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

DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#40501: Nov 15th 2012 at 9:22:49 AM

No, I mean the cost of the healthcare that Medicare is paying for is ballooning and projected to continue to do so.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
#40502: Nov 15th 2012 at 10:00:15 AM

if they raise Medicare eligibility age, that robs you of thousands upon thousands of dollars in benefits that you could've gotten if they hadn't forced you to wait another two years.

Well, yes, that's kinda the point of raising the retirement age: the program will pay out less and approach solvency. It's arguably not worth the cost, but it's silly to argue against cutting programs on the basis that doing so will make them pay out less money.

<><
ohsointocats from The Sand Wastes Since: Oct, 2011 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#40503: Nov 15th 2012 at 10:04:16 AM

Well we need to look at things. Are people generally healthy enough to work those two years? Are people able to get and keep jobs for those two years? If not, we're letting people die.

Karkadinn Karkadinn from New Orleans, Louisiana Since: Jul, 2009
Karkadinn
#40504: Nov 15th 2012 at 10:12:13 AM

Unfortunately, single-payer is a non-starter politically. We have to start looking realistically on how to equitably ration health care.

A few years ago, I might have agreed with this. But I think it's time to face the facts - in this environment, anything vaguely sane that the Democrats or president proposes will be considered a 'non-starter politically.'

If you're gonna hang for the crime, you might as well DO the crime and try to push the Overton Window back left an eensy bit. If you're being called a socialist already, there is no disadvantage to pushing actual socialism.

And frankly I'm more than a little sick of hearing about people focus their complaints on health reform on things that are only in it because it was an attempted compromise in the first place.

edited 15th Nov '12 10:12:51 AM by Karkadinn

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.
#40505: Nov 15th 2012 at 10:17:19 AM

Some rockets were fired at Israel. Eight people harmed. None killed.

Israel decides to retaliate - and killed 1,400 Palestinians, many of which civilians.

Failing to get America to attack Iran apparently green-lights intensifying your own war with Palestine, eh, Netanyahu?

Where the heck are you getting a death toll of 1400? From the recent hostilities, Israel reports 3 civilians and 0 soldiers killed. Hamas reports 4 civilians and 9 militants killed.

edited 15th Nov '12 10:19:17 AM by EdwardsGrizzly

<><
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#40506: Nov 15th 2012 at 10:20:54 AM

Was just gonna say... I heard 14 combined wounded and dead from one source. But unless something (and to get a death toll that high so fast would probably require the most intense engagement the Middle East has seen in decades) happened since now and when I went to school (so...6 hours) I think your count is a tad off. Unless you are referring to another incident?

edited 15th Nov '12 10:29:40 AM by Rationalinsanity

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
HilarityEnsues Since: Sep, 2009
#40507: Nov 15th 2012 at 10:29:08 AM

A few years ago, I might have agreed with this. But I think it's time to face the facts - in this environment, anything vaguely sane that the Democrats or president proposes will be considered a 'non-starter politically.'

This. The idea of a working, functioning government in general is a complete "non-stater" right. That doesn't mean it's acceptable to just embrace defeatism.

DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#40508: Nov 15th 2012 at 10:45:28 AM

Well, while a single payer system might be the most efficient from an adminstrative point of view, it's not the only option we have. Various public-private partnerships have been proposed. It wouldnt be that hard to design a system where private insurers continue to pay for most services, but they are mandated to pay for them in pre-determined ways- for example by scaling payment for treatments based on improvement in health outcome. Even that would be a vast improvement over the current system, which basically pays doctors, hospitals, big pharma and the medical device industry more money the more services they deliver (and the more expensive those services are). Right now we are paying out for quantity, not quality. Depending on how that was implemented, it has the promise of providing a permanent fix to rising costs while actually improving outcomes at the same time.

