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

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#148251: Nov 3rd 2016 at 12:41:33 PM

I know the American tropers don't mean to, but there's a fair amount of nationalist arrogance in the assertion that any infringement on "free speech" will somehow lead to tyranny. I'm Canadian. We have strict anti-hate speech laws. The Klan would not be allowed to march in most provinces in the country. Donald Trump would never be on the ticket of any major party because he'd have arrested or sued long beforehand for hate speech. People who hand out pamphlets about "the ZOG" on street corners can be carted off by the cops.

We are not a dictatorship and the slippery slope argument that's being thrown around is frankly offensive to me, and I imagine, to many of the other non-American tropers. If you want to make a case for unlimited free speech, that's fine, you go right ahead, but could we please stop asking like arresting Klansmen is somehow going to turn you into Chile circa 1973?

edited 3rd Nov '16 12:42:41 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#148252: Nov 3rd 2016 at 12:43:05 PM

I'd like a return of the Fairness Doctrine. Anything to prevent crap like the Drudge Report, Breitbart, or Info Wars from pretending they are actually news.

Disgusted, but not surprised
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#148253: Nov 3rd 2016 at 12:43:36 PM

[up][up]The first amendment does not guarantee the right to "unlimited" free speech, it simply draws the line a different place than the rest of the world. Things like fraud, threats, incitement to breaking the law, etc are not protected by the first amendment.

edited 3rd Nov '16 12:44:02 PM by NativeJovian

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#148254: Nov 3rd 2016 at 12:46:04 PM

[up]I know that it doesn't. Yet people are acting like that is the case and are making that argument. Which is frankly silly. I could argue that anti-fraud laws are an infringement on free speech and will lead you down a slippery slope until people are getting arrested for being honestly wrong. It would be a really bad argument, but it would be every bit as logically consistent as the proposition that "arresting Klansmen will lead to dictatorship".

Again, no offense, but people are behaving as if the American notion on where to draw the line is the correct one, while Canadian or British notions are somehow wrong and a step down the slippery slope. We've had stricter laws on this than you for a long time. We're not a dictatorship.

@nervmeister

Could you save the "Orwellian" accusation for things that are actually Orwellian? Because there's nothing Orwellian about saying "Klansmen should be arrested".

edited 3rd Nov '16 12:47:54 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

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
#148255: Nov 3rd 2016 at 12:46:33 PM

I'm sorry. Does Canada have a deluge of lawsuit-happy people to the degree that you need warnings on your products that newly brewed Coffee may be hot, and smoking is bad for your lungs, because if you don't you'll lose all your business and your house? And even if it does, can Canada have claimed to have invented them?

No? Oh, Canadian products even have joke warning labels with a Take That! against the American sue-happy climate?

I guess Canada can't pretend not to understand why Americans are afraid to introduce laws that might have terrible loopholes to abuse then

Terrible loopholes SUCH AS[down]

edited 3rd Nov '16 12:50:13 PM by blkwhtrbbt

Say to the others who did not follow through You're still our brothers, and we will fight for you
carbon-mantis Collector Of Fine Oddities from Trumpland Since: Mar, 2010 Relationship Status: Married to my murderer
Collector Of Fine Oddities
#148256: Nov 3rd 2016 at 12:47:25 PM

The problem I think a lot here have with any sort of hate speech laws is who exactly gets to classify what as hate speech? Because Trump or any ilk like him (especially with a congressional majority in their favor) would surely try to wield it against any group they'd feel threatened by.

edited 3rd Nov '16 12:47:55 PM by carbon-mantis

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#148257: Nov 3rd 2016 at 12:48:49 PM

~Best Of: Well, given that owning guns is a constitutionally protected right and has a strong supporting lobby, I am not surprised that people can use them from young on. I bet that if the US had a constitutionally protected right to sexual intercourse, you'd see an age of consent of 13 or so as well.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#148258: Nov 3rd 2016 at 12:49:12 PM

@Best re: youth gun laws

By way of example, NY is a state considered to have fairly restricted gun laws but also has an active hunting culture; handguns require a permit but rifles do not. The minimum age for a hunting license is 12 but the minimum age for a handgun license is 21. Both hunting and firearm licenses require passing training courses and hunters under 16 have to be accompanied by an adult.

