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

rmctagg09 The Wanderer from Brooklyn, NY (Before Recorded History) Relationship Status: I won't say I'm in love
ohsointocats from The Sand Wastes Since: Oct, 2011 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#35252: Oct 25th 2012 at 1:14:57 PM

[up]Okay, I want to cry.

Of course considering the source...

What happens if the UN doesn't think the results of the election are fair?

edited 25th Oct '12 1:18:46 PM by ohsointocats

deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#35253: Oct 25th 2012 at 1:16:52 PM

@Midget: Jill Stein is against them. Gary Johnson is against them. Rocky Anderson is against them. I believe that even Virgil Goode is against them. Voting for any of those candidates would be voting for a president who is against drone strikes.

edited 25th Oct '12 1:17:58 PM by deathpigeon

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#35254: Oct 25th 2012 at 1:18:30 PM

[up]It would also be voting for a candidate that will be unable to do anything.

[up][up]Even if it's not true something like that needs to be investigated.

[up][up][up]Wait, really? You know this honestly doesn't surprise me. So who should we yell at to get this investigated?

edited 25th Oct '12 1:26:49 PM by Kostya

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#35255: Oct 25th 2012 at 1:22:16 PM

@deathpigeon: Voting for those candidates is futile. The American public, as a whole, does not care enough to put those issues above the economic ones.

@rmctagg: The source on that vote rigging claim is highly dubious. I would need to see far more evidence than dry statistical analysis.

edited 25th Oct '12 1:26:16 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Discar Since: Jun, 2009
#35256: Oct 25th 2012 at 1:28:42 PM

Well, the math is right there, if anyone has the time to check it.

And I've never heard of UK Progressive before, but judging by everyone's reactions it's not exactly trustworthy. We talking the liberal version of Fox News, or what?

Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#35257: Oct 25th 2012 at 1:33:59 PM

Probably not that severe but based on the name they're clearly biased in favor of one side. Then again they're not an American outlet so I'm more inclined to trust them than if NBC or something did this.

Karkadinn Karkadinn from New Orleans, Louisiana Since: Jul, 2009
Karkadinn
#35258: Oct 25th 2012 at 1:46:13 PM

I'm sorry, but that website looks pretty biased to me, based on just a glance through the article titles on its main page. There's no way you could get a serious Republican-leaning voter to take that source seriously. Regardless of the article's actual content, it's going to have to get picked up by a more neutral player if it's going to get any real attention. Headers like 'Obama as Commander-in-Chief, Romney as Banal Bully' make it clear whose side you're on.

edited 25th Oct '12 1:46:56 PM by Karkadinn

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#35259: Oct 25th 2012 at 1:53:41 PM

That's true but it shouldn't change the data that's presented (unless they lied about it but I doubt it). We just need to try and get other outlets to pick up on this.

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#35260: Oct 25th 2012 at 2:02:54 PM

Yeah that site is obviously biased and the quality of the writing and formating means I'm taking those claims with large grains of salt. Besides I'd think the NSA guy would go to major media outlets and respected investigative journalists before giving the info to some website no one has ever heard of.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Tangent128 from Virginia Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Gonna take a lot to drag me away from you
#35261: Oct 25th 2012 at 2:06:12 PM

Hmm... I'll have to try doing the math on Virginia figures later, but the (.xlsx) spreadsheet accompanying the article is at [1]; the argument seems to be that if you plot trends of counting votes from small precincts to large ones, you would expect (after the initial noise of small sample sizes) the cumulative vote proportions to have a flat trend towards the final count. In other words, the first 33% of votes, second 33%, and last 33% should all have similar proportions, whereas the data from the larger precincts seems tilted towards Romney and against Paul (and weakly, Santorum).

Of course, if there is some meta reason that precincts with higher turnouts would be more likely to favor Romney (and Republicans in general if this can in fact be confirmed to be a wider trend), then it's a statistical quirk, but if there isn't any common factor to these precincts beyond "easier to hide rigged voting in a larger sample size", then it is concerning. Somebody else should look at it at least.

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
#35262: Oct 25th 2012 at 2:15:26 PM

It does seem like larger precincts would go towards Romney, though. Honestly if you wanted to commit voter fraud, it seems like you might be better off targeting third party voters in particular.

And nobody answered my question.

Nicktendonick kaleidoscope walker from A place, not B place Since: Jan, 2010
kaleidoscope walker
#35263: Oct 25th 2012 at 2:18:50 PM

I agree with Rational. Why didn't he go to major outlets, why a biased group instead? Even NBC/MSNBC, they're bias as heck, they'd probably run if it had a fraction of truth to it.