Of course, that has a down side as well: it's rationing care. Right now we give anyone whatever they want as long as they can find a way to pay for it. Since healthcare is a service in which the provider is more influential than the consumer in determining what they need (few patients will second guess their doctors when they are sick and in need of care), the result is spiraling costs. Putting the Federal Gov't in a position of telling citizens what treatment or tests they can or cannot have (even if the criteria are based on performance) is guaranteed to produce a negative backlash firestorm.

Here's the best summary of the research I've been able to find so far.

edited 15th Nov '12 10:59:15 AM by DeMarquis

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#40509: Nov 15th 2012 at 11:00:33 AM

Couple pages back

Kostya

Okay I just want to say this. If a news station doesn't report the facts they should not be allowed to broadcast themselves as "news." I don't give a damn what political affiliation they are so long as they can back up their assertions. Unfortunately Fox News has said screw that to the notion of telling the truth and it has poisoned the other outlets because they don't want to be seen as partisan. Now if the facts say that the GOP is wrong then they should be called out on this by news stations that aren't afraid of being screamed at for being partisan and liberal shills.

The problem is that at some point it's no longer practical for a news station to see what's a lie or not. That's when you bring in the opinions page. It's no longer just "events"; it's analysis.

And we weren't really talking about Fox News. We were talking about the centrist neutral news stations, and I was defending their essentials while agreeing that you can go too far in that direction too. But should we increase the opinion/commentary section of a news media? You have to put breaks in that, or the patterns (finds side X to be generally correct) actually becomes your partisan attitude. That mentality is what creates Fox News in the first place.

That's why freedom of speech exists. We wouldn't need freedom of speech if everyone subscribed to truth. Unfortunately it's not that easy. Even if there's absolute truth, people have different ideas on what that is.

TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#40510: Nov 15th 2012 at 11:16:17 AM

Let me put it this way. You have an issue. There are "two sides" of the issue. You bring on two "experts" from each side. If one of those experts says ridiculously BS things, and you don't call em out on it, that's not objectivity. If you only call out one of the two experts, not only is it not objectivity, it's also outright bias.

Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#40511: Nov 15th 2012 at 11:20:56 AM

But how far can and should a news station do that? Are you going to spend a news article "debunking" an entire party's ideology and the basic philosophical belief behind it? "This GOP proposition is wrong because GOP is wrong because individualism is wrong"? That's an editorial, not a report.

Aren't you the one that thinks it's BS? Isn't the other side also going to the same to you?

DrTentacles Cephalopod Lothario from Land of the Deep Ones Since: Jul, 2012 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Cephalopod Lothario
#40512: Nov 15th 2012 at 11:24:22 AM

[up] I think Tomu wants (and I want more) "(Young Earth, I'm still can't rule out something starting it all. Call it God, the Big Bang, whatever) Creationism is wrong, or Austerity is wrong because one side has empirical research, and the other has "gut feelings." In short, we don't want new trying to present two sides as equal, when they clearly, objectively are not."

That's one of the problems I think is somewhat epidemic about American today. People think they have a right to vote about facts. They think that if you yell your opinion, really, really loud, or if a lot of people believe, it's suddenly more true.

The news should report objectively, but should report objectively based on reality, not on party lines. It shouldn't be afraid to smack down "controversial" positions, just because they're afraid of offending people. What they have a responsibility to do is say things like "X holds his position on women being able to decide not to get pregnant, despite the fact that every shred of evidence says he's wrong."

edited 15th Nov '12 11:27:45 AM by DrTentacles

Karkadinn Karkadinn from New Orleans, Louisiana Since: Jul, 2009
Karkadinn
#40513: Nov 15th 2012 at 11:25:17 AM

If the news media had been doing its job in the first place, politics never would have come so far as to allow an entire party to base its foundation on straw. By now, sure, they'd have to make up for lost time... but it's probably too late, and personally I fully expect the regular news media to become obsolete in the near future, replaced by intricate social networking webs.

And 'But the other guy will disagree with me if I call him out on his bullshit' is never a good reason not to do something. You present the facts and let them speak for themselves. Falsehoods inherently can only remain stable as long as they are not questioned consistently and logically.

