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

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#34951: Oct 23rd 2012 at 9:01:43 PM

US civil rights groups ask international election monitors for assistance

And in response:

Texas Attorney General Tells U.N. Election Observers To Keep Their Distance

edited 23rd Oct '12 9:02:16 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
ohsointocats from The Sand Wastes Since: Oct, 2011 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#34953: Oct 23rd 2012 at 9:04:13 PM

[up]

Only in Texas?

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#34954: Oct 23rd 2012 at 9:10:32 PM

[up]x5

See. This is why i cant stand christians in my part of missouri. They are so absolutely convinced God's hand is in everything they cannot make any life decision or weather any life event without assuming it was either a handrwapped gift from god or a trial given to them by god.

edited 23rd Oct '12 9:13:53 PM by Midgetsnowman

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#34955: Oct 23rd 2012 at 9:15:32 PM

Supreme Court won't block Montana campaign law ahead of election

- The U.S. Supreme Court will not block a Montana law that limits campaign contributions to candidates for state office.

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#34956: Oct 23rd 2012 at 10:02:38 PM

I love my state but our reps are becoming increasingly insane. Is this what happens in a state where things a threatening to suddenly switch to the other side? Or at least not be quite so big an advantage to the side they've been the advantage to?

RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#34957: Oct 23rd 2012 at 10:26:09 PM

For those who don't want to hear him speak: "“I believe that life begins at conception, ” he said during a debate in New Albany, Indiana. “The only exception I have, to have an abortion, is in that case of the life of the mother. I’ve struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from god. And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

Well, most Christians believe that everything happens because God intended it, what with him supposedly being all-knowing and all-powerful and all.

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#34958: Oct 23rd 2012 at 10:28:05 PM

Texas is having a quarrel with UN, and were talking about Missouri and religion.

Priorities People!

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#34959: Oct 23rd 2012 at 11:05:28 PM

Wasn't Montana the state that challenged Citizens United ruling by claiming that the state law was a fair exercise? And was overturned shortly after?

Interesting that now the Court is upholding the limit.

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#34960: Oct 23rd 2012 at 11:34:30 PM

Courts overturn precedents quite often. Especially the Supreme Court. So uh... not that strange, to me. At least I think that's what you're saying is happening.

Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#34961: Oct 23rd 2012 at 11:45:24 PM

I don't know if this was quite a reversal. But it would be easier to strike down a law previously upheld, because that law is still there to sue. In reverse, you would have a hard time to gain standing to sue because you would be fighting for a dead law.

GlennMagusHarvey Since: Jan, 2001
#34962: Oct 24th 2012 at 12:22:31 AM

I think this only applies to state races.

3of4 Just a harmless giant from a foreign land. from Five Seconds in the Future. Since: Jan, 2010 Relationship Status: GAR for Archer
Just a harmless giant from a foreign land.
#34963: Oct 24th 2012 at 1:18:16 AM

...*reads the article about texas* Intimidation of Election observers...I think Texas claim to freedom and democracy just rammed an Iceberg.

Especially if every country that the US wants to have observed can now scream "hypocrite!" and be right...

good going!

On what charges will that guy arrest them, anyway? That is actually not a rethoric question, does texas/america have a law tht can be abused for it?

edited 24th Oct '12 1:20:23 AM by 3of4

"You can reply to this Message!"
GlennMagusHarvey Since: Jan, 2001
#34964: Oct 24th 2012 at 1:42:06 AM

We need pro-freedom protests in Texas.

PhilippeO Since: Oct, 2010
#34965: Oct 24th 2012 at 2:16:58 AM

[up][up] There is always loitering and public nuisance law that can be used if police want to capture someone without reason.

deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#34966: Oct 24th 2012 at 3:56:51 AM

I know I'm late with this, but I just finished watching the Third Party Debate, and, while I didn't agree with all of them, in fact I disagreed with Virgil Goode on practically everything, but listening to them showed a lack of difference between the Democratic and Republican Parties by showing candidates who actually are different from them. Candidates who aren't corporatist warmongers. Candidates with a diverse set of beliefs, rather than two candidates who are practically the same on the majority of issues. Candidates who have different plans, rather than spend less on everything but the military, tax less, and increase the already bloated military budget while protecting corporate interests, rather than the interests of the people of this country. I would personally prefer any of the candidates who participated in that debate, including Virgil Goode, to Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, if only to shake the two party system at its core, and to wrench power out of the corporations that so often buy the elections. We should not be choosing between the lesser of two evils, in fact I'd argue that it's a choice of the more effective and less effective of two evils, but we should choose a candidate that actually supports what we believe. In their closing statements, all the candidates made good points on this and similar topics, Gary Johnson made the point that a wasted vote is not a vote for a candidate who won't get elected, but a vote for a candidate one doesn't believe in, Jill Stein made the point about how many Americans do not vote at all, Rocky Anderson made the point about how the playing field could have been changed by just having one of them in one of the Presidential Debates to challenge the two parties that have very little variation, and, finally, Virgil Goode made the best point: "Open up the process, give broader views to Americans, and we will have a better and greater country." I may completely disagree with Virgil Goode politically, but, on that point, I agree wholeheartedly with him.

