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 think there are a few other bugbears in the TPP including the ability for corporations to sue foreign nations. And here's the EFF's list of problems with it
(some of which are the SOPA 2.0 ones) and here's Politico talking about it.
The people negotiating it also went out of their way to make the negotiations as non-transparent as possible and pushing for fast track approval so the legislature would have very little say over the details.
Edit to add: also, Human Rights Watch weighs in
edited 7th Sep '16 10:34:08 AM by Elle
Remember when one of Trump's spokesmen said there will be a 'taco truck on every corner'? Well, someone's doing their part to make that a reality.
"Because Donald say the Mexican people, they doesn't work," Paz told Pluta. "We come here to say, yes, we work hard, for the family."
The truck did brisk business this morning — so much so that a form of surge pricing kicked in, raising the price for a steak, pork, or chicken taco from $1.50 to $2.50, Pluta reports. Get them while they're hot!
I don't know about you, but I'm in the mood for a taco...
edited 7th Sep '16 10:25:36 AM by kkhohoho
As there is no way that a third-party candidate can win a Presidential election — as in, zero chance — there's no point in engaging that hypothetical. Might as well ask what we'd do if climate change were a hoax, or Hillary guilty of any of the accusations against her from the right.
edited 7th Sep '16 11:09:10 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Again, that is backwards thinking. The Electoral College doesn't "care about" anything. Our system is designed such that only two parties can ever be nationally viable, because you win the instant you hit 50 percent of the vote. For a third party to win, it would therefore have to reach that 50% margin nationally (or at least in the Electoral College), which means it would have to replace one of the other majors. That can't happen unless one of said parties completely dissolves, as happened most recently in the 1850s with the Whig Party.
Moreover, you said something about "sensible". If you mean by that to imply that either the Libertarian Party or the Green Party has anything resembling a sane national platform, you're sadly mistaken.
edited 7th Sep '16 11:37:19 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
![]()
![]()
But, suppose if the majority of the U.S. population decades later finally got exasperated with picking between the "elephant" and the "donkey" after years of falling for lofty promises and subsequent disappointment (at best), that they finally went "you know, maybe these third-party weirdos might be worth looking into." I mean, yeah Gary Johnson's vision for corporate America is unnerving, but there are some decent ideas here and there that the Big Two hardly ever address openly, namely better application of nuclear power and legalized prostitution. Regardless of whether or not you think either is the best for the job, it's respectable that they're going outside the same old issues that we hear about nonstop in news and media and approaching ones that get a passing mention at best.
edited 7th Sep '16 11:42:20 AM by nervmeister
Far more likely is that a fringe candidate will capitalize on dissatisfaction with their party's establishment to hijack it, which is exactly what Trump's doing to the Republican Party.
The Libertarian Party likes to imagine, as do all fringe movements, that there is this silent swell of sentiment that would lean in their favor if only the mainstream parties weren't standing in their way soaking up all the attention. That ain't true. The reason the Libertarians and Greens are at the fringes is that they represent relatively unpopular ideologies.
Sure, they both have some good ideas, but you can't make national policy by taking one or two positions that a huge number of people are skeptical about and wanking them until they jizz blood, hoping that people will ignore the things you stand for that are balls-out stupid.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Such a candidate would be adopted by one of the major parties. But I note that you carefully avoid the question of what you consider "sane, reasonable policies". Ending the War on Drugs is certainly a sane policy, but there are significant repercussions that would need to be explored, and frankly I can't quite take seriously a candidate whose major platform position boils down to, "Let's all smoke weed, man." Never mind the folks who want to shoot up heroin or pop PCP, or dance naked on the convention floor, or whatever other Chaotic Stupid weirdness the fringe liberals seem to get off on.
Getting a President elected who supports drug legalization is only part of the process. Obama tried to get the CDC to declassify marijuana and they refused, and you'd also need the support of Congress. Good luck with that given the power of the pharma and law enforcement/prison lobbies.
Anyway, Clinton has come out in favor of reducing the classification of pot, so ...
edited 7th Sep '16 11:57:22 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
I wouldn't bank on it. Even in this election, with possibly the two most unpopular candidates, Johnson still hasn't cracked 15% nationwide. This is the best a third party candidate has done in the last century, I think. For Johnson to win more, he would have to literally co-opt a large chunk of the Republican voter base, which seems unlikely.
edited 7th Sep '16 11:47:59 AM by BlueNinja0
That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw
Note that Rand Paul attempted to win the Republican nomination and failed rather miserably, as did his dad several times in the past. If there were ever an opportunity to demonstrate majority national support for Libertarianism, those were it. It's failed for a reason: that being that a majority on the right don't give a fig about the War on Drugs; they want to stick it to black, Mexican, and Muslim people and/or get Biblical law made the law of the nation.
edited 7th Sep '16 12:00:15 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@Fighteer: There's nothing stopping an "in-name only" libertarian from hijacking the party who has a viable platform. Johnson is halfway there; he's more or less standard GOP voodoo economics with a social platform that's moved past the 1950s and a refreshing lack of jingoism. Same goes for he Greens.
edited 7th Sep '16 12:11:00 PM by CaptainCapsase
![]()
You're suggesting provoking riots in order to sabotage the private prison system? That's frankly disturbing, especially since most of the people in those prisons are non-violent drug offenders — or at least they are before they go in.
Not really, but regardless, that's exactly why the majority of Republican voters won't support him: they don't believe in military isolationism, they support the war on drugs, and their "states' rights" dogma is paper-thin cover for reinstating segregation and other racist policies. Heck, Johnson rather facilely ignores that one consequence of "returning control to the states" would be to allow the red states to start discriminating all over the place, which they have blatantly attempted to do every time Federal restrictions are relaxed. So much for negative liberty.
edited 7th Sep '16 12:18:54 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Well not so much "provoking" as in egging prisoners on to riot. More like setting up the circumstances so that riots can start more easily than ever before. OR making the staff have to improvise more or use more desperate and ruthless means which in turn bring tensions between jailed and jailers to a fever pitch. Either way, as long as it severely hurts profits.
edited 7th Sep '16 12:14:22 PM by nervmeister

US IP Law does have quite a few issues... Though mostly in the realm of patents since it allows patent trolls to extort money from companies and allows for things like what happened with EpiPen where new ownership jacked up the price of a device that is required for people to not die. Also, Congress has the propensity to extend copyright limits whenever Disney demands it.
Trade deals are not bad, but TPP and TIPP are particularly bad for basically benefiting corporations over the citizens of the nations involved including Americans. Even if it is a move to economically suppress a rising China, that doesn't mean it isn't a bad trade deal.
edited 7th Sep '16 9:08:18 AM by GameGuruGG
Wizard Needs Food Badly