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
x5 "We need to build a wall. No, I mean another wall. One around the, yeah, around the entire United States, so that when any one of those Muslims even thinks of coming here, they'll see this gigantic roadblock around the entire United States and they will know, yes, they will know that we are not to be fucked with. By the way, did I ever mention Sudam Hussein? Because Hussein was a great guy, let me tell you..."
edited 18th Jul '16 8:07:09 AM by kkhohoho
Aside from the fact that the libertarian vision for ending the war on drugs goes too far in the other direction. Decriminalization should happen across the board (for possession of quantities too small to sell), legalization for Marijuana, but tools need to be made available for people who are confronted by these drugs, perhaps mandatory counseling for people caught with small quantities of the harder drugs because this stuff is indeed very dangerous.
Libertarian ideology requires a level playing field as a starting point (so they can say without [naked] hypocrisy that any misfortune is the fault of individual bad choices and not a rigged system), but largely ignores the problem of achieving that state in the first place, which requires the kind of massive intervention that gets their willies all wilty.
Of course, some Libertarians don't even pretend to be egalitarian and instead want freedom to be the biggest dicks they can possibly be. It doesn't occur to them that in a might-makes-right world there's always someone bigger and more ruthless around the corner, and if not that, someone more willing to cheat.
edited 18th Jul '16 9:00:11 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
To a greater or lesser degree. It rarely occurs to them that society was not noticeably more "free" then, either. Scratch most Libertarians and you find someone who already benefits from substantial socioeconomic privilege and is either a blatant racist or just willfully ignorant about why everyone else can't be as successful through hard work and boot leather. After all, they are all really sore about taxation, which is only something you can complain about when you are taxed.
By contrast, a subset of Libertarians consists of people who are less upset about the taxes thing (because they are dirt poor themselves) and more upset about the government making them wear seat belts and not letting them wank off in public or inject smack at school lunch or spray paint graffiti on U.S. flags or have sex with children or whatever other Chaotic Stupid randomness they want to get up to.
"If I want to eject myself through the windshield while speeding through a school playground, high on PCP and dressed like Hitler, I should be able to."
Frankly, I wouldn't mind them killing themselves through stupidity if they weren't determined to take other people with them. "If you didn't want to get your legs broken, you shouldn't have been in the way of my car." "If you didn't want arsenic in your breakfast cereal, you should have grown it yourself." Caveat emptor, my ass.
edited 18th Jul '16 9:13:23 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"On another topic, Slate has an article on its front page: 141 things Trump has said and done that make him unfit to be president. Not that I think many here need convincing, nor would such an article deter any of his ardent supporters, but it just goes to show how much SMH this election is producing. Reading through the list was like a trip down memory lane... bad memories.
edited 18th Jul '16 9:06:08 AM by speedyboris
Memories can be vile. Repulsive little brutes, like children I suppose.
I was referring to Hamill's rendition, actually -
![]()
edited 18th Jul '16 9:44:38 AM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"Now, regarding that NYT article, I don't think Krugman is correct in regards to the reason the phenomena he calls "both-sidesism" happens; the core of the issue is less journalistic culture, and more that media companies, as profit driven entities funded by advertising, have absolutely no incentive to report in a manner that gives people a reasonabley objective perspective on most matters matters, and every incentive to maximize ratings, and covering Trump's latest antics has become a cheap and easy tactic for bringing in viewers. Trump is aware of this, either consciously or unconsciously, and more or less has mass media eating out of the palms of his hands; thus he's able to remain competitive (doing about as well as a normal establishment Republican would be expected to) despite spending almost nothing compare to Clinton.
If people stopped watching Trump, the media would swiftly dump him. That's not likely to happen though, for better or worse.
edited 18th Jul '16 9:56:55 AM by CaptainCapsase
The "Governor Romney" mentioned in Richard Nixon's speech was George Romney
, father of Mitt Romney.
Get fucked, asshole.
New Survey coming this weekend!Vice laws are a waste of money and prison space.
I do agree with this:
Frankly, I wouldn't mind them killing themselves through stupidity if they weren't determined to take other people with them. "If you didn't want to get your legs broken, you shouldn't have been in the way of my car." "If you didn't want arsenic in your breakfast cereal, you should have grown it yourself." Caveat emptor, my ass.
but driving through a playground dressed like Hitler would still be illegal even if the PCP wasn't involved. Like, for example, if one were blackout drunk, it would still be the same crime.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
My response to that would be that certain drugs get you a lot higher a lot faster than others. You have drink a fair amount of alcohol to do something that stupid. You don't have to take a whole lot of PCP to do the same.
I don't care what you do to yourself, but there are certain drugs that do make you a danger to the general public very easily and those need to either stay illegal, or be very strictly controlled. My fiancee once suggested that if you want to legalise something like bath salts, you had best be in favour of doing it in a government monitored rubber room where you can't hurt anyone else.
edited 18th Jul '16 10:20:08 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar
I don't care what you do to yourself, but there are certain drugs that do make you a danger to the general public very easily and those need to either stay illegal, or be very strictly controlled. My fiancee once suggested that if you want to legalise something like bath salts, you had best be in favour of doing it in a government monitored rubber room where you can't hurt anyone else.
That's fair, but it still strikes me as pre-emptive justice. Drugs like meth or PCP are horrible things that do horrible things to people, but criminalizing them on the grounds that they increase the probability of committing other crimes rubs up too close to, "We are arresting you under suspicion that you may commit a crime in the future."
I mean, alcohol increases the risk too, and nobody's talking about criminalizing that. We tried it once, it went very badly.
In short, if the problem is that it makes you a danger to yourself and others, we shouldn't be tolerating alcohol. If it's that the drug actively kills you from the inside out, we shouldn't be tolerating nicotine. Dangerous narcotics are already legal.
edited 18th Jul '16 10:39:17 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.

edited 18th Jul '16 8:02:08 AM by ILoveDogs