And about the UN wanting to check the legality of the vote in the US, I find it laughable. Compared to all the stolen elections worldwide they do nothing about...I find it's one of the things where I go "you're kidding me". And what would the UN do about it, even it if was true and the election was stolen by R-Evil Dark mizer? Bloody nothing at all. We all know the UN, even if everyone got enraged, would do absolutely nothing to stop it.
When has the UN ever did anything productive in the first place? If they can't stop the hell that is going on in Syria, can't stop the Chaotic Evil Iranian mullahs from getting the world's most destructive weapon, if they can't help save people from warlords in Africa, if they literally do not have a definition of terrorism (none, whatsoever) what in the world is the UN actually good for?

(speaking of the UN, appearently someone made a documentary about it)

edited 25th Oct '12 2:20:46 PM by Nicktendonick

Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.
Enkufka Wandering Student ಠ_ಠ from Bay of White fish Since: Dec, 2009
Wandering Student ಠ_ಠ
#35264: Oct 25th 2012 at 2:44:22 PM

So, the contraceptives rule in obamacare actually wakens the safety net.

Somehow.

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry
DrunkGirlfriend from Castle Geekhaven Since: Jan, 2011
#35265: Oct 25th 2012 at 2:46:31 PM

[up] It's the age-old idea that accessible contraceptives means that more people will be having sex, and more people having sex means more babbies.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
BestOf FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC! from Finland Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
#35266: Oct 25th 2012 at 2:47:00 PM

what in the world is the UN actually good for?

At least the UN can hopefully officially prove if there is major fraud in the election, and even having that information out there would be helpful.

A response to the frankly ridiculous claim that the UN isn't good for anything at all would be easy to deliver, but it would also take this thread off-topic, so I'd like to suggest that you look up information on the things that the UN has done to alleviate the suffering of the poor and uneducated, or to prevent conflicts (they don't always fail,) and so on. Special attention should be paid to the agencies within the UN, such as UNESCO and the IAEA.

To name just one UN success (though it can't be entirely credited to UN-affiliated organisations,) there's an ongoing campaign to defeat several diseases, two of which (smallpox and rinderpest) have been eradicated completely. Without the UN, millions would be infected with smallpox each year, and many of them would die of it. During the 20th century, an estimated 300-500 million people in Europe died of smallpox. (I'm quoting Wikipedia here.) The earliest vaccinations began long before the UN was established, but most of the overall effort was done by the WHO, a UN agency.

edited 25th Oct '12 2:47:37 PM by BestOf

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Tangent128 from Virginia Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Gonna take a lot to drag me away from you
#35267: Oct 25th 2012 at 2:49:25 PM

I'm not going to be too suspicious of the media thing yet; an at-least-seven-years-retired guy out in Arizona is likely to not have major media contacts, especially for a claim that is math-heavy rather than a single smoking gun. I hope somebody else with statistical chops considers the data.

If precincts are drawn in a manner such that larger ones are more likely to be found in the city/country/other-demographic-divide, there's some room for doubting the numbers. Distribution is something worth analyzing. If the spreadsheet numbers are false, it can be thrown out the window. If there's an elementary statistical principle (besides the biased distribution question) being broken, I can rest easier.

I really hope the charge is false, but I am disturbed that the recent character of the GOP makes it remotely plausible.

EDIT: at the least, if precinct counts are a matter of turnout, I would not be surprised for fringer candidates like Ron Paul to dominate at the small side, as their base is more likely to turn out regardless.

edited 25th Oct '12 2:53:19 PM by Tangent128

Do you highlight everything looking for secret messages?
TheGirlWithPointyEars Never Ask Me the Odds from Outer Space Since: Dec, 2009
Never Ask Me the Odds
#35269: Oct 25th 2012 at 2:56:44 PM

I know districts are supposed to be equal population, and I imagine precincts would do that too; so larger precincts would almost certainly be found in rural or less urbanized areas. Not too hard to imagine a systematic difference in voting preferences there. Unless he addresses that in the statistics some way.