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#34967: Oct 24th 2012 at 4:35:59 AM

I know but that just won't happen. I'd love it if we had around eight parties that had a shot at getting in but right now we have two and again, even if one of them got in they're not doing much.

Elect some senators and representatives first. They're the ones that have most of the power and they'll give the party the attention it needs to be a viable option in the eyes of many other people.

RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#34968: Oct 24th 2012 at 4:47:35 AM

Elect some senators and representatives first. They're the ones that have most of the power and they'll give the party the attention it needs to be a viable option in the eyes of many other people.
This.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#34969: Oct 24th 2012 at 4:47:57 AM

I'd argue that it is the assumption that voting for them will do nothing that makes voting for them do nothing. Because people think that voting for them will do nothing, the majority of people choose not to vote for them, even if they would agree with one of them more than the candidate they actually voted for. And, because they made that assumption and did not vote for them, and because so many made that assumption and did not vote for them, the votes of those who voted for them anyway did nothing. The only thing that any individual can do to make a vote for them count more than it does is to do away with that assumption, and convince others to do away with that assumption.

Plus, Obama and Romney are close enough that the only significant differences between an Obama presidency and a Romney presidency that I could think of would be A: tone, since an Obama presidency would hold a pretense of being liberal, while a Romney presidency would do no such thing, and B: effectiveness, since Obama would be much more effective at getting conservative legislation through, since A: he has the backing of the Democratic party, B: many liberals fail to realize how conservative he really is, and C: he will further cement the center in the spot it has been going further right, thanks to the redefinition by the Republican Party of where Obama stands as liberal. Sure, there will be differences, but none of these differences would be as major as those, and the majority of these differences would be in how they would go about doing things, an not what their end goals would be.

BestOf FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC! from Finland Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
#34970: Oct 24th 2012 at 5:00:15 AM

I think it would be a good idea to have international observers keeping an eye on American elections. It seems that in most recent elections in the US, thousands of people (and potentially much more than thousands) have been denied their right to vote, with no proper justification and against the law.

If it was proven that a dozen people had lost the right to vote in Finnish elections, there would immediately be a new election. If a party was caught lying about the dates and locations of the elections and someone at the top of that party was proven to have known about it, that party leader would have to resign and probably would end up in jail for it.

One would assume that a country that claims to be the most democratic on earth would set up a new election at least in the states where fraud and voter disenfranchisement occurs. Now, obviously the US is a huge country so it's inevitable that there would be mistakes. But the number of violations against democracy that Americans seem to tolerate is much higher, even in proportion to population, than that in European countries.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#34971: Oct 24th 2012 at 5:03:19 AM

^

One would assume that a country that claims to be the most democratic on earth would set up a new election at least in the states where fraud and voter disenfranchisement occurs. Now, obviously the US is a huge country so it's inevitable that there would be mistakes. But the number of violations against democracy that Americans seem to tolerate is much higher, even in proportion to population, than that in European countries.

I wouldn't be surprised if some Third-World Countries have less electoral fraud than the US. The US might be a First-World Nation, but it has a Third-World electoral system...

Keep Rolling On
PotatoesRock Since: Oct, 2012
#34972: Oct 24th 2012 at 5:31:25 AM

no proper justification
The justification by the Anti-fraud people is that the people being denied their voting rights are actually illegal immigrants, pets, or dead tombstones. Or that people are voting multiple times. Not sure if that counts for proper or not, but that's the argument that gets thrown out.

BestOf FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC! from Finland Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
#34973: Oct 24th 2012 at 5:41:06 AM

That would be a proper justification if the actions taken to prevent them would actually prevent them without disenfranchising people who don't violate any part of the laws and regulations about elections. Before the 2000 Presidential Election in the US, there were reports that people had been denied the vote because they shared the same name and birthday as someone who had a criminal record, even if they were able to prove that they were not the same person. If this is true, I'm sure you'll agree that that is a much more dire national crisis than the President having sex with someone else than his wife.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
TamH70 Since: Nov, 2011 Relationship Status: Faithful to 2D
#34974: Oct 24th 2012 at 5:45:05 AM

[up]Just noticed your sigline, Best Of.

Stop reading my mind, 8-)

FalconPain Since: Feb, 2015
#34975: Oct 24th 2012 at 6:35:48 AM

Random question about the Donald Trump thing.

If I understand it correctly, one recurring Republican goal during the campaign was to draw comparisons with the election of 1980, with Obama as Carter and Romney as Reagan. Republicans seem to like Reagan, after all.

If his goal is to claim that Obama has in fact been divorced at least once in his life, exactly which 1980 candidate would that make him resemble?


Total posts: 417,856
Top