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

megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#183201: Apr 16th 2017 at 6:26:45 PM

I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't recognize Jesus if he walked up to them wearing a sign that said I'm Jesus, the son of God.

pwiegle Cape Malleum Majorem from Nowhere Special Since: Sep, 2015 Relationship Status: Singularity
Cape Malleum Majorem
#183202: Apr 16th 2017 at 6:29:10 PM

Trump's religion is money, but his god is himself.

This Space Intentionally Left Blank.
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#183203: Apr 16th 2017 at 6:29:30 PM

[up][up] If he didn't fit their version of Jesus they'd probably burn him at the stake for being a heretic. Or for extra irony points crucify him. Again.

Frankly, a lot of the more prominent religious righters in this country exhibit behavior that marks them as followers of Mammon.

Why yes, I do think the "Prosperity Gospel" is horseshit.

edited 16th Apr '17 6:32:18 PM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
Wyldchyld (Old as dirt)
#183204: Apr 16th 2017 at 7:02:35 PM

[up][up][up][up] Out of curiosity, what was the preacher's response?

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.
BearyScary Since: Sep, 2010 Relationship Status: You spin me right round, baby
#183205: Apr 16th 2017 at 7:11:12 PM

[up]Sorry, I don't entirely remember. I'll have to rewatch the clip later. I'll tell you about it in a PM.

Do not obey in advance.
megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#183206: Apr 16th 2017 at 7:19:58 PM

If it would be easier you could link to the Clip.

BearyScary Since: Sep, 2010 Relationship Status: You spin me right round, baby
#183207: Apr 16th 2017 at 7:25:08 PM

Sorry, it's been forever since I linked a video on here. ^^;

Here it is: "The Divinity of Donald Trump"

Do not obey in advance.
MorningStar1337 The Encounter that ended the Dogma from 🤔 Since: Nov, 2012
The Encounter that ended the Dogma
#183208: Apr 16th 2017 at 7:29:08 PM

[up] This is the most convincing argument of Gnosticism I've ever seentongue

DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#183209: Apr 16th 2017 at 7:31:46 PM

That preacher is a deluded fool. But I really wish people would stop saying "Christians" when they mean "Evangelicals".

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#183210: Apr 16th 2017 at 7:37:26 PM

Even friggin' Goldwater realized these people would be trouble down the road.

Disgusted, but not surprised
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#183211: Apr 16th 2017 at 7:38:13 PM

[up][up][up] Maybe I'm missing the point but how is it a convincing argument for Gnosticism?

[up] Ugh, amen.

edited 16th Apr '17 7:38:37 PM by Fourthspartan56

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
MorningStar1337 The Encounter that ended the Dogma from 🤔 Since: Nov, 2012
The Encounter that ended the Dogma
#183212: Apr 16th 2017 at 7:41:52 PM

[up] It was a joke, based on the premise of the Demiurge.

Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#183213: Apr 16th 2017 at 7:46:31 PM

[up] Oh I see, very amusing. smile

edited 16th Apr '17 7:46:54 PM by Fourthspartan56

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor
#183214: Apr 16th 2017 at 8:00:30 PM

Conservative Evangelicals don't really have any internally consistent beliefs other than maintaining white supremacy.

If they had to choose between overturning roe v wade and white supremacy they'll choose the latter every time without question

New Survey coming this weekend!
Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#183215: Apr 16th 2017 at 8:10:34 PM

[up] Now, that's not entirely true. Some want it the other way around. I have relatives in the US who are loopy evangelical conservatives and as far as I can tell, they couldn't care less about race (they have no problem with welfare being extended to minorities), but they hate the idea of abortion being legal.

In general though, Conservative Evangelicalism is full of single issue wonks where they only care about one thing. White supremacy is one, abortion is another, and the big third one is homophobia.

edited 16th Apr '17 8:11:53 PM by Zendervai

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#183216: Apr 16th 2017 at 8:18:12 PM

[up]

In general though, Conservative Evangelicalism is full of single issue wonks where they only care about one thing. White supremacy is one, abortion is another, and the big third one is homophobia.

And that more than anything is the biggest problem with a lot of them — they are so committed to dealing with their single issue that they are willing to do anything, or support anyone *cough* Trump *cough* that they think will help them deal with that issue. Even if it means betraying the rest of their supposed principles and values. The ends justify the means for these people.

edited 16th Apr '17 8:21:23 PM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#183218: Apr 16th 2017 at 8:37:24 PM

Yes. I'm sure. I grew up in evangelical churches and the near unanimous decider among white, black, and Hispanics was that Clinton was for abortion and therefore Trump was the default choice.

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#183219: Apr 16th 2017 at 8:40:33 PM

[up] "Sure, he's a philanderer, a cheat, a thief, a boor, and an overall horrible human being...but he doesn't support abortion. Guess I'm voting for him."

