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
It's not just Trumo though. It's who he'd nominate for the SCOTUS. It's the shift in US culture, with racists becoming emboldened and knowing their views are now mainstream. It's the fact that the justice department would basically be told to stop investigating the murders of innocent black people by police.
It's more than just Trump. It's what he represents.
![]()
I'm not so sure about that; sure his current list of judges is conservative, but I expect he'll toss that in the garbage if he wins and try to appoint yesmen to the position.
Trump represents Trump, and that is all. He's taken virtually every position known to man on every issue, in some cases going to the left of much of the democratic party, particularly early on in his campaign. That in and of itself is what's so bad about Trump. He doesn't represent any ideals, just a cult of personality.
edited 13th Aug '16 4:03:09 PM by CaptainCapsase
Bernie's lakeside home.
*raises hands* Watch out, we're dealing with a millionaire here.
![]()
Moreover, people were bashing him as "having no financial sense" back during the race. The fact that he owns three more houses than the average American says different, and the real salient point is, despite being wealthier than about 90% of Americans at his age, he's still one of the poorest members of congress.
It's more because the democrats do not want the social democratic ideology that was abandoned in the Reagen era gaining ground against the modern party's core neoliberal ideology. Now before you dispute that label, I'll fully concede that the great recession caused the democrats to move to the left economically; we're no longer living in the Clinton era where a democrat can propose privatizing social security and not be threatened with primaries. But the core tenants of neoliberalism-minimizing economic regulation and welfare and maximizing trade-are still largely adhered to by the Obama administration, they've merely become cogizant of the fact that there is in fact a minimum amount of regulation and welfare that is necessary for a modern society to function. As much as the democrats have been posturing, I would argue that a large chunk of the party is only doing so because they are free of the burden of having to put their money where their mouth is thanks the GOP. Had the democrats retained congress, the limits of what they'd be willing to do would, I expect, disappoint many of you.
edited 13th Aug '16 4:53:37 PM by CaptainCapsase
What, exactly, do you think should be done, then?
edited 13th Aug '16 5:13:20 PM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!
Quite a few things. The most important issue of our time is, of course climate change, which may very well be joined by other anthropogenic threats to civilization as technology continues to advance. Beyond that, the growth of wealth inequality and general economic stagnation are the greatest issues facing human society.
For climate change, the actual solution is fairly simple; tax carbon output enough that carbon neutral energy production displaces fossil fuels over a timescale of ~30 years. The difficulty is actually implementing such policy and keeping it in place despite opposition from the energy industry.
Wealth inequality and whatnot. Well, the hard part is still the political part, but much more extensive re-distributive policy, to start with.
edited 13th Aug '16 5:24:55 PM by CaptainCapsase
Voting is a start, but it's simply not enough in modern society; at best it's the minimum level of civil engagement. Beyond voting, participating in protest and, if necessary civil disobedience, campaigning for progressive candidates at the local level, and running for office yourself if you're qualified is what I'd recommend.
edited 13th Aug '16 5:28:06 PM by CaptainCapsase
It's an existential threat to human civilization and perhaps even the human species if it is not address, and we're capable of doing something about it. (unlike, for example, the heat death of the universe or the eventual death of the sun or the possible collapse of the Earth's magnetosphere over the next 150 million years)
edited 13th Aug '16 5:31:13 PM by CaptainCapsase
x4-sih Now, I disagree with wealth distribution for its own sake (pretty strongly, in fact), and I'm not sure how I feel about a CO 2 tax (though I do believe global warming is real), but what the average joe can do to fix the world is simply vote for smarter people. That's how most problems in the past were fixed.
edited 13th Aug '16 5:30:19 PM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34

edited 13th Aug '16 3:40:01 PM by Shawnsummer7