A lot of states with the most liberal gun laws are those "frontier" western states where rural occupations that require carrying firearms for utility and protection are still a big part of the culture. That being the case, if you're going to need to have guns and kids in the house, it's going to be pretty important for the parents to drill their kids on gun safety as early an often as possible; I saw on TV at one point an example of a family practicing with their rather young children on a range and I want to say they were 10 or younger. That doesn't mean they *own* the guns they were using but no one was going to get in trouble for using them. I think the only real requirements are that a kid have the needed motor skills, be able to take directions, and be able to understand the full weight of rule 1 of gun safety: never point a gun at anything you don't intend to kill.

NoName999 Since: May, 2011
#148259: Nov 3rd 2016 at 12:49:47 PM

[up][up][up][up]The coffee one is such a misconception.

It was 180 degrees F. Where most coffee is around 120. When it spilled on her it gave third degree burns in seconds.

Now imagine if she DRANK that...

edited 3rd Nov '16 12:50:17 PM by NoName999

Gilphon (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#148260: Nov 3rd 2016 at 12:50:09 PM

Pretty sure the thing about people sueing over coffee being hot is a consequence of your health care stuff. Because people with serious burns need to get the money for their medical bills from somewhere.

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#148261: Nov 3rd 2016 at 12:51:40 PM

@blkwhitrbbt

]You know I'm not ever sure what in the Hell you're trying to say there. I don't know if you missed a few words in your sentences or what. First you demand to know if we have laws like this, then sawy we don't, then say that therefore we should understand the American situation. What? All I can tell is you're very mad at Canada for some reason as evidenced by tone and italics.

And your laws already have terrible loopholes in them. They allow incitements to violence provided you don't specify a time and place. That's about as bad a loophole as I can think of, and for some reason some of the people in this thread don't want it closed.

Oh and before the obligatory "we're not Canada" spiel from someone, I'm not saying you should be. I'm saying the argument that "restricting hate speech leads to dictatorship" is pretty clearly untrue since Canada, the UK, etc, are not dictatorships.

edited 3rd Nov '16 12:54:10 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

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
#148262: Nov 3rd 2016 at 12:52:26 PM

[up][up] It was freshly brewed. And the old lady who filed the suit only wanted enough to cover her medical expenses, but her lawyer blew it up and turned it into a class-action suit and won millions of dollars.

Say to the others who did not follow through You're still our brothers, and we will fight for you
nervmeister Since: Oct, 2010
#148263: Nov 3rd 2016 at 12:52:31 PM

We are not a dictatorship and the slippery slope argument that's being thrown around is frankly offensive to me, and I imagine, to many of the other non-American tropers. If you want to make a case for unlimited free speech, that's fine, you go right ahead, but could we please stop asking like arresting Klansmen is somehow going to turn you into Chile circa 1973?
So even that's "offensive" now, huh?....

edited 3rd Nov '16 12:52:59 PM by nervmeister

SilentColossus (Don’t ask)
#148264: Nov 3rd 2016 at 12:52:58 PM

40% of the population - the people voting for Donald Trump - want people of color/LGBT/immigrants/non-Christians to shut up, or get out. The entire purpose of his movement are bigots throwing away the code words and speaking freely. They look at movements like BLM and see them as "reverse racism" movements threatening to take away their country.

The problem is not necessarily a dictatorship; as carbon said, who gets to decide what is hate speech? Trump followers?

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#148265: Nov 3rd 2016 at 12:56:18 PM

[up][up]Do I actually have to explain to you how the suggestion that we're a dictatorship when we're not is offensive? Or are you just being snide for its own sake?

[up]Vast swathes of our poplutaion thinks the same way. Hate speech laws keep them in check.

edited 3rd Nov '16 12:57:10 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

rmctagg09 The Wanderer from Brooklyn, NY (Before Recorded History) Relationship Status: I won't say I'm in love
The Wanderer
#148266: Nov 3rd 2016 at 12:56:30 PM

I'm sorry. Does Canada have a deluge of lawsuit-happy people to the degree that you need warnings on your products that newly brewed Coffee may be hot

Since people like to trot this out as a sign of "litigation gone mad," I have to point out that what doesn't get told in this tale is that it wasn't just that the coffee was hot, but that it was scalding hot because McDonalds heated its coffee 50 degrees higher than everyone else did and the woman suffered third degree burns.

