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

PotatoesRock Since: Oct, 2012
#33401: Oct 18th 2012 at 8:32:12 AM

Not sure what to make of this:

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/10/17/1037881/leaked-audio-romney-employers/

Any merit to this or is Think Progress over sensationalizing it?

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#33402: Oct 18th 2012 at 8:47:59 AM

It's very relevant because there are documented cases of employers threatening layoffs if Obama is reelected. This is, of course, on the pretext that said reelection will be bad for the economy, but that's a load of bull for anyone not brainwashed by Fox News. In general, it ignores the fact that the economy almost uniformly performs better under Democratic administrations; and in particular, it ignores the fact that this particular depression was caused by Republican policies and is being prolonged by Republican policies.

edited 18th Oct '12 8:50:24 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Thorn14 Gunpla is amazing! Since: Aug, 2010
Gunpla is amazing!
#33403: Oct 18th 2012 at 8:51:26 AM

Good to know a bully might actually become President.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#33404: Oct 18th 2012 at 8:55:16 AM

Romney was a bully in school, too. And people said that wasn't relevant...

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
PotatoesRock Since: Oct, 2012
#33405: Oct 18th 2012 at 9:02:00 AM

More I'm asking "is Think Progress making shit up/misconstruing this". But ugh. Romney, why is it every time I try to think you're at least some sort of decent human being in some respect, you keep doing increasingly terrible things. c_c;;

Why do you have to keep insisting on trying to resemble a villain straight from a Saturday Morning Cartoon from the 80s-90s...

Sigh
:

ch00beh ??? from Who Knows Where Since: Jul, 2010
???
#33406: Oct 18th 2012 at 9:03:41 AM

Never said signing indefinite detention wasn't understandable—just said it was a thing you could be mad about.

Signing ACTA is also a thing you could be mad about, and deploying troops in allied soil. I'm pretty annoyed that none of the war time emergency acts (patriot act, mostly) were not scaled back at all.

All understandable since I'm more concerned about getting the economy back up and running than about internet freedoms—I know my way around a proxy and an SSL connection, so while I feel really disgusted by them on a base level, they don't actually affect me all that much.

"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story." Twitter
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#33407: Oct 18th 2012 at 9:09:22 AM

Internet issues I think are currently largely unenforceable, so while they're a concern I don't rate them quite highly. I don't know my way around a proxy, in fact I am pretty sure I'm computer illiterate when compared with others in my age group. I just have a hard time getting worried about it when things more necessary than the internet to my life are on the table.

That and I think the internet community is going to stay sharp to things like SOPA and such. (Can't remember what ACTA stands for right now.)

But yeah, this rash of businessmen threatening to fire people for, essentially, Obama winning, is nothing short of bullying. Hell, that's out of any one individual's hands, and here people are having to worry about something largely out of their control, since they can't alter large group's of people's votes. It's disgusting, not the kind of thing we should be worrying about in this country of all countries, and the absolute corruption of the democratic process.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#33408: Oct 18th 2012 at 9:14:25 AM

[up][up] I am upset about indefinite detention, heavy-handed piracy legislation, and the like, of course, but when I look at it from a pragmatic point of view, I cannot see that Romney would be a superior option on those issues. Therefore, they have no bearing on my voting decisions.

Yes, you (and I) may wish that Obama had taken a stronger stance in opposing ACTA, NDAA, and such. We may also wish that he'd addressed gun control, immigration reform, the war on drugs, and similar issues in a stronger way. However, he didn't, and the only realistic option to a second Obama term is a Romney term, which would be far worse in all respects in all those areas. The choice is pretty clear-cut, even if it's between a guy who's only sold half his soul to corporate interests versus a guy who's been bought and paid for since birth.

edited 18th Oct '12 9:18:37 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
#33409: Oct 18th 2012 at 9:21:21 AM

That TP article is probably accurate, but the only reason to get mad about it is if you already dislike Romney and need to validate your preconceptions about him. Under normal circumstances, this should be no more notable than Obama saying that unions should inform their members about how an upcoming election will affect unions.

