TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

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

Blueeyedrat Since: Oct, 2010
#148201: Nov 3rd 2016 at 9:54:06 AM

[up] I think he meant to bring up the Mulford Act, signed into California state law when Reagan was governor.

Medinoc from France (Before Recorded History)
#148202: Nov 3rd 2016 at 9:54:56 AM

Thanks.

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#148203: Nov 3rd 2016 at 9:57:33 AM

Would Racist Carrot also be an apt analogy for the RNC "nominee"?
Racist Narcissistic Carrot, make it an abbreviation. Or maybe something like Greatest Oratoring Politician.

edited 3rd Nov '16 9:59:03 AM by sgamer82

MarqFJA The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer from Deserts of the Middle East (Before Recorded History) Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
#148204: Nov 3rd 2016 at 10:07:34 AM

The use of arms to protect civil society should be limited to law enforcement.
Honest question: Does the National Guard count as "law enforcement", or alternatively possess some sort of law enforcement responsibilities during peacetime?

The First Amendment is the right to be a complete fucking idiot, and I wouldn't have it any other way.
It's one thing to act like a "complete fucking idiot" without knowing that you are being so, and to act like a "complete fucking idiot" while fully knowing that you're being so.

edited 3rd Nov '16 10:09:27 AM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
Lennik (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#148205: Nov 3rd 2016 at 10:13:58 AM

It's one thing to act like a "complete fucking idiot" without knowing that you are being so, and to act like a "complete fucking idiot" while fully knowing that you're being so.

That's not what was proposed. What was proposed was that if you share an opinion, you legally have to be able to defend it with a good argument and shouldn't be allowed to use insults.

No totalitarian hellscapes are welcome here, thanks.

edited 3rd Nov '16 10:14:18 AM by Lennik

That's right, boys. Mondo cool.
Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#148206: Nov 3rd 2016 at 10:16:46 AM

The National Guard is our modern "militia". They have to be called to duty by the governor of a state (or the President in extremely rare circumstances) and it usually only happens in a state of emergency, i.e. natural disaster or civil unrest. They don't have police powers unless you're dealing with actual martial law being declared.

edited 3rd Nov '16 10:19:07 AM by Elle

IFwanderer use political terms to describe, not insult from Earth Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
use political terms to describe, not insult
#148207: Nov 3rd 2016 at 10:16:59 AM

Do I need to explain why this is a terrible idea? You'd be taking away people's right to be wrong. Or emotional.

My mistake there, I was thinking more along the lines of "knowingly deceiving people shouldn't be a protected right". Not about honest mistakes or being emotional.

1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KV
MarqFJA The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer from Deserts of the Middle East (Before Recorded History) Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
#148208: Nov 3rd 2016 at 10:21:59 AM

[up][up][up] ... I think you're supposed to be pointing that at someone other than me, because I don't know how that applies to my post.

[up] Am I the only one here who read the whole "right to be wrong" thing as obvious sarcasm?

edited 3rd Nov '16 10:23:06 AM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
Lennik (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#148209: Nov 3rd 2016 at 10:24:35 AM

[up]Yes.

That's right, boys. Mondo cool.
MarqFJA The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer from Deserts of the Middle East (Before Recorded History) Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
#148210: Nov 3rd 2016 at 10:31:32 AM

... My mind cannot wrap itself around the concept of "people have a right to be wrong". It's nonsensical. How can one have a right to be wrong? Or is that just an oversimplified way of saying "people have a right to not be persecuted just for espousing an opinion that everyone else considers wrong, so long as they don't act upon that opinion in a way that breaks existing laws"? Because if it is, then it's an excessive oversimplification.

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
Lennik (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#148211: Nov 3rd 2016 at 10:33:29 AM

Let me put it to you this way. If you've ever been wrong in an argument or insulted someone, do you think that should be punishable by law?

That's right, boys. Mondo cool.
randomdude4 Since: May, 2011
#148212: Nov 3rd 2016 at 10:44:58 AM

Anyone who says or suggests that the 1st Amendment needs to be changed to limit the spread of opinions always seems to be of the opinion that only irrational, stupid people could possibly disagree with them, which frankly is rather arrogant. If it were changed, who's to say it wouldn't limit you being able to share your thoughts or views, regardless of how right you believe them to be.

Also, I'm back, even though this is probably a stupid decision I will deeply regret later on. Tv Tropes is like a drug man.

[down]Though not strictly, often times people get around the whole "Hate Speech is protected" things by prosecuting it under the Fighting Words Doctrine, which states that any speech with the intention of inciting violence is not protected. It's often not that hard to conflate the two

edited 3rd Nov '16 10:52:25 AM by randomdude4

"Can't make an omelette without breaking some children." -Bur
smokeycut Since: Mar, 2013
#148213: Nov 3rd 2016 at 10:48:14 AM

My only reservation about the first amendment is hate speech. I don't think the KKK deserve the right to march in town and give speeches on how all black people should be lynched. I don't think we should let neo nazis give speeches about burning jews.

