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
#36101: Oct 30th 2012 at 8:48:48 PM

[up][up]

And why can't I escalate the violence?

He/She escalated it to begin with.

More to the point however, if someone steals your TV and they are running away from your house, you do not have the right to shoot them in the back to get your TV back.

Why not? =

edited 30th Oct '12 8:50:50 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#36102: Oct 30th 2012 at 8:49:41 PM

Because that's not how the rule of law works.

Let me put it this way. If it went to trial, and the judge gave the assailant the death penalty for breaking your nose, would you consider that a fair penalty? If not, what makes it okay for you to administer death, but not the actual legal system, that has checks and balances and therefore the ability to actually make sure that it's acting in a (somewhat) just fashion?

edited 30th Oct '12 8:50:34 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

DrunkGirlfriend from Castle Geekhaven Since: Jan, 2011
#36103: Oct 30th 2012 at 8:49:53 PM

[up] I'm not sure why that hypothetical was brought up in the first place, considering that undue force is NOT covered under stand-your-ground.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#36104: Oct 30th 2012 at 8:50:53 PM

[up] TBH, I didn't know that :P

In any event, this is a derail, so let's get back on topic.

edited 30th Oct '12 8:51:33 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

#36105: Oct 30th 2012 at 8:57:01 PM

Let me put it this way. If it went to trial, and the judge gave the assailant the death penalty for breaking your nose, would you consider that a fair penalty? If not, what makes it okay for you to administer death, but not the actual legal system, that has checks and balances and therefore the ability to actually make sure that it's acting in a (somewhat) just fashion?

Because when you defend yourself you are in no way acting as an arbiter of justice. That would be vigilantism, which is bad. Self defense has nothing to do with ensuring the criminal receives fair punishment, and everything to do with keeping your stuff.

When you put razor wire around your property, it's not to make sure that anyone who trespasses suffers an appropriate amount of pain, it's to stop people from trespassing. If they insist on trying it anyway and wind up with lacerated arms and legs, that's their own problem, not yours.

<><
GlennMagusHarvey Since: Jan, 2001
#36106: Oct 30th 2012 at 8:58:19 PM

You know what bugs me?

People who complain about what their tax dollars are spent for on the basis that it doesn't benefit them personally.

That alone is not an argument against taxation. Unless you reject the whole idea of a potential Pareto gain.

DrunkGirlfriend from Castle Geekhaven Since: Jan, 2011
#36107: Oct 30th 2012 at 8:59:27 PM

[up][up] It's not even that. It's that when someone breaks into your house, you have absolutely no way to know if they're there for your television or there to rape your daughter.

edited 30th Oct '12 8:59:32 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#36108: Oct 30th 2012 at 8:59:55 PM

Grizzly: like I said it's off topic. IF you wanna continue the discussion in P Ms I'd be happy to, though I get the sense it's not really a big issue one way or the other. Same goes with ye, Deviant.

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#36109: Oct 30th 2012 at 9:00:54 PM

[up][up][up]

It depends on how large of a tax it is and who its benefiting, but in general I agree.

edited 30th Oct '12 9:02:09 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
pvtnum11 OMG NO NOSECONES from Kerbin low orbit Since: Nov, 2009 Relationship Status: We finish each other's sandwiches
OMG NO NOSECONES
#36111: Oct 30th 2012 at 10:13:47 PM

I'd argue that gun politics have something to do with the 2012 election. Some single-issue voters will vote on that issue. Therefore, a rational discussion about the issue and how it pertains to this election would seem to be on-topic.

...even though single-issue voters are kind of nutjobs.

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#36112: Oct 30th 2012 at 10:14:34 PM

@Serrocco: Comparing invasion of your house to drone strikes is a terrible comparison. For one, drone strikes are a government decision, not a lone guy being a douche and breaking into someone's house. For another, someone breaking into my house might kill me if I don't defend myself. I somehow doubt you wouldn't do everything you humanly could to survive an encounter like that. For a third, they're entirely different scales of situations that need entirely different solutions. (Eliminating drone strikes as a thing a president can do, for instance, isn't going to stop burglars from casing out your house.) Stand Your Ground Laws, at their base, are basically self defense laws. The problems come in when they do things like allow you to get away with escalating something to the point that you're chasing the other guy and killing them when you know they're no longer a threat to you.

[up]I really don't understand single issue voters myself. Particularly when other issues tend to have an effect on the things you care most about.

edited 30th Oct '12 10:15:27 PM by AceofSpades

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#36113: Oct 30th 2012 at 10:45:27 PM

Audience Laughs at Rep. Michele Bachmann During Debate

During the debate in St. Cloud, Minnesota, Graves slammed Rep. Bachmann for failing to come up with any ideas to fund Medicare and Social Security.

Graves said: "At the end of the day, you have to solve the problem. You can’t do the political speak. You have to talk to people honestly. We have a problem. We are all going to be in this together.”

Rep. Bachmann responded: “I have very much been part of the solution and it’s insulting to say it’s political speak. That’s one thing I do not do, is political speak."

The audience laughed as the moderator tried to change the subject

edited 30th Oct '12 11:50:42 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Morven Nemesis from Seattle, WA, USA Since: Jan, 2001
Nemesis
#36114: Oct 30th 2012 at 11:39:33 PM

Heh!

