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

RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#329301: Sep 27th 2020 at 9:46:53 AM

Keeping them apart is more a matter of having moved away from the implications of religion as related to US politics than the idea that they are somehow completely separable.

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#329302: Sep 27th 2020 at 9:47:28 AM

Former Republican Governor of Pennsylvania and Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge has endorsed Biden. He's been Never Trump since 2015, but did not endorse or vote for Clinton.

https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/commentary/tom-ridge-trump-biden-election-2020-vote-20200927.html?outputType=amp&__twitter_impression=true

Is this likely to work in Biden's favor in Pennsylvania?

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#329303: Sep 27th 2020 at 10:42:05 AM

At best it pulls a few fence-sitters to Biden's side, at worst it just further solidifies the defectors already planning to vote for Biden from changing their minds. It's not a three pointer, but it still keeps the ball in Biden's hands.

It also gives me the impression that Trump's SC nominee isn't having the rally around the conservative flag affect he was probably hoping for.

Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#329304: Sep 27th 2020 at 11:07:18 AM

The hatred of atheists by the American people is not exactly partisan. Twitter's leftist community can't stand atheists. They complain about what they call "New Atheists," yes, with capital letters, and some derisively call atheism a religion. Hopefully this is just Twitter being one big asshole convention where people get clout by being perpetually embarrassed and contrarian, though.

Let's not fall into fallacious thinking, all New Atheists are atheists but not all atheists are New Atheists. Hating New Atheism is in no way the same as hating all atheists, I'm an atheist (and anti-theist) and I despise New Atheism. Because the majority of their thought leaders (Harris, Maher, Hitchens, Dawkins, etc) are bigots who have associated with neo-cons and even alt-lite or alt-right figures.

Some Twitter leftists may indeed hate atheists, statistically they'd have to considering how common anti-atheist discrimination is in the US. But let's not conflate hating atheists with hating New Atheism.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Sep 27th 2020 at 11:25:22 AM

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#329305: Sep 27th 2020 at 11:16:00 AM

With regards to religion in politics, what I take issue with is the fact that we afford so much tolerance to religious/philosophical beliefs even in cases where they are in direct conflict with empirical science. It's one thing to turn to religion on questions that are presently unfalsifiable and probably will remain so for the foreseeable future—the ultimate origin of existence for example—but there's a troubling degree of tolerance for beliefs that are demonstrably false as long as they aren't overtly harmful, (i.e. Creationism), or even in some cases where they are such as the states where religious or personal belief exemptions from vaccination requirements exist.

Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#329306: Sep 27th 2020 at 11:27:09 AM

Personally, I consider religion in politics to be cancer. You can't argue against an argument that is based on some level of "God did it", as long as religion is part of the public sphere it will always cause harm. The only way that irrationality can be avoided is if it's a strictly private manner that doesn't intrude into the public sphere.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
AlleyOop Since: Oct, 2010
#329307: Sep 27th 2020 at 11:28:55 AM

Certain things like large-scale religious veganism and statutes to prevent the mixing of meat products, or legal protection against the violation of areas considered sacred to certain peoples are hardly a matter I'd call private.

Edited by AlleyOop on Sep 27th 2020 at 2:29:53 PM

smokeycut Since: Mar, 2013
#329308: Sep 27th 2020 at 11:31:19 AM

[up][up] I don’t necessarily agree 100% with that. I know a rabbi and a minister who are on a police accountability board, and while they don’t use their religions to make their arguments, their status as religious leaders is why they ended up on the board.

ShinyCottonCandy Everyone's friend Malamar from Lumiose City (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Who needs love when you have waffles?
Everyone's friend Malamar
#329309: Sep 27th 2020 at 11:34:27 AM

What is actually needed is a firm dividing line between things that are necessary for an individual’s religious practices (such as certifying foods as kosher) and things that exist only to force religious requirements on people not necessarily within that religion (such as anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination).

My musician page
PointMaid Since: Jun, 2014
#329310: Sep 27th 2020 at 11:40:54 AM

[up][up] 'Their status as religious leaders is why they ended up on the board'

Why should religious leaders be more qualified or be considered to have priority to be on such a board in the first place, though? If there's a reason, I'd like to hear it. It's a board about a secular matter, and moreover a government matter. If the want to understand what the community thinks about police accountability, such a committee should be a cross section of the community.

Edited by PointMaid on Sep 27th 2020 at 2:41:27 PM

RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#329311: Sep 27th 2020 at 11:44:59 AM

Generally because religious leaders are considered to be respectable and well-integrated parts of the community. Quite possibly useful for collecting peoples' viewpoints. i.e. they're themselves considered representative of a cross section of the community.

