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
She said that in the context of someone asking about women (specifically millenials) voting for Sanders over Clinton; if Sanders was tacitly encouraging violence among his supporters, that absolutely was a implicit statement condemning women for not voting for Clinton.
edited 17th Jun '16 9:14:25 AM by CaptainCapsase
Excuse me? Am I reading that right? We're supporting calling women whores because of trade deals they support? Last I checked that's the kind of thing that normally gets the rest of us banned for bad behaviour.
edited 17th Jun '16 9:14:42 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar
The Handle: Specifically I am thinking of this gem
, where Sweden sent itself into deflation because of ordoliberal fears of runaway inflation.
@Capsase:
edited 17th Jun '16 9:18:01 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Ambar: If Hillary's support for TTIP in the past is the only thing you have, then one could get that impression. It's a completely wrong one, though, because it's ignoring all the rest.
Also, Lightysnake, I am not disagreeing with the claim that some of Sanders' comments appear sexist when taken as a whole.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanI'm not sure Federal Law is what enshrines FPTP either, except maybe in the case of Senators because of the 17th amendment. States are free to run proportional representation for their congressional delegation, i think (although the Voting Rights Act mandate on minority districts could make that illegal in some states) and electors for President are free to do whatever they damn well please. What we have is an emergent norm and not a legal standard.
Well, the centre-right Alliance for Sweden coalition (comprising the Moderate Party, Liberal People's Party, Centre Party and Christian Democrats was controlling the country at the time. That's the least of the bullshit they pulled in their attempts to dismantle the Swedish welfare state. Again, regression.
Thankfully, the voters put their foot down
and things are back on track. Mostly.
@snake: "corporate whore" is a phrase that was in widespread use well before this particular election, and has been applied to men far more often than women simply as a matter of there being more men than women in politics. It's etymology has clear sexist connotations, but nobody would've batted an eye at it being said of a male opponent, in the same way every single word out of the mouth of a Clinton surrogate in 2008 would not have been dissected for any possible way to label it as racist if she had been up against a white opponent.
@fighteer: that a parlimentary democracy is capable of collapsing does not mean it is inherently worse than presidential democracy; you can find countless examples of presidential democracies collapsing in Latin America, to the point where the US and Chile are the only presidential democracies which have been stable for more than 100 years. (No presidential democracy has been stable for 150 years.)
edited 17th Jun '16 9:22:57 AM by CaptainCapsase
x3,
x4: Mandated by federal law - 2 U.S. Code § 2c - Number of Congressional Districts; number of Representatives from each District
, in effect starting with the 91st Congress (1969).
edited 17th Jun '16 9:21:25 AM by megarockman
The damned queen and the relentless knight.Fundamentally, coalition governments suffer from the same problem as [inherent] two-party systems: in order for them to function, you must find a broad-tent group of people who may not all share similar political beliefs, but who ally for the purpose of securing control of government. Such coalitions shut out alternative voices by their very nature.
In the United States, we've formalized this by having two defined parties to handle the left and right tents. in Europe, it turns into a scuffle, with votes of no-confidence, and shaky alliances that can turn at the drop of a hat. It's hard to definitively call either system better, but I would note that European pluralism allows their fascists and so on an actual voice in government, instead of being effectively silenced. I'm not comfortable with that.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Where in the Constitution is it? I can't think of anywhere myself but I could be wrong.
As for the latest round of mindless Sanders bashing, I think I'll pass, it's all gotten pretty tiring.
You can have a two and a half party system without coalition governments, also without two formal tents the window can shift more easily, the moderate Republicans could have broken from the tea party years ago via just forming a coalition with the moderate Dems.
edited 17th Jun '16 9:24:33 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.” ~ Cyran![]()
![]()
Yes, and after the fact, the campaign did indeed rightfully apologize for the use of the term, even if the person who said it tried to deny he did so before being told to shut up.
![]()
The shaky nature of coalition governments allow for a greater degree of dissent compared to the two party system of America; libertarian-right wing parties might cross coalition lines to vote in favor of social reform for example, when remaining steadfast on right wing economics.
edited 17th Jun '16 9:25:41 AM by CaptainCapsase
![]()
The Constitution says nothing at all about a two-party system, but it does state that whoever achieves the majority of electoral votes becomes President, and so on. This means that, mathematically speaking, only two parties can ever effectively compete for the Presidency, because any marginalized third-party will merge with its closest competitor in order to have any chance at all of winning government.
Example: If Republicans have 40%, Democrats have 30%, and Greens have 20%, Republicans win control. The Greens have sabotaged any chance at rule by splitting the left-wing vote.
In a proportional system, such a vote would split the allocation of representatives according to the proportion each party won, and thus Greens and Democrats could form a coalition. But we don't do it that way in the U.S.; it's winner-take-all.
edited 17th Jun '16 9:28:54 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"All kind of governments who aren't a minority dictatorship require a "big tent" alliance if they are a democracy. You need a majority in every case.
Also, the fascists are not "silenced" in a two party system. They are just absorbed into one of the parties or actively take it over as Trump is doing now.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman![]()
Nope, I'm not talking about a proportional system at all.
Fighteer is right that only two parties can compete for any individual first past the post seat, however what I want to know is why it's always the same two parties.
Look at the UK, Canada, Australia and India, all FPTP countries with variety in their parties, at least some level of variety.
It must always be a two horse race under FPTP, but it doesn't have to be the same tow horses in every race.
edited 17th Jun '16 9:32:50 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.” ~ Cyran![]()
Probably because of the overwhelming weight of tradition. Third parties have won seats in state elections and even in Congress from time to time (Sanders himself is one such), but it's very rare, and it's because the parties are set up to have national influence and reach. Your local "Constitution Party" or whatever cannot hope to match the resources of the Democrats and Republicans on a national scale, and even on a local level, their voice would be drowned out by the national news. When all you hear on TV is "D" and "R", it's really hard to maintain support for a third party.
It could change, but only if one of the two parties suffers such a schism that it catastrophically loses a national election. For obvious reasons, I'd much rather that happen to Republicans than to Democrats.
"I'm going to take down that windmill no matter how many times I have to try!"
edited 17th Jun '16 9:36:46 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
![]()
Problem is that is the overwhelming attitude with this country. You want 3 parties? invent a brainwashing device.
edited 17th Jun '16 9:37:06 AM by flameboy21th
Non Indicative Username
Attitudes can and do change however. Twenty years ago, people would've laughed at the idea of one of the major parties' primaries being between a woman and a Jew, or a woman and a black man with the middle name Hussein, and would've been even more incredulous if you told them that black man would go on to win the presidency. Or at best said it was wishful thinking that could never come to pass in reality.
edited 17th Jun '16 9:39:06 AM by CaptainCapsase

Albright did not say "women who don't vote Clinton are going to burn in eternal hellfire", she trotted out an old saying of "there's a special place in hell for women who don't support one another." It's stupid, but Albright has said that for years because she grew up in a time when a woman wanting to be President was greeted with "How cute, now back in the kitchen, sweetheart."
If you're going to compare how bad these are, it's not going to work. One is a stupid turn of phrase, the other is a targeted insult.
edited 17th Jun '16 9:13:55 AM by Lightysnake