While I agree that most of the topic of armed self-defense isn't on topic here (since it has not come up as an election issue) , it's worth correcting a misconception; in most US states that have some variety of "Castle Doctrine" in law, lethal force is not permitted to defend property. Generally, the defense of human life is the only permissible reason.

Washington, Texas, Colorado, Maine and Minnesota allow deadly force in the defense of the home even if there is no cause to believe that life is in danger. Many other states allow the rebuttable presumption that someone breaking into an occupied dwelling intends harm to the occupants. (By rebuttable, I mean that evidence can be introduced to show that someone had reason to know that they were in no danger, but that the occupant gets the benefit of the doubt).

A brighter future for a darker age.
DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#36116: Oct 31st 2012 at 12:16:33 AM

[up]

Its a possibility

Despite Bachmann's district being the most conservative in all of Minnesota, Graves is gaining on her in the polls.

Graves main problem is money. Bachmann is out spending him 10-to-1.On top of that 25-30 percent of Grave's campaign expenses come from his own pocket.

edited 31st Oct '12 12:17:03 AM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#36117: Oct 31st 2012 at 4:52:30 AM

> derails reveal some posters find a human life less valuable than a television set

> same poster valued a woman's bodily autonomy less than a zygote's life not pages ago

> thread rerails

> -__________-

ANYWAYS. It seems that Sandy won't be having that big an effect on the elections after all. Which is good. Doesn't seem like Romney's FEMA positions will be affecting the campaign discourse much either.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#36118: Oct 31st 2012 at 5:31:46 AM

[up]

Mostly because even his own party already knows he cant say anything useful when it comes to FEMA

Jordan Azor Ahai from Westeros Since: Jan, 2001
#36120: Oct 31st 2012 at 7:12:00 AM

@Radical: Yes, I consider it worse to kill an innocent child than to shoot a non-innocent person who is in the process of stealing committing a crime. Is there something inconsistent about that?

That said, I personally would never shoot someone over a TV set (I'd probably have a hard time shooting someone to save my own life). I do believe that a case can be made for it being a situation where the right of self defense applies, though, or at least a situation where the shooter is entitled to some legal protection. As usual, it depends on the context: it certainly wouldn't be acceptable follow them off your property and shoot your way into their house to recover your TV, for example.

edited 31st Oct '12 7:12:31 AM by EdwardsGrizzly

<><
Completion oldtimeytropey from Space Since: Apr, 2012
oldtimeytropey
#36121: Oct 31st 2012 at 7:20:02 AM

People burglarizing your home usually have weapons and will try to seriously injure you/kill you if you catch them in the act.

The whole idea of someone breaking into your house and stealing your T Vs and computers just telling you to "Shh! Don't tell anyone!" if you catch them is bullshit. That's a high level felony right there, to break into someone's house and steal things. They're going to have weapons in case this happens and it happens all the time. A person is completely in the right to use deadly force if someone is robbing their home because if the owner catches the robbers in the act, they will likely seriously injure or kill the person. It really is naive to think that someone being caught committing a high level felony won't attempt to remove witnesses but instead choose to leave your things there and run. Running is what happens when you're shoplifting. Killing and injuring is what you do when you're burglarizing someone's home or robbing a store.

If you're being threatened with violence, it's definitely in your best interest to assume the person is being fucking serious and will still hurt you after you follow all of his commands. Because that's what usually happens.

There really is a serious level of naivete over crime in this discussion.

If someone's in your house taking your shit and they see you, it's a good possibility they're going to kill you. Lethal force is completely justified.

[down] Seriously?

edited 31st Oct '12 7:28:49 AM by Completion

Linhasxoc Since: Jun, 2009
#36122: Oct 31st 2012 at 7:20:02 AM

And all this doesn't even cover possibilities like, when they drop your TV from being shot it breaks, or something.

QuestionMarc Since: Oct, 2011 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
#36123: Oct 31st 2012 at 7:24:31 AM

Not to be a party pooper, but are we still on subject anymore?

RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#36124: Oct 31st 2012 at 7:25:25 AM

[up][up][up][up]It's a consistent worldview. The world that actually results from that set of priorities just scares the shit out of me.

That said, I personally would never shoot someone over a TV set
Well, that's a relief. I can imagine physical possessions that might justify lethal force to protect, such as those vital to your livelihood or the well being of those dependent on you (you try taking a sick relative's medications and I'll be all right with blowing you away). But the idiot box?

[up][up][up] I draw a distinction between shooting at someone to get them the fuck off my property and shooting them because they're holding my possessions. If his arms are full of television and he's on his way out, I'm not putting a bullet in him as long as that stays the case.

[up] ACK RIGHT WHOOPS.

edited 31st Oct '12 7:36:24 AM by RadicalTaoist

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
DrTentacles Cephalopod Lothario from Land of the Deep Ones Since: Jul, 2012 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Cephalopod Lothario
#36125: Oct 31st 2012 at 7:43:18 AM

Yeah, guys. There's a Vigilante justice threat where we all went over this pretty thoroughly.


Total posts: 417,856
Top