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#148214: Nov 3rd 2016 at 10:50:27 AM

I don't think stuff like that is covered anyway. You can't directly incite violence or stuff that that's likely to lead to violence, or something.

Unless the argument is just their very existence does that, then it becomes trickier.

smokeycut Since: Mar, 2013
#148215: Nov 3rd 2016 at 10:54:49 AM

The KKK are legally allowed to march through towns, provided they get the right permits. It's happened in multiple states, and not even just a long time ago. It's happened more recently too.

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#148216: Nov 3rd 2016 at 10:56:04 AM

I'm aware. Are you saying that shouldn't be allowed to do that, even if they aren't actually saying anything?

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#148217: Nov 3rd 2016 at 11:02:02 AM

The Klan says something by existing. You can't be a member of the Klan, walk around in the robes, and not be preaching hate. The simple fact of their marching is an act of intimidation and could be banned on those grounds.

Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#148218: Nov 3rd 2016 at 11:10:01 AM

Using free speech as a weapon against hate speech is the tactic I'd prefer.

Hey, it worked for Superman.

edited 3rd Nov '16 11:10:29 AM by Elle

pwiegle Cape Malleum Majorem from Nowhere Special Since: Sep, 2015 Relationship Status: Singularity
Cape Malleum Majorem
#148219: Nov 3rd 2016 at 11:10:30 AM

Placing restrictions on the First Amendment would open such a humongous can of worms, I can't even begin to explain why it's a bad idea. Because the only way it would possibly work is in a society/culture where everyone shares the same ethnicity, the same religion, the same political leanings, the same views on economics, etc.

I remember one of my high school teachers explaining how to completely neutralize the First Amendment: change the text from "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," etc. — to: "abridging the reasonable freedom of speech..."

There ya go! No more ambiguity, no more problem. Anybody expressing a dissenting opinion is therefore not being reasonable, and may be punished by law.

edited 3rd Nov '16 11:13:15 AM by pwiegle

This Space Intentionally Left Blank.
LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#148220: Nov 3rd 2016 at 11:13:29 AM

I mean, the KKK is an obvious example of blatant hate, but that's really the problem. How do you differentiate censoring them between something less conspicuous. Other problems too, but I'm not really sure how to phrase it.

edited 3rd Nov '16 11:14:36 AM by LSBK

LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#148221: Nov 3rd 2016 at 11:14:40 AM

I don't think the Klan should be allowed to march around but I really can't think of how to make them stop with setting an abusable precedent or badly worded law.

Oh really when?
MarqFJA The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer from Deserts of the Middle East (Before Recorded History) Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
#148222: Nov 3rd 2016 at 11:14:43 AM

Let me put it to you this way. If you've ever been wrong in an argument or insulted someone, do you think that should be punishable by law?
... That's basically a concise way of saying what I've said in the second inquiry of this post — which, as I've pointed out, should not be shortened to "right to be wrong", because the latter is not the same thing. People can't have a right to be wrong or be right, because those are merely judgments of what they're saying/doing, which can be proven wrong themselves should new information come to light; what people have a right to is to not be punished simply for being judged as holding a "wrong" opinion, nor to have knowledge of having been proven "right" by reasonably fair means suppressed for reasons that do not pertain to the greater good (e.g. if the other party still thinks you're wrong, but can't provide a decent argument, so they resort to dirty tactics to compel you into silence).

[up] I fail to see why what Ambar suggested is unfeasible. Freedom of speech (hell, any freedom) ends when it impignes upon other freedoms/rights; what's difficult about that?

edited 3rd Nov '16 11:17:25 AM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#148223: Nov 3rd 2016 at 11:24:42 AM

It only becomes impinging when it crosses the line into advocating or comitting impinging (usually read: illegal) actions. The trick the Klan pulled since their mid-century downfall was changing the narrative so it was no longer about openly advocating violence but preserving "white rights" and "white culture" and adapting dogwhistle words.

[down]That too. A person does not have a right to not be offended. If it's going beyond merely causing offense to actually causing harm, we have another set of laws for that, it's called harassment.

edited 3rd Nov '16 11:29:53 AM by Elle

AlleyOop Since: Oct, 2010
#148224: Nov 3rd 2016 at 11:25:22 AM

[up][up]Because then it could be twisted into something like the Racial and Religious Hatred Act in the UK, where a lot of criticism of religion is punishable because religious people have a legally protected right not to be offended, even if what you're doing is saying fundies who think gay people should burn in hell are assholes. If the right to not be offended becomes an actual right, then it becomes possible to ban any kind of speech including the opinions expressed here. Especially (and inevitably) if any loonies get put in charge of the justice system.

edited 3rd Nov '16 11:32:01 AM by AlleyOop

blkwhtrbbt The Dragon of the Eastern Sea from Doesn't take orders from Vladimir Putin Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves me
The Dragon of the Eastern Sea
#148225: Nov 3rd 2016 at 11:28:24 AM

1st Amendment is literally the only thing we as Americans have that could possibly justify our claim as "land of the free".

Let's leave that in place, please.

Say to the others who did not follow through You're still our brothers, and we will fight for you

Total posts: 417,856
Top