EDIT: [nja]'d

edited 3rd Nov '16 12:56:41 PM by rmctagg09

Hugging a Vanillite will give you frostbite.
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#148267: Nov 3rd 2016 at 12:57:49 PM

[up]Why let reality get in the way of an attempt at bashing Canada? Or whatever the heck that post was trying to do.

edited 3rd Nov '16 12:58:07 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

Gaon Smoking Snake from Grim Up North Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Above such petty unnecessities
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
#148269: Nov 3rd 2016 at 12:58:10 PM

I can't believe I have to spell this out

I happen to know you don't have similar requirements for your labels. I was probing to find out if you knew that. I have seen Canadian products labelled with joke labels poking fun at the legal requirements for labels in the US.

So, Canadians know Americans are sue-happy loophole abusers. So Canadians know why other Americans might be wary of passing laws that the sue-happy loophole abuses might take advantage of. So you as a Canadian cannot claim to not understand why we might be nervous about passing laws that might be abused against already abused minorities.

Say to the others who did not follow through You're still our brothers, and we will fight for you
Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#148270: Nov 3rd 2016 at 12:58:47 PM

@Ambar: The problem with that argument is not that it's us committing slippery slope, it's that judicial precedent is a strong legal force. Once a court rules a precident on something like jailing a Klansmen, other court cases can point at that and go "see? You let *this* one through, so you should also let our case through." The force of precident becomes even stronger the higher up the appeals system you go, to the point that it's even harder to reverse a bad Supreme Court decision than it is to amend the constitution. (See: Brown v. Board of Education for one of the rare exceptions.)

edited 3rd Nov '16 1:01:50 PM by Elle

nervmeister Since: Oct, 2010
#148271: Nov 3rd 2016 at 1:00:17 PM

[up]x7

Funny thing is, Ambar, this wasn't about your country until you made it so. And my statement was generally referring to you and those you claim to speak for.

edited 3rd Nov '16 1:01:34 PM by nervmeister

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
#148272: Nov 3rd 2016 at 1:02:02 PM

edited 3rd Nov '16 1:06:07 PM by blkwhtrbbt

Say to the others who did not follow through You're still our brothers, and we will fight for you
LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#148273: Nov 3rd 2016 at 1:02:04 PM

@Ambar, I think the point here is that by changing the laws to say "KKK can't march in cities" eventually you'll inevitably get something like "BLM can't march in cities." So it's a sort of "It's better to protect the villains than risk the good guys getting hurt too."

Maybe you disagree with that, I'm on the fence about it, but I think that's the point being made.

edited 3rd Nov '16 1:03:26 PM by LSBK

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#148274: Nov 3rd 2016 at 1:03:11 PM

You have to explain it because your post was somewhat incoherent. And please stop shouting at me about how I should already know things.

What amazes me is that you somehow seem to have the impression that our bigots aren't every bit as insane as yours. We have more than our share of racists, homophobes, etc. We also have hate speech laws, which prevent them from being able to be nearly as active as yours are.

You guys are using something that might become a problem (loopholes in potential future laws being abused) to avoid dealing with a current problem (actual loopholes in your current laws being abused). Seriously, you already allow people to incite violence against minorities. Changing your laws to make that illegal would not somehow transform you into a dictatorship. Nor would it be something that could be easily twisted to abuse minorities, since the vast majority of minority rights' groups don't advocate for violence.

Funny thing is, Ambar, this wasn't about your country until you made it so. And my statement was generally referring to you and those you claim to speak for.

So your statement was you being snide for its own sake. Thank you for your honesty. I am now going to ignore any future comments you might direct my way.

edited 3rd Nov '16 1:04:24 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

theLibrarian Since: Jul, 2009
#148275: Nov 3rd 2016 at 1:03:52 PM

Seriously. It allows you to say what you want, it doesn't prevent consequences. If you say something like "I'm going to kill the President", you will be arrested, even if you were being rhetorical.

And I would hardly call the FBI mirroring the general public. Seems more like a lot of them are paranoid enough that they think Trump has the right idea.


Total posts: 417,856
Top