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

Serocco Serocco from Miami, Florida Since: Mar, 2010 Relationship Status: Faithful to 2D
Serocco
#33576: Oct 18th 2012 at 7:15:57 PM

Here's my message to the CEOs: I'd like to see you try, and if you do, you're an idiot, because you're harming your business by getting rid of your employees.

Not many would want to go to your business if they learn that you fired their employees for not voting your way.

edited 18th Oct '12 7:16:32 PM by Serocco

In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.
Tangent128 from Virginia Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Gonna take a lot to drag me away from you
#33577: Oct 18th 2012 at 7:17:49 PM

If rage firings do happen, hopefully there will be organization out there to form new companies from the firings that take advantage of the free market. A company that fires workers for no reason, terrifying the rest into seeking safer employment, seems inherently less fit for any industry.

Do you highlight everything looking for secret messages?
ohsointocats from The Sand Wastes Since: Oct, 2011 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#33578: Oct 18th 2012 at 7:18:18 PM

Honestly threatening people's jobs if they don't vote a certain way sounds a lot like communists to me.

entropy13 Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Drift compatible
#33579: Oct 18th 2012 at 7:18:52 PM

The coal industry would collapse if Obama gets elected...? Isn't China their biggest customer now anyway?

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#33580: Oct 18th 2012 at 7:19:35 PM

[up][up][up][up]Too bad it either won't get reported or people won't care. Then there will also be those that think this behavior is justified.

My message would be for them to lower their fucking pay a little if they think their company doesn't make enough money.

[up][up]?

I think the word you're looking for is fascist. Nothing about this strikes me as communistic since they don't even have private enterprise to begin with.

edited 18th Oct '12 7:20:42 PM by Kostya

Serocco Serocco from Miami, Florida Since: Mar, 2010 Relationship Status: Faithful to 2D
Serocco
#33581: Oct 18th 2012 at 7:20:51 PM

Threatening to fire your workers for not voting for your guy is not communism. It is totalitarianism.

In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#33582: Oct 18th 2012 at 7:22:13 PM

[up]That's the word I was trying to think of.

edited 18th Oct '12 7:22:21 PM by Kostya

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#33583: Oct 18th 2012 at 7:25:24 PM

Looking at Murray's Wikipedia page I found this quote by him:

"We produce a product that is essential to the standard of living of every American because our coal produces 52% of the energy in America today, and it is the lowest cost energy, costing 1/3 to 1/4 the cost of energy from natural gas, nuclear and renewable energy resources. And without coal to manufacture electricity our products will not compete in the global marketplace against foreign countries because our manufacturers depend on coal, low cost electricity and people on fixed incomes will not be able to pay their electric bills. Every one of those global warming bills that have been introduced into Congress today eliminates the coal industry and will increase your electric rates, four to five fold."

While I believe Murray is grossly exaggerating his claims that global warming legislation will kill the coal industry, his claims hold some legitimacy in that most Global Warming Legislature does hurt the coal industry in some way.

While I detest voter intimidation, its unfair to tell your employees that there job will be unaffected regardless of who becomes the president if that is not in fact the case. Oil and Coal companies should be able to tell there employees that things will probably get tougher for there company (and by extension them) if Obama is reelected president, so long as they present proof to back there claims up. Similarly the EPA and PBS can tell there employees what the effects of Romney becoming president would be since he has promised to cut the money both groups receive from the government. However the main problem is that most of allegations being made are rather outlandish if not outright lies and implied threats.

On a side-note, I personally have no sympathy for Mr. Murray due to the Crandall Canyon Mine accident.

edited 18th Oct '12 7:33:52 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
entropy13 Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Drift compatible
#33584: Oct 18th 2012 at 7:28:50 PM

[up]IIRC they (coal industry) were "up in arms" against Obama years ago because of some environmental policies that they ended up producing less energy for the US than before? And to offset the decrease in local demand they decided to ship coal across the Pacific and into China? So how come now they're suddenly claiming that they're "big" in the US in terms of energy production when years ago they're complaining that they're "getting small"?

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#33585: Oct 18th 2012 at 7:29:43 PM

This is why we need to make renewable energy sources more affordable. Unfortunately that can't happen unless we invest in green technologies and we all know the energy companies hate that.

Serocco Serocco from Miami, Florida Since: Mar, 2010 Relationship Status: Faithful to 2D
Serocco
#33586: Oct 18th 2012 at 7:45:18 PM

The saddest part of this is that these are spineless, empty threats.

How exactly are they supposed to know who you vote for? The booth is private. Even Siegel did a survey to see who his employees liked between Gore and Bush.

In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.
GlennMagusHarvey Since: Jan, 2001
#33587: Oct 18th 2012 at 7:47:17 PM

David Siegel, CEO of Westgate Resorts: "If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current president plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company."

Here it is.

If only he had said this:

"If any new taxes are levied on my company, as our current president plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company."

He would at least be a slightly more reasonable jerk.

But no.

"If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current president plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company."

