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 the headline of that mentions that donations are "up 999%" but if you scroll down to the actual numbers, they must have been pretty small before because it's more like $80k from probably a few thousand people. (No exact number of people given but it mentions that half of the donations are under $50 and about 615 people have donated $27, copying from Sanders' donation campaign.)
Hardly enough for the DNC to "panic" over. Headline is clickbaity in the extreme.
edited 14th Jul '16 7:12:56 PM by Elle
I imagine some of the "small government" conservatives are migrating over there. The current GOP has abandoned all pretense of such. In a similar vein, the anti-LGBT language in the platform proposal is apparently being fought over with Republicans from bluer states contesting it; such people might be attracted to the socially liberal side of the Libertarians.
As I said, the Libertarian party will probably increase in strength due to Cool People Rebel Against Authority and the right in particular filling with anti-establishment sentiment. The Republican party has attempted to cater to these people at its own expense-not a wise move IMO. I was never especially concerned with a "small government" per say. I agree with free-market capitalism, but I'm still anti-abortion and anti-drug legalization, and fine with military interventionism and the existence of SWAT teams.
edited 14th Jul '16 7:45:16 PM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34@ Antiteilchen
Here's the thing—I don't like strategic bombing. I just don't know that any other options were better. If the USA (or NATO) had invaded Serbia itself you'd likely have seen even more civilian casualties, and a potential hardening of support for Milosevic. If you bomb Serb forces in Kosovo, you run the risk of killing the very people you hope to defend (this is why neither the American nor British air forces bombed concentration camps during WWII; the Soviets did on occasion, but what do you expect?). If there's an option that would have gotten Milosevic to stand down, while killing fewer Serb civilians, I'm all ears. As is though, with no other options readily available, I'm glad they did what they did.
Oh and for those of you (I believe both you and Handle wanted some) who wanted statistics? Here they are. NATO's bombing campaign of Yugoslavia killed between 489 and 528 civilians depending on who does the counting, in addition to wrecking bridges, industrial plants, public buildings, private businesses, as well as barracks and military installations. The Serbians, meanwhile, had already executed more than 3000 Kosovar Albanians and buried them in mass graves, in addition to other crimes. A UN report found the Serbs were responsible for "a systematic campaign of terror, including murders, rapes, arsons and severe maltreatments".
I'll note, by the way, that for a strategic bombing campaign, 500 odd dead is tiny, even minuscule, and that's without getting into the fact that it both got the Serbs out of Kosovo, and helped see Milosevic brought down shortly afterwards. Contrast the WWII firebombing of Dresden in which 22,700 to 25,000 civilians were killed for little cause beyond being German. NATO pulled their punches with the Serbs.
RE: Green Party
Having your funding go up by 1000% is one of those things that sounds impressive, but only means anything if you were raising more than $5 to start with. Also, Jill Stein seems genuinely crazy. I wasn't a Sanders fan at all, but the man never struck me as crazy. Dishonest at times, and too willing to repeat some of the worst of the right-wing Clinton stuff, but never crazy. Stein...she comes off as pretty out there.
edited 14th Jul '16 7:56:46 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
I have a blanket opinion of "stay the feck out of people's private lives" and let honest business do business (though I'm souring on complete laizez-faire and do believe strong accountability, consumer protection and contract laws are needed). I'm also a fan of things like libraries, public transit, art and science grants, roads and functioning police/fire departments however and there seems to be a very strong No True Scotsman vibe in the Libertarian party as it exists.
I'm for abortion on principle but would probably have a crisis of conscience if I was in the position of having to make that choice myself. I'm for marijuana legalization and at least the decriminalization for simple possession of others, though maybe not of their sale. I'd rather not have extra-territorial military intervention but if it must be done I'd rather it be done for truly just causes and with minimal dithering. I don't believe health care is a universal right but I'm willing to admit it has advantages...though I wouldn't go so far to believe our government would be competent at it.
edited 14th Jul '16 8:09:51 PM by Elle
Being an independent who values civil liberties the most and leans liberal on a lot of issues, while I'm not a fan of the absolute laissez faire side of things, I nevertheless like or tolerate enough of the Libertarian Party's platform that I would not mind them superceding the Republicans as the new party to oppose the Democrats. At least that way future elections have a semblance of what feels like an actual contest of policy rather than than choosing the lesser of two evils in order to stave off a group who wants to drive my country into complete totalitarianism and won't stop until people like me are dead or in chains.
edited 14th Jul '16 8:31:19 PM by AlleyOop
The libertarian platform would be no less disastrous than the republicans; in their America, people like you (us?) would be in chains alongside white Americans black Americans, straight Americans, and gay Americans in the service of private tyranny. It's no less despotic than the GOP's vision of America, but less racist and even more classist.
The GOP as it stands is doing their hardest to tear them down. Having civil liberties be a mater of general acceptance rather than a partisan issue would be highly preferable in my book, because they shouldn't be a partisan issue. That's the whole point of universal rights.
(Yes that implies that I don't believe that economic security is a right but like above, I'm willing to admit safety nets have their advantages.)
edited 14th Jul '16 9:12:18 PM by Elle
You know... If people are dismissing Sanders supporters, the Green Party, and the Libertarians, then who should be the Democrats' opposition if the Republicans do end up collapsing as a political party?
Wizard Needs Food Badly

I think I'm out of this thread for good. I'll return when I ever have the urge to read war crime apologia again.