People make mistakes. I'd rather have someone admit it and move past it than not. Supporting the Iraq war was a mistake and I'd be suspicious of anyone who doesn't admit that now — but that's with the benefit of hindsight, and at the time things were much less clear, to put it mildly.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.![]()
I'd say I'm willing to forgive a fair bit, but as I said a few pages back, even without hindsight, the Iraq war was clearly illegal. If congress had refused to give Bush authorization to declare the war until the UN signed off on it, and it still had the same end result, I'd be willing to forgive the congresspeople who voted in favor of it under those circumstances.
There are lots of people who don't trust the UN in such matters, and sometimes with good reasons. The main problem with the Iraq war was that it was based on fabricated reasons and the after-invasion management was poor.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanIt's patently clear TO YOU, and not actually to a lot of other people. And the president can't declare war, that's solely a power of Congress. The president can make the announcement, I think.
Anyway, part of the issue is that the UN, as great as it is as a platform for countries to meet and discuss things, it doesn't actually have the kind of authorities that countries respect. We can argue the legality of anything, but the UN isn't actually a world power with the ability to enforce laws on sovereign countries. The member states can't even seem to decide what organization within the UN has the power to enforce or declare a war illegal.
Part of being a power is that people listen to you before doing a thing; the UN frequently gets ignored and doesn't have any official authority. And a lot of the member states would freak out if it did.
That has largely been accepted as fact in the US, though there's a lot of people who still believe there were WM Ds over there.
edited 19th May '16 7:18:21 AM by AceofSpades
It is reasonable to demand that the perpetrators of the Iraq war — the ones who lied to the public in order to get it approved — should be prosecuted. But let's not go so far as to attack every member of Congress who voted in good faith, assuming that the Bush administration's information was true.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Assuming that they voted in good faith is an excessive usage of Hanlon's Razor, I feel.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.I'm starting to get worried about Sanders supporters giving the nomination to Trump by writing Bernie in. A fair amount of my friends support him and they point blank refuse to support Hillary. I figured this would fade over time but it doesn't seem to be doing so. I also thought it would get better when Sanders endorsed Hillary after losing but he's being such a sore loser I don't know if he will.
edited 19th May '16 7:30:07 AM by Kostya
![]()
![]()
Some did and some did not. However, we have this rule of jurisprudence called "innocent until proven guilty". It is fair to call Clinton's judgment into question regarding the Iraq war vote. It is disingenuous to ignore that she later changed her mind. It is absurd to insist that she be prosecuted in the absence of any evidence that she was colluding to send America to war on false pretenses.
edited 19th May '16 7:40:59 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Are we assuming that Bernie will run as an independent if he doesn't get the Democratic nomination? I'm kind of lost here.
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotOf course. Because Title IX is being used to deny states educational funding when they don't comply with federal gender equality rules. I'd like to say that's going to go nowhere, but we have a divided SCOTUS. -_-
edited 19th May '16 8:30:39 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Sanders will endorse Clinton come the convention/after it, if he doesn't then you can worry, but until then it's a hypothetical with no real evidence to support it. In the end he's already made it clear that he'd rather Clinton then any Republican.
edited 19th May '16 8:57:19 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranFound this on my Facebook feed.
With the tone of outrage you can hear throughout, it sounds significant.
"A place where legislators and corporate lobbyists have an equal vote"? So a place where people who have the money make the laws?
And that law that "prevents many asbestos victims from suing corporations"? Seriously?
You gotta believe me when I scare you away, all that I wish for is that you would stayAnd in other WTF news, Louisiana state Representative Kenneth Havard (R-Jackson) proposed and then pulled a bill which would've required strippers to be within the ages of 21 and 28 and weigh no more than 160 lbs.
edited 19th May '16 9:04:33 AM by tclittle
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."

That bundling method was Sanders' way of getting stuff passed, but damn if it isn't fucked up in general principle.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.