She of Short Stature & Impeccable Logic My Skating Liveblog
Enkufka Wandering Student ಠ_ಠ from Bay of White fish Since: Dec, 2009
Wandering Student ಠ_ಠ
#35270: Oct 25th 2012 at 2:58:25 PM

@Taoist: I distrust addictinginfo on principle, since they've done a lot of bad and badly credited journalism, but it does link to the bill, which has the following, which I cannot quite wrap my head around:

(d) In determining the amount of assistance payments to a recipient family of benefits under the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) Program, the department shall revise the schedule of benefits to be paid to the recipient family by eliminating the increment in benefits under the program for which that family would otherwise be eligible as a result of the birth of a child conceived during the period in which the family is eligible for benefits under the TANF Program, or during a temporary period in which the family or recipient is ineligible for benefits under the TANF Program pursuant to a penalty imposed by the department for failure to comply with benefit eligibility requirements, subsequent to which the family or recipient is again eligible for benefits. The department shall provide instead that a recipient family in which the recipient parents an additional child conceived during the recipient's period of eligibility for benefits under the TANF Program, or during a temporary penalty period of ineligibility for benefits, may receive additional benefits only pursuant to subsection (e), except in the case of a general increase in the amount of benefits under the TANF Program which is provided to all program recipients and provide that any child support paid for the excluded child should be paid to the family for the benefit of the excluded child and should be disregarded in computing the amount of financial assistance which is available to the rest of the family. (e) In the case of a family that receives benefits under the TANF Program in which the recipient parents an additional child conceived during the period in which the family is eligible for benefits under the TANF Program, or during a temporary penalty period of ineligibility for benefits subsequent to which the family of the recipient again becomes eligible for benefits, the department, subject to Federal approval, shall, in addition to eliminating the increase in the benefit as provided in subsection (d), provide that in computing the amount of financial assistance which is available to the family that receives benefits under the TANF Program, the monthly earned income disregard for each employed person in the family shall increase by an amount equal to that which the family would have otherwise received by parenting an additional child, adjusted for family size.

(f) Elimination of benefits under subsection (d) shall not apply to any child conceived as a result of rape or incest if the department:(1) receives a non-notarized, signed statement from the pregnant woman stating that she was a victim of rape or incest, as the case may be, and that she reported the crime, including the identity of the offender, if known, to a law enforcement agency having the requisite jurisdiction or, in the case of incest where a pregnant minor is the victim, to the county child protective service agency and stating the name of the law enforcement agency or child protective service agency to which the report was made and the date such report was made;

edited 25th Oct '12 2:59:14 PM by Enkufka

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#35271: Oct 25th 2012 at 2:59:07 PM

The fact that it starts with "Christian Taliban" does not make me trust it. The sidebar too looks very left-leaning. Has someone access to parliament records, as they have with congress?

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Enkufka Wandering Student ಠ_ಠ from Bay of White fish Since: Dec, 2009
Wandering Student ಠ_ಠ
#35272: Oct 25th 2012 at 3:00:54 PM

@Septimus: I posted the relevant section of the bill above. From what I can tell, the bill changes how TANF supplements are calculated, and proving that a rape pregnancy occurred is relevant to that. It's not in every situation as bad as "prove you were raped or we won't give you benefits," but it looks like it might have that effect in some cases.

There is also a section at the end that it need not be the victim who proves it, instead the law enforcement agency could as well.

Also, sod this douchecanoe. Yet another CEO telling the employees that they might have a lot of trouble if Obama is re-elected.

edited 25th Oct '12 3:04:47 PM by Enkufka

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry
DrunkGirlfriend from Castle Geekhaven Since: Jan, 2011
#35273: Oct 25th 2012 at 3:05:42 PM

[up] The first section basically says that if you receive TANF (food stamps) benefits for a family with x members, and they conceive a child, they don't get funding for an additional person. I think it's kind of messed up, but I could see some valid reasons, like trying to encourage breastfeeding, or the newborn would be covered under WIC anyways, so there's no reason to give them additional money or something. I don't know exactly what the situation is, so that's all speculation on my part.

The second part is the really messed up bit. Not only does it provide an exemption for cases of rape (which makes the first bit really sound like it's just a penalty for having a child), but it forces women to provide additional proof that she was raped and that it was reported.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
Enkufka Wandering Student ಠ_ಠ from Bay of White fish Since: Dec, 2009
Wandering Student ಠ_ಠ
#35274: Oct 25th 2012 at 3:06:51 PM

Thank you for the translation, the legalese was making my head spin. @_@

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry
Tangent128 from Virginia Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Gonna take a lot to drag me away from you
#35275: Oct 25th 2012 at 3:16:44 PM

@Pointy: "district size" in this case is % of total votes contributed, so affected by turnout as well.

Do you highlight everything looking for secret messages?

Total posts: 417,856
Top