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 didn't say it was the worst idea ever. It isn't likely to work well because those same ADD-prone idiots would fight over it. And how good it is really depends on who writes it. It's likely to be written by the same exact quality of person we have in office now. Which will only go to protect the status quo.
![]()
![]()
It's already an aristrocracy, we call it by the term "Establishment". It's not necessarily a bad thing either, since said class tends to know how to bloody run a country, even if they are bland as hell ideologically. As long as, with effort, any citizen can join in, I don't see why thats a problem.
It is possible to make an exam by professionals. Is it easy? No. But possible.
edited 22nd Jun '16 4:13:29 PM by FFShinra
I wanted to share this. It's a post from Scott Adams and I wonder if he doesn't have a point despite some issues I have with the phrasing.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/146307088451/why-gun-control-cant-be-solved-in-the-usa
edited 22nd Jun '16 4:18:28 PM by sgamer82
@Ambar: Precisely. A single candidate, regardless of what they are saying, is normally irrelevant* given the nature of political institutions. Sanders was calling for a mass movement. It didn't happen this cycle, unfortunately, and if he'd actually won the primary in spite of such a movement failing to materialize, it would theoretically fall upon progressives to support him just enough that he got into office over Trump. In practice, Sanders is probably the furthest left an American politician will get within our lifetimes and still be able to win elections, and unfortunately there's probably many progressive who'd be uncomfortable about going much further.
*The right person at the right place at the right time can make a difference; not a huge one, but a meaningful difference.
@FF Shinra: Within about 2 months of this system being implemented, the test is reduced to a single question: Who is your daddy, and what does he do?
edited 22nd Jun '16 4:22:50 PM by CaptainCapsase
Agreed, he does have a point. Another big point against new laws is that there are already quite a few on the books that aren't enforced as it is. If they were, we'd already have a more strict set-up. And if they're not, then it's unlikely the new laws will be enforced for long either. It's all a big show for our sake. The only ones that will get enforced are the ones that benefit the government. Like the gun tax that was introduced for the express purpose of funding WW 2 that was never taken off the books, and never will be.
If new laws they make have to do with enforcing already existing laws, they'll have my respect. Chances are they're just going to sweep the old ones under the rug and make up new stuff instead.
Mighty big assumption, that. It's possible, for example, to be elected Sheriff without having any prior experience in law enforcement, or even knowledge of civil or criminal law.
edited 22nd Jun '16 4:33:25 PM by pwiegle
This Space Intentionally Left Blank.What I meant was that election-by-lottery would need an exam component; it would be both an opt-in mechanisim and at least a very base measure of competency (do you understand the Constitution? The basics of US history?) Stuff a high school graduate should (but doesn't always know). If you wanted to raise the bar, maybe some basic level of things like scientific and economic literacy.
Though, applying it to the current system...maybe it would create a layer of aristocracy, but we already *do* have (and to some degree always have had) a political aristocracy; maybe it would be better than having elected officials who are willfully ignorant of many of the things they insist on making laws about (women's biology, anyone?).
edited 22nd Jun '16 4:32:12 PM by Elle
Ire over a would-be Senator's statement that in cases of "legitimate rape" a woman's body blocks pregency
- First Google hit I found.
I'm sure I could go on.
edited 22nd Jun '16 4:37:05 PM by Elle
![]()
![]()
The system is already pretty effective at excluding people on those grounds. That doesn't stop people from campaigning on that sort of basis. Do you seriously the GOP elite believe their own lies about climate change, for example? Attempting to enforce a technocracy is an effort almost guaranteed to backfire.
edited 22nd Jun '16 4:43:17 PM by CaptainCapsase
Until someone provides a actual proper argument for why the ATF shouldn't be allowed to use computers, the CDC shouldn't be allowed to fund gun violence research or background checks shouldn't be mandatory I'm not seeing how both sides are valid.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranIndeed. False equivalencies are the poison of political compromise.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
![]()
That would require a level of insider knowledge I'm not privy to. It's possible, maybe probable, that willful distortion does happen, but I'm biased toward the liberal application of Hanlon's Razor. I tend not to bring up the accusation of conspiracy unless there's at least some concrete evidence to cast suspicion with.
But yes, I do believe a lot of our congresscritters are really that stupid.
edited 22nd Jun '16 4:51:43 PM by Elle
Someone I talked to today had a really interesting read on the current Republican party. His thought experiment was basically "how would someone perceive the Republican Party if all they could see was the policies the Republicans support or oppose."
He ended up with the idea that the Republican goal is apparently to render as many people as possible dead or injured through preventable means and then block their attempts to get healthcare. While that is a...really extreme view, they kind of are getting there.
So a few months ago, there was an approved law that raised the minimum age for the average person should be to buy an pack of cigarettes by an few years. Which in turn, sparked an debate with my mom on when Congress will pass an law that does the same on buying and drinking liquor. My answer was along the lines of,"Give it an few more DUI-induced deaths, they already wait until someone dies at an intersection before they install an traffic-controlling device". To make it so bad, we both agreed that I'm kind of right on how lethargic the legislative government can be when it comes to public safety.
So I was wondering that is it wrong to expect the government to quickly rectify an problem by eliminating the source of it by passing an new law or building safety equipment before tragedy strikes.
Answer no master, never the slave Carry your dreams down into the grave Every heart, like every soul, equal to breakRegarding warrants, I think (with misgivings) that the decision was correct, but that it shows a major problem with the exclusionary rule: Police aren't usually punished for violating your Fourth Amendment rights. What are you going to do, sue the police department for illegally stopping you? (A private lawsuit against the police requires you to be someone that they already would be real damn careful about stopping. Otherwise, you won't have the money to fight City Hall.)
In this case, going with Sotomayor's dissent would mean essentially that the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine means that the guy, having been illegally stopped and a warrant found, should be given a Mercy Lead. That doesn't make sense; the warrant was already valid. What should be done is that the cops who made the illegal stop in the first place should face a punishment, the guy who was arrested should have grounds to file a lawsuit against the government, and we need better tools to allow for the latter. (Punitive damages against the government are a bad social policy idea; punitive damages against officers of the government who violate people's rights, however...)
![]()
![]()
The drinking age was already raised from 18 to 21 almost two generations ago and the US is actually exceptional in that (most of the western world still has it at 18). Also, I think it's all state laws controlling alcohol and tobacco age limits.
The sentiment of the comment remains but it could be just that for almost everything, government tends to move at the speed of...well, government.
Care to substantiate that?
edited 22nd Jun '16 5:09:55 PM by Elle

edited 22nd Jun '16 4:09:28 PM by CaptainCapsase