And probably more available to come to committee meetings etc.

Edited by RainehDaze on Sep 27th 2020 at 7:45:42 PM

RedSavant Since: Jan, 2001
#329312: Sep 27th 2020 at 11:50:57 AM

I understand your point, PointMaid, but the counterargument is that religious people are also part of the community. A council like that shouldn't be dominated by religious viewpoints, but nor is there any reason to keep, say, the neighborhood's rabbi of 35 years from joining up if he's well-regarded.

It's been fun.
PointMaid Since: Jun, 2014
#329313: Sep 27th 2020 at 11:54:49 AM

That's not the part I take issue with. If they're there as a citizen, they're as much a citizen as anyone else.

What I was questioning is an idea that they're somehow more qualified than your average person to be on such a board.

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#329314: Sep 27th 2020 at 11:56:12 AM

Smokey Cut didn't say anything about being more qualified than everyone else though.

Regardless, if boards like that are to be made up of well respected and regarded people withing the various communities they're supposed to be representing, it really shouldn't be surprising that religious leaders in the community are often thought of in that regard.

Edited by LSBK on Sep 27th 2020 at 1:57:57 PM

Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#329315: Sep 27th 2020 at 11:56:43 AM

Now, I'm speaking as a Christian here, but: I'd argue the mixing of religion and politics is...necessary, and probably inevitable. If a church isn't out to influence people's values in such a manner that it would effect the political sphere, then the church is absolutely not doing its job. The purpose of religion is to make a better society, which is intrinsically political.

Leviticus 19:34
PointMaid Since: Jun, 2014
#329316: Sep 27th 2020 at 11:57:21 AM

[up][up]

their status as religious leaders is why they ended up on the board.

Edited by PointMaid on Sep 27th 2020 at 2:57:51 PM

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#329317: Sep 27th 2020 at 11:58:39 AM

[up]And that statement still isn't saying what you're claiming it is.

smokeycut Since: Mar, 2013
#329318: Sep 27th 2020 at 12:04:51 PM

Yeah, they’re on the board because, as religious leaders, they’re respected by their community and are someone who people will go to to discuss their issues with the police. They can then bring that info to the PAB they are a part of.

AlleyOop Since: Oct, 2010
#329319: Sep 27th 2020 at 12:07:11 PM

Right, it's less that they have religious authority in and of itself and more that their position as a religious authority also gives them community authority, something more pertinent to serving a PAB well.

Deadbeatloser22 from Disappeared by Space Magic (Great Old One) Relationship Status: Tsundere'ing
#329320: Sep 27th 2020 at 12:09:27 PM

It's not like the Lords Spiritual where they're there to represent the religious establishment.

"Yup. That tasted purple."
RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#329321: Sep 27th 2020 at 12:10:26 PM

And remember, this is contrasting Spartan's point that religion should be entirely private and stay out of the public sphere—which would, in this case, mean arbitrarily excluding respected parts of the community from community groups.

CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#329322: Sep 27th 2020 at 12:12:03 PM

Jesus notably said to keep religion and politics separate, so I go with him.

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and what is to the Lord's, the Lord's."

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
HailMuffins Since: May, 2016 Relationship Status: Shipping fictional characters
#329323: Sep 27th 2020 at 12:16:23 PM

[up][up]And if you're part of a religious group that's discriminated against, that ain't exactly much of an improvement over Christianity being the only accepted form of worship in US society.

Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#329324: Sep 27th 2020 at 12:18:19 PM

Certain things like large-scale religious veganism and statutes to prevent the mixing of meat products, or legal protection against the violation of areas considered sacred to certain peoples are hardly a matter I'd call private.

Obviously, exceptions will exist, but the only reason that religion cannot be kept 99.9% private is that religion wants to force itself on everyone else. The only way to have a peaceful, tolerant, and rational state is to keep it aggressively secular. That way people have to justify their positions logically and cannot attack other groups on religious grounds.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Sep 27th 2020 at 12:19:55 PM

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
PointMaid Since: Jun, 2014
#329325: Sep 27th 2020 at 12:19:56 PM

Maybe it's my conception of informal leaders 'representing parts of the community'.

I have no conception of anything like that or resembling it. Nobody can speak for me. My only representative is the ones I choose by voting.

My conception of such a board would be as a board of individuals from across the community representing their own varied views. Not representatives of certain communities.

I realize that's not necessarily the conception that is meant by those creating these boards.


Total posts: 417,856
Top