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
So for those not in the know:
Alabama's Speaker of the House has been convicted.
Alabama's Chief Justice of the Supreme court Roy Moore has been suspended
.
Articles of impeachment against Governor Robert Bentley, who has been embroiled in a phone-sex scandal since March, are likely starting soon.
Any group who acts like morons ironically will eventually find itself swamped by morons who think themselves to be in good company.
The Kanas legislature is currently in a special session trying to figure how to fund their schools.
They need to raise 38 million dollars, and Brownback is suggesting cuts to other programs to get the money.
He just won't quit.
edited 11th Jun '16 7:58:30 PM by Demonic_Braeburn
Any group who acts like morons ironically will eventually find itself swamped by morons who think themselves to be in good company.Yeah, sure, when people point out an issue in politics that literally affects human lives, it's whining? I really can't believe that people become so hostile if you point out that this amount of lobby money in politics is a huge problem. Let me explain my point of view once more: imagine that you're a super-progressive politician who gets elected on the basis of fossil fuel lobby money (and, for simplicity's sake, let's assume that it is the only important source of money in politics). You have a highly ambitious plan, that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly, but will hurt the oil and gas industry (as it should). And, before someone points it out, let's assume that you have a friendly Congress and Senate. What are you going to do? If you carry the plan through, your fossil fuel donors will simply start backing the Republican guy, they will win the next election, you'll be out of office, and they will reverse any progress you've made.
This is simply how the system works. Of course there is no evidence of you being influenced by lobby money in this case, how would you ever prove it? This doesn't mean that this influence is non-existent - saying that there needs to be evidence is absurd, normally the simple existence of this money is enough proof. You are quick to admit that this is the case with Republicans, so why do you think Democrats are so above it? If donating to Democrats would have no effect, why would these guys still be donating to them, instead of, you know, throwing their full support behind the Republicans? Sure, Democrats enact some progressive changes, but these are simply breadcrumbs. Fighting income inequality requires hard measures against Wall Street, fighting climate change requires hard measures against the fossil fuel industry, ever going to a system of nationalized healthcare requires hard measures against health insurance companies, and so on. And this will simply not happen as long as these amounts of money stay in politics.
These are enormous contributions, so why should they be discounted? Whether Clinton hates Citizens United as much as I do is irrelevant. The point is that she takes the money. And again, you are assuming that I want to vilify Clinton and consider Sanders to be a saint. I'm not blaming her (plenty progressives also think that they have to 'play the game' to avoid the Republicans reverting their changes). Also, you didn't mention that this 'PAC' of Sanders is a Union of Nurses, so this is entirely unrelated to the problem.
edited 12th Jun '16 6:11:09 AM by Perian
It's how they do it in Sweden, though...
So, wait, libertaians are against intervention in private life by the Federal State, but are okay with the Member States doing it? Shouldn't their individualism go all the way down?
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.![]()
![]()
Why would this favour incumbents? I would say the opposite is the case: small parties like the Greens and the Libertarians could finally compete with the giants, since the differences in campaign money would be much more proportional. In our country we have complete federal funding and we've had prime ministers from four different parties the last decade (of course, no first-past-the-post system), so I hardly see why this is the case.
However, I don't know if this will work in such a large country, and I don't think many Americans would like the idea, seeing that it would involve raising taxes. Also, I don't think all private donations are bad: if an environmental organization would like to donate to the Greens, I don't see much of a problem, since it won't influence their platform anyway. Which is why a hard cap on the amount of money that can be given as campaign donations might be a better idea. But I don't know enough about the matter to have a clear picture which effects that would have.
edited 12th Jun '16 2:57:56 AM by Perian
[1]
News reports a terrorist attack on a gay club in Florida. Currently 20+ dead including the attacker, with reports of bombs also possibly being involved.
edited 12th Jun '16 4:34:24 AM by carbon-mantis
That's goddamn awful.
And they said it may be a terrorist attack. It has to be international related to count as that. It may be domestic(as in in-country). It's not like terrorism is really the term we need to use when it's bigotry that's the problem anyway.
Regardless, that's awful too. :c
Shadow?Nope, terrorism is about the desire to cause terror, otherwise the IRA wouldn't be terrorists, ISIS attacks in Iraq and Syria wouldn't be terrorism and more.
Now it's often split between domestic terrorism and international terrorism, but they're both terrorism.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

I kind of respect them, buuut I their strong anti-state rhetoric reminds me of a typical Right-Wing Militia Fanatic (for example, many of them support the confederate side of the civil war since they were the "rebels") and they also tend to come across as a bit hipsterish and egotistical (they constantly refer to themselves as spiritual successors to Washington, for example, and constantly talk about how "left wing and right wing are part of the same bird"). And, a few things they reject are things are areas I almost find the GOP to be too moderate on already (namely, abortion and drugs).
edited 11th Jun '16 5:48:12 PM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34