<><
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#33410: Oct 18th 2012 at 9:23:21 AM

[up] That logic only holds if you assume that unions and corporations have equal power, which is not at all the case. Furthermore, disagreeing with your union's political stance doesn't get you fired from your job. There is a very real disparity of power here. When the guy signing your paychecks tells you, "If this guy doesn't get in, you're out of a job," that carries far more coercive weight than when the people you hang out with at union meetings say, "We support this guy because he supports our interests."

I mean, coercion is unjustifiable no matter who's doing it, but it only counts as coercion if the person doing it has the power to coerce.

We've covered this before, but a core Republican tactic in the current political cycle is to build a False Equivalence by taking valid accusations levied at them and saying, "I know you are but what am I?" in the hopes of deflecting attention away from the facts. For example, Romney accusing Obama of lying when Romney is the one doing nearly all of it.

edited 18th Oct '12 9:27:52 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
GlennMagusHarvey Since: Jan, 2001
#33411: Oct 18th 2012 at 9:26:34 AM

I just give a donation to EFF when I'm buying Humble Indie Bundles, and hope for the best, on the internet policy front.

#33412: Oct 18th 2012 at 9:29:45 AM

[up][up] It's no different from a union saying "if this guy gets elected, the corporations will run all over you".

No where is anyone (that I have seen) suggesting that failure to support the corporation's preferred candidate will lead to retribution. If the companies are right in their assessment of the situation, an Obama win will hurt their Romney-supporting employees just as much as their Obama-supporting employees. So like I said, this can only be considered coercion if you are already determined to see that.

edited 18th Oct '12 9:30:49 AM by EdwardsGrizzly

<><
PotatoesRock Since: Oct, 2012
#33413: Oct 18th 2012 at 9:31:21 AM

As far as the Internet policy goes, it's going to end up sadly, being one of those things where "The industries halting it collapse first" or "All the old farts die" are the only real markers for likely progress.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#33414: Oct 18th 2012 at 9:36:11 AM

[up][up] You can offer an opinion in the form of a political statement without making it look like coercion. These moves by companies may skate by on the letter of the law, but they look like an attempt to intimidate their employees into voting a certain way. As a union is an organization designed around worker solidarity, it is entirely appropriate for it to engage in political activism. A business, not so much.

If you think that I'm allotting privileges to unions that I am not to business owners, you are absolutely correct. They are different entities entirely. A business owner is free to sponsor an advertisement favoring a candidate, but he is not free to intimidate his employees into voting a certain way. (Well, unions shouldn't be intimidating people either, but unless they are threatening to beat up members who don't vote Obama, I can't see how it's equivalent. A union has no direct power over your employment.)

Looked at from a different perspective, I would expect my union to offer political opinions to its members. I would be very, very upset if my employer sent out an email urging me to vote for Romney or Obama.

edited 18th Oct '12 9:40:24 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
#33415: Oct 18th 2012 at 9:45:11 AM

That's fine, just realize that the reason you have that perception is that you are already inclined to see companies in a bad light.

<><
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#33416: Oct 18th 2012 at 9:59:27 AM

No, I am inclined to see companies as businesses, not political entities. In this I am following the decades of precedent before Citizens United made them equal to people in terms of political speech.

The relationship between employer and employee is one where power inherently rests with the employer. Thus, the employer has an ethical obligation not to use that power to coerce the employee into activities not germane to their business relationship. Your boss can't make your job conditional on having sex with him or her, as that's (besides creepy) irrelevant to the performance of your job. Nor can your boss make your job conditional on your religion, race, gender, etc.

These are protections we put into place because we implicitly recognize the power of the employer in the relationship. Unions are another example of self-organizing to even out the balance of power.

For an employer to make a valid assertion that, "if this guy wins the election, I'll have no choice but to lay people off," there would have to be a direct causal link between the two events. As there is absolutely no such link demonstrable for 99% of businesses (the only exception I can think of would be the campaign staff of the respective candidates), then it is factually inaccurate to say it.

Indeed, it's completely contradictory to fact, as historical evidence shows the economy performing better under Democrats than under Republicans. Therefore it can only reasonably be construed as an employer forcing their political opinions on their employees, which is immaterial to the employment relationship and therefore unethical, if not actually illegal.

