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
Honestly, I'm not sure if this 'outbreak' is all its' cracked up to be.
Mind you, I might just be reading into this way too much, but the fact that only the California delegation seems to be affected so far is just a bit too much of a kowinkydink for my tastes.
edited 19th Jul '16 10:13:50 AM by kkhohoho
They honestly seem to believe that it's possible for their case to end with the government going, "Okay, you got me. Your incredible negotiating skills have humbled us all. No more federal wildlife reserves. Ranchers can have the land, and since you were totes in the right all along, you're free to go."
And, as always, their case and entire point of view is entirely undermined by not having a single goddamn clue what they're talking about. Their position is that Constitutionally speaking, the government has no right to own land or decide how to use it. I wonder if there's any way to resolve this Constitutional crisis that they seem to imagine exists...
Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the US Constitution.
So yes, the government can own land and other properties, and Congress can decide how they want to treat it. The Bundys and their buddies are ignorant dipshits. And like a lot of people, they have a delusion that whatever important document they've been told is crucial to their life (the Bible, the Constitution, etc.) is just some vague thing that backs up whatever they do, (they supposedly base their life around it afterall, even though they never actually read it and just go off a few cool sounding bits they've heard other people say, but of course it proves that they're right and good) rather than an actual document which says all sorts of various random things.
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |New York Times' "The Upshot"
came out with their own estimates on election odds (they put it right now at Clinton with a 76% chance). It also has a comparison of other sites' prognosis (including FiveThirtyEight, which seems pretty bullish about Trump's chances compared with other places).
Curious that Princeton has the odds of Clinton winning Mississippi so high (35%).
The damned queen and the relentless knight.It's common in Iceland for farmers to own guns to shoot foxes and minks. That, along with guns owned by some rich collectors, the coastal guard and the special forces is the reason for why gun ownership tends to look high compared to Iceland's small population. The idea that Everyone Is Armed in Iceland is just pure, undiluted, one-hundred-percent nonsense.
Non-sinister answer: They likely went out to dinner together and someone at the resturant screwed up in the health and safety department. Norovirus sounds scary as a name but it's one of the most common forms of "stomach bug".
Maybe they should start short-lived, non-life-threatening diseases less intimidating names.
Then again, that's just asking for "dontworryaboutitvirus" to wipe out half the Earth's population.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.It's as ethical to kill conscripts as it is any other enemy combatant. I might even go as far as to argue that the blood isn't on your hands, but rather, whatever system decided to draft them.
Leviticus 19:34When fighting a volunteer army, you can comfort yourself with the knowledge that you're not killing anyone who didn't choose to put their life at risk for the sake of their government. That makes targetting soldiers not quite as reprehensible as targetting civilians, who made no such choice.
But if you're fighting a conscripted army, then the soldiers are basically just civilians who were forced into uniform. They didn't choose to risk their lives anymore than the rest of their countrypeople did. So what makes targetting them any better than targetting civilians (assuming both options serve equal strategic value)?
![]()
No one's saying that killing a conscript isn't "really" killing someone, the point is that the soldiers of Country A aren't morally responsible for Country B's decision to put conscripts on the front line. That's on B's generals and lawmakers, not on A's soldiers.
edited 19th Jul '16 10:36:12 AM by NativeJovian
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Incidentally, for anyone who's eager to see Mitch McConnell eat a sweet load of karma for his Supreme Court obstructionism, Democrat Evan Bayh
is eying his seat as Indiana's senator. From 1989 to 1997, Bayh served as governor of Indiana before spending 1999 through 2011 in the United States Senate, and has become quite popular in the state.
edited 19th Jul '16 10:45:42 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.On the field of battle, the difference between a conscript soldier and a volunteer soldier is that both are shooting at you, and if you want to be the not-dead one in the relationship, you try to kill them first. That's how war works. There are a number of commonly accepted rules about how you deal with them after they've stopped shooting, but that's beside the point. Individual combatants are not expected to stop the fight to give each other questionnaires about how happy they are to be there.
The difference between a soldier and a civilian in wartime is that the former is shooting at you and the latter is not. Since there isn't a competition to be the not-dead one when you're dealing with the civilian, killing them is unnecessary, and therefore a waste of bullets.. If they take advantage of your mercy to shoot at you, they aren't a civilian any more, which is one of the critical problems we face in asymmetric warfare, but that again has nothing to do with their status as a volunteer or a conscript.
edited 19th Jul '16 12:14:11 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Eh, even Nate Silver is not immune from his own personal biases (which is something he himself admitted
when he initially pinned Trump's odds at getting the nomination in the first place at 2% last year).
Do keep in mind we're still several months away from the actual election and have yet to see the standard post-convention bounces for each candidate.
edited 19th Jul '16 12:45:12 PM by megarockman
The damned queen and the relentless knight.There's this weird fallacy people get up to whereby something that is predicted with 51% certainty is assumed to happen without fail, when it actually means "flip a very slightly unbalanced coin". That Trump and Clinton are running neck and neck currently means little more than that people simply don't know.
edited 19th Jul '16 12:52:24 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

You forgot Costa Rica.