Disgusted, but not surprised
Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#183220: Apr 16th 2017 at 8:44:43 PM

That or they believe it's all made up. They'll rationalize anything.

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#183221: Apr 16th 2017 at 9:24:33 PM

That preacher is a deluded fool. But I really wish people would stop saying "Christians" when they mean "Evangelicals".

Why? The Religious Right isn't just composed of evangelicals. It includes conservative Catholics, Mormons, and members of numerous other denominations as well. And, like it or not, the Religious Right typically refers to itself as standing for Christian values, and it's followers as Christians. It does not differentiate, because it figured out a long time ago that no one group of Christian fundamentalists can be counted upon to form a reliable voting block. It has to pander to the things that all the factions hold in common in order to be the political force that it is.

Considering more or less the only thing you come to this thread to talk about these days is the latest stupidity to be found in that particular corner of the Internet, I think I have adequate reason to doubt your sincerity in claiming you aren't intending to paint us all with that brush.

If I wanted to paint you all with the same brush, Caspase, I wouldn't beat around the bush. I would damn well paint you all with the same brush.

You ever consider that maybe, just maybe, I consider the people in that "particular corner of the Internet" to be a clear and present danger to the future of both the Democratic Party and the progressive movement in general and that I therefore believe that, even as we go forward on fighting Trump, we should keep an eye on them to make sure they don't a) screw up our message or b) gain actual power?

I disagree with you vehemently on a lot, but I don't accuse you of arguing in bad faith. Kindly return the favour.

edited 16th Apr '17 9:26:03 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#183222: Apr 16th 2017 at 9:34:01 PM

New topic, new post. Article on whether the "Fearless Girl" statue erected as part of one of the women's marches should be taken down. While I personally appreciate the reason for erecting her, I also have to say that I can sympathize with the artist behind "Charging Bull", the statue she was placed in front of. Her presence does alter the meaning of his work notably. Thoughts?

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#183223: Apr 16th 2017 at 9:48:42 PM

[up] I think Di Modica's concerns about it changing his work's message are valid.

I suppose if supporters of the "Fearless Girl" statue really want it to stay just in case the city does side with Di Modica, they could maybe move it somewhere else and chip in to have another statue of a bull (or a bull and a bear) in front of her.

edited 16th Apr '17 10:20:10 PM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
CenturyEye Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign? from I don't know where the Yith sent me this time... Since: Jan, 2017 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign?
#183224: Apr 16th 2017 at 9:51:43 PM

Artist Arturo Di Modica, who installed his bull sculpture under the cover of night after the 1987 stock-market crash.

Di Modica knows a thing or two about using public acclaim to force an art piece onto city property. He didn’t have a permit when he erected his piece outside the New York Stock Exchange, but after it became a tourist attraction, the city agreed to let it stay. Likewise, sculptor Kristen Visbal’s Fearless Girl was meant as a temporary month-long installation. But Mayor Bill de Blasio announced in March that, in part due to the sculpture’s booming popularity, it would remain until February 2018.

Before Fearless Girl came on the scene, the bull was an encouraging representation of a booming economy. Now, charging toward a tiny human, it’s a stand-in for the gendered forces that work against women’s success in the workplace.

Men who don’t like women taking up space are exactly why we need the Fearless Girl.

This pretty much set my thoughts on the matter. Art is not actually immutable. Interpretation changes with the times, and in his case, his work was enhanced to give it contemporary meaning instead of being sent to a warehouse or the cause of his being massively fined. Tis not like brave corporate warriors is in vogue at the moment—and whose to say that people even knew what that thing meant or didn't interpret it as the bull trampling all in its path meaning them.
The article speaks about a class divide aggravated by focusing on sex ratios in corporate boards, pointing out a not unimportant problem, but in this case, Slate's grasping at straws. The argument was narrow and oddly self-unaware. For an article that ends with calling the thing apolitical, it failed to note that its a political article about the statue. Furthermore, tis rather difficult for one work to speak to every facet of a movement at once, even if parity in the halls of power were unimportant or even not disproportionately important.
Di Modica may feel bad about his statue being part of a new message, but he set it up in a public place in what is effectively a heavier and more expensive version of graffiti tagging. Someone added a word in front of his marking, and the city isn't washing either off. Full stop.

Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our lives
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#183225: Apr 16th 2017 at 9:53:29 PM

[up] I thought about adding something in this spirit too as an Edit to my previous post as an "OTOH...", but you beat me to the punch. [awesome]

I didn't originally draw the parallel to graffiti tagging, but now that I think about it, it seems fitting.

If he had originally applied for a permit or something, he'd have more legal grounds to have it removed. If you flaunt the law to force your artistic vision on to others, you'll look kind of silly complaining when someone else does the same thing.

Ultimately, this is up to the public. The public originally deemed his work should stay. The public should decide whether or not the alteration to it should remain until next February.

edited 16th Apr '17 10:06:51 PM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised

Total posts: 417,856
Top