Someone please make a public fuss about these two words.

Serocco Serocco from Miami, Florida Since: Mar, 2010 Relationship Status: Faithful to 2D
Serocco
#33588: Oct 18th 2012 at 7:50:29 PM

[up] Exactly. "Taxes on me."

And that, ultimately, shows what he cares most about.

edited 18th Oct '12 7:51:46 PM by Serocco

In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.
#33589: Oct 18th 2012 at 8:00:43 PM

I'd like to point out that Siegel is also the owner of that company, so it's not the same as a CEO who is theoretically just an employee of the stockholders.

<><
terlwyth Since: Oct, 2010
#33590: Oct 18th 2012 at 8:02:52 PM

That still hardly changes the matter,I mean hardly because there is an off chance that the GOP is right that the owners will use the money to provide jobs

But it's an off chance

Serocco Serocco from Miami, Florida Since: Mar, 2010 Relationship Status: Faithful to 2D
Serocco
#33591: Oct 18th 2012 at 8:04:54 PM

[up] [up] That hardly changes anything.

In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.
#33592: Oct 18th 2012 at 8:09:07 PM

Well, some people were talking in terms of "why does the CEO's taxes matter", so that's the answer.

I'm getting sick of this discussion. People are determined to think what they want to think, and we really aren't getting anywhere, so I'm going to drop it at this point.

edited 18th Oct '12 8:09:24 PM by EdwardsGrizzly

<><
Aqueos Nova here from Los Angeles Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Californicating
#33593: Oct 18th 2012 at 8:09:28 PM

[up][up]Well he can't leave for one thing. He can't just jump ship if it goes under. I'd say that's a rather large difference.

edited 18th Oct '12 8:14:01 PM by Aqueos

Bet you didn't see that coming
ohsointocats from The Sand Wastes Since: Oct, 2011 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#33594: Oct 18th 2012 at 8:12:24 PM

If he owns it, that means the profits are his, correct? Meaning that if his taxes are raised, he had no reason for his company to be successful... except that he runs it and running it into the ground will ruin his income... er.

Then again, there's the fact that apparently we're more productive than ever and making more profits than ever due to making fewer people do more to keep their jobs, so he's just going to continue to do what everyone has been doing throughout the recession...

GlennMagusHarvey Since: Jan, 2001
#33595: Oct 18th 2012 at 8:17:09 PM

I'm actually curious, and interested in having a realistic discussion, about why his being owner of the company makes a difference.

Is he saying that new taxes would leave him with no take-home pay?

See, this would be odd if he were talking about personal income taxes. No tax rates are going up to 100%, or anything close; just that top-bracket rate is going up to 39%. So it would not be because of income tax increases that he'd end up with no take-home pay. Even if I assumed that his ENTIRE income is taxed at that rate, he'd still have at least 61% of his income left. Unless he's making a paltry sum—less than roughly $50,000 a year, I don't see how this is a problem. Does anyone have information on how much his salary has been? (It's gotta be somewhere out there if this is a publicly traded company...)

So he's probably talking about some other tax. Now I guess as CEO he would have the option to cut his own pay to help the company stay afloat, if need be. Is this what he's talking about? If so, what sorts of tax policy changes is he thinking of that would lead to this?

Please, no frivolous or dismissive answers. I want realistic answers.

drunkscriblerian Street Writing Man from Castle Geekhaven Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: In season
Street Writing Man
#33596: Oct 18th 2012 at 8:18:31 PM

As to Murray and coal country, Murray's company pursues a policy of coercing its employees into donating to its political endeavours...which are entirely geared towards supporting the Republican party. Citation.

(The article largely concerns the Koch brothers but there's a bit about Murray near the end)

We've had laws on voter intimidation since the 19th century. Doing it through a thin degree of separation is still doing it.

edited 18th Oct '12 8:19:08 PM by drunkscriblerian

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~
ohsointocats from The Sand Wastes Since: Oct, 2011 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#33597: Oct 18th 2012 at 8:20:52 PM

[up][up]His being owner of a company means that he is not a CEO.

TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#33598: Oct 18th 2012 at 8:54:46 PM

I'm pretty sure you can be the CEO and majority shareholder of a firm, but generally only if it's a small firm. Generally not the kinds that are traded in the NYSE or the like.

HilarityEnsues Since: Sep, 2009
#33599: Oct 18th 2012 at 8:56:52 PM

What amuses me is the idea that Obama is going to significantly burden these wealthy business owners at all, let alone do so to such an extent where this kind of response from them would be appropriate. I mean, really now? Are we talking about the same guy who couldn't get the Buffet Rule passed?

Aqueos Nova here from Los Angeles Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Californicating
#33600: Oct 18th 2012 at 9:02:19 PM

I'd be more worried about corporate tax rates in regard to competition with foreign corporations... but I'd need to look more into that. Our corporate tax rates are rather high considering the rest of the world though.

edited 18th Oct '12 9:02:32 PM by Aqueos

Bet you didn't see that coming

Total posts: 417,856
Top