Your assertion that my stance reflects a dislike for businesses is ridiculous and a perfect example of deflecting the issues. "I think group X shouldn't be allowed to do Y." "Well, that's because you dislike them." Strawman!

edited 18th Oct '12 10:01:55 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
#33417: Oct 18th 2012 at 10:11:35 AM

I'm contending that the actions of group X would only be interpreted as Y by someone who already wanted to believe that group X was doing Y.

The situation "leader of company believes his company will suffer if a certain candidate is elected, so he encourages his employees to vote for the other candidate, calling on their company loyalty as well as appealing to the interest they share in the company's success" is a perfectly normal and reasonable situation. There's no reason for an impartial observer to believe that this isn't the situation here.

I'm contending nothing about the factual accuracy of the company's assessment of their business outlooks, but there's nothing morally wrong with being incorrect.

<><
Ekuran Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
#33418: Oct 18th 2012 at 10:18:29 AM

In reality, the company leader's own wealth will be threatened while their company's profit will rise, therefore they'll fire their workers to match (or, probably, exceed) their former income.

Edit: Also, your argument doesn't work when Fighteer is arguing from a factual basis rather than his personal beliefs, unlike the arguments of Republicans in general.

edited 18th Oct '12 10:30:17 AM by Ekuran

ohsointocats from The Sand Wastes Since: Oct, 2011 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#33419: Oct 18th 2012 at 10:26:41 AM

I really do not understand how "if x guy is elected, y group will run all over you" is not different from "if z guy is elected, I will fire some of you.".

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#33420: Oct 18th 2012 at 10:34:22 AM

[up][up][up] Those are just fancy words that amount to, "If this guy gets elected, you will lose your job." I concede that it could be a factual statement, in that the business owner will fire people regardless of the actual economic impact of the election. If that happens, then I would volunteer to stand in line to punch that douchebag in the face repeatedly.

I do not and will not agree that such a statement, however sweetly couched, is an ethical or moral exercise of an employer's free speech rights, and I do believe that it could be prosecutable.

edited 18th Oct '12 10:35:04 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#33421: Oct 18th 2012 at 10:34:27 AM

Well let me ask Fighteer and Grizzly: how about saying "If Obama is elected, customers will increase" claim?

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#33422: Oct 18th 2012 at 10:40:20 AM

I would expect such an assertion to be justified somehow. Business owners have a pragmatic responsibility to take actions that are beneficial to their business; if they have good reason to expect that demand for their products will increase (or decrease), then they may wish to incorporate those expectations in their financial projections and hiring decisions and such.

If a candidate credibly claims, for example, that he will upon election sign an executive order for the purchase of ten thousand Maytag washer/dryers, then Maytag could reasonably base a portion of their sales forecast on that statement. However, I would not expect Maytag's CEO to send an email to all of his employees urging them to vote for the candidate making that promise. That is as unethical as the converse.

edited 18th Oct '12 11:08:14 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#33423: Oct 18th 2012 at 10:42:52 AM

Although, there are a lot of people who think Obama is wrecking the economy. True or not, those people exist, and it's possible some of them own businesses.

TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#33424: Oct 18th 2012 at 10:46:23 AM

Business management are not perfect machines, whose decisions are entirely in line with the the stakeholders of the firm.

I wouldn't be surprised if-under the cover of "welp, the economy's bad because of Obama"-the management fires people, just to prove some kind of point. Sending out the letter is the message that the management is going to do such a thing.

You can say "well, they're just telling everyone that if the economy goes bad BECAUSE of Obama-" but that's a non-falsifiable statement. There's no such thing is a bad economy from a 100% objectively verifiable point of view, in the sense of what the management will decide is a bad economy. So there's no reason to assume that Obama being elected won't result in one's being fired even if we continue to have relatively positive jobs reports.

In short, stop defending blatant extortion. You're going out of your way to make excuses.

RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#33425: Oct 18th 2012 at 10:47:05 AM

I really do not understand how "if x guy is elected, y group will run all over you" is not different from "if z guy is elected, I will fire some of you.".
No union will ever remove a single worker from employment or bring down a single company if Romney is elected. They can't do it, and I don't hear them threatening anything remotely like that.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Total posts: 417,856
Top