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
But the thing is, under one person one vote the areas that have more people will have more influence because they have more people. That does not mean that rural people will be ignored, just that they will no-longer dominate politics. It's simply being a nation by the people and for the people.
Still I posted the video because instead of actually addressing my argument they just threw out "you hate poor people!" which is rather.... pathetic as an argument and classic bad faith debating. If they weren't taking it seriously I didn't feel very motivated to be completely serious.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang![]()
![]()
An understandable position, and in theory, I agree. Whether that works in practice is a different matter, and while I want and hope for such a system to work, looking through the history of our government and the people running it leaves me uncertain as to whether it actually will. Mind you, searching for a foolproof system is probably doomed to failure, but I'd like to at least scratch out the obvious problems.
As for not taking certain arguments seriously, yeah, I understand. I suppose I just feel that sort of thing contributes to a toxic atmosphere. Maybe that's unavoidable in politics threads, but I do think that we can make a conscious effort to do better, especially if the opposing side isn't being malicious.
edited 23rd Jun '18 3:37:02 PM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!A good replacement for the Electoral College, that would still have Rural and Less-then-Suburb Suburban Voters have power, is to have mandatory voting for all Citizens of the US (at least for Federal Elections). That way, Candidates can't simply rely on the Big Cities to win, as Rural and LTS Suburban Voters will outnumber them as a driving force.
x5 Because Bill Clinton ran as a Blue Dog (A near-Reagan Conservative, Clinton actively discouraged more Liberal Elements not just in the Democrat Party, but in society in general), he was from the South-South (Arkansas), and Ross Perot (an Independent) spoiled the Election for the Republicans in the State (at least in '92, winning 14% of the Vote in the State).
edited 23rd Jun '18 3:38:04 PM by DingoWalley1
A far more honest name would be "status anxiety".
They're terrified of brown people coming in and alongside existing undesirables shaking up the hierarchy and taking their place.
edited 23rd Jun '18 3:40:40 PM by Fourthspartan56
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang"In fact, a larger question is why DID the Appalachian states turn on the Clintons? Who were solidly BLUE during Bill's."
Because Bill Clinton was a "New Democrat" and ran on a centrist economic position, and a lot of those Democrats were Southern Democrats who hadn't yet retired, lost reelection, or died. Because Ross Perot carved a big piece out of the conservative pie. Because, ultimately, the early 90s were a downbeat sort of era where social progress and economics took a backseat and let deregulation take the wheel. Because racism, misogyny, and homophobia were still mainstream, rather than perceived as odious character flaws. Because being a Democrat or Republican started to stop mattering.
edited 23rd Jun '18 4:03:53 PM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."Thank god that era is over, contrary to delusions of the populist left the Democrats have moved on and there is zero chance of neoliberalism coming back to the party in the current climate. Good riddance to it.
edited 23rd Jun '18 4:23:16 PM by Fourthspartan56
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangI've also heard that it was unfortunately seen as a necessity at the time. The country had only just been through a very conservative era under the Reagan administration followed by Bush Sr., so they couldn't just go all out progressive anyways and expect to get anywhere. From what I've read, despite his faults, Clinton was actually pretty decent at unifying the party.
edited 23rd Jun '18 4:47:17 PM by Draghinazzo
I've heard that.
Personally I'm rather ambivalent on Clinton, he's done great things but his record also incredibly some rather horrible things (like the right to work laws and general neoliberal antics). Still as you said it was a different historical environment and thus some allowances must be made.
His history with women on the other hand is less ambiguous and more terrible.
edited 23rd Jun '18 4:48:37 PM by Fourthspartan56
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangWe have to judge Clinton by the standards of the time — which as of today was twenty-five years ago. We shouldn't, and must not look to Clinton and say that's what must be done in the future. Politics asked less of the voter, intellectually, morally, and philosophically, back then.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."Yes, he changed the whole face of it.
The lowest common denominator became lower and lower under him.
Edit:
Miller is now loathed by large numbers of Jews.
https://forward.com/news/403903/why-stephen-miller-is-the-most-hated-jew-in-america-by-fellow-jews/
edited 23rd Jun '18 6:08:53 PM by CharlesPhipps
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.Ok I just got back and saw three pages had gone by but I'm still going to respond to Charles.
@Charles: First of all, your state representatives and senators, as well as your state legislature and governor, ought to damn well give a shit about all of those problems. But the EC's existence has literally nothing to do with whether or not politicians address those issues. The president, for one, isn't going to have their give a shit meter affected by whether or not they're concerned about hunger epidemics in Kentucky. You know what actually gets their attention for that? The people lobbying and protesting about the issue until the politician's jobs literally depend on whether or not they address the issue. And newsflash, that kind of thing is going to get to the guys lower on the political totem pole before it gets to the president. And and, as has been stated before, the EC ONLY APPLIES TO THE PRESIDENT. None of your other congressional representatives are subject to it.
Again, the EC doesn't have anything to do with those issues getting address. It's got a null effect. A bigger question to ask yourself for the specific issue you raised would be why are your state representatives ignoring you. Not whether or not the EC being abolished would make you ignorable.
edited 23rd Jun '18 6:12:31 PM by AceofSpades
Jews hate Nazis?
Can't imagine why.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.

I've said my peace.
I just don't think it would solve the ones people have and would generate far more new ones.
Edit:
In fact, a larger question is why DID the Appalachian states turn on the Clintons? Who were solidly BLUE during Bill's.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/once-a-clinton-stronghold-appalachia-now-trump-country
Here's an article on it.
edited 23rd Jun '18 3:26:36 PM by CharlesPhipps
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.