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.
Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#40514: Nov 15th 2012 at 11:31:28 AM

[up][up]Don't bring creation debate here; there's a specific thread for it and I don't like seeing it elsewhere when it tends to delve into "theism vs. atheism", which is discouraged by OTC rules.

Anyway. You need to see that when people think differently from the way you do, they're not deviating from your "truth" just for the fun of it. They think that is the reality. We do not agree on it. It's easy to tell facts on some issues (Supreme Court healthcare ruling report), but in some, it's difficult.

It's not because news stations don't want to offend people. It's because news stations know that they're not the final authority of truth.

That's why the aforementioned debates exist between experts. Since they disagree, they debate. You want to debunk a BS? That's what the experts are trying to do right there, debating.

[up]You guys might be misunderstanding me here. I'm not saying that we can't have rebuttals to what we don't think is true; I'm pointing out that obviously all sides will do that and we're back where we started. I'm saying that if we restrict freedom of speech/expression to what you think it's "true", then you're at the mercy of whatever thought that shapes that truth, creating censorship.

edited 15th Nov '12 11:39:54 AM by Trivialis

TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#40515: Nov 15th 2012 at 11:45:19 AM

Triv: There is such a thing as objective reality.

The news should not be post modernist.

I'm not saying the news should go out of its way to debunk things stupid ideologues say-but if they're going to report about those stupid things in the first place, they need to debunk them.

edited 15th Nov '12 11:45:51 AM by TheyCallMeTomu

Karkadinn Karkadinn from New Orleans, Louisiana Since: Jul, 2009
Karkadinn
#40516: Nov 15th 2012 at 11:47:02 AM

Let me restate this for emphasis: Falsehoods inherently can only remain stable as long as they are not questioned consistently and logically. Reality is not as eager to compromise as people's ideas of reality are.

We are not 'back to where we started' if facts are used in meaningful debate persistently over time - 'arguing, resolving nothing and then going back to the start' is symptomatic of an environment where the fact-checking has simply stopped happening for so long that one side has been allowed to construct an entire alternate reality. Debunking decades of propaganda and misinformation requires, surprise, decades of honest reporting to balance it back out.

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.
DrTentacles Cephalopod Lothario from Land of the Deep Ones Since: Jul, 2012 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Cephalopod Lothario
#40517: Nov 15th 2012 at 11:47:53 AM

[up][up][up] I think that you're missing the basic fact that not all people's opinions are equal. When one side has objective data, and the other doesn't, you can said with a decent amount of certainty which side's right.

NEWS SHOULD NOT FEED INTO PEOPLE'S SELF-DECEPTION, KNOWINGLY, OR UNKNOWINGLY.

Not all truths are equal. Even if you're all post-modernist, you have to admit that some truths are more useful, and more beneficial than others.

[up] Exactly. We're heading toward and environment where "beliefs," are more important than facts. That's willful self-deception. And when you indulge on it, you're a far greater burden on other people than the "takers" that the "jerb creators" like to rant about.

edited 15th Nov '12 11:51:40 AM by DrTentacles

TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#40518: Nov 15th 2012 at 11:50:21 AM

Let me put it this way. If MSNBC and Fox have equal and opposite biases, but MSNBC is objective in their reporting (that is, they call out BS, they just present BS in such a way as to support a narrative) whereas Fox is not, that makes MSNBC more a news station than Fox.

Of course, you want your bias to be transparent (Fox's bias is obvious, but not transparent, if that makes any sense) if you're going to be biased. Ideally we'd have non-biased news programming, but I don't think bias-as long as it's not misrepresented-is necessarily a problem. Objectivity is way more important.

Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#40519: Nov 15th 2012 at 11:51:07 AM

[up]x4

I agree that there is an objective reality. However I do not think that people can fully grasp it even if it exists. And if you're implying that liberals are always on the side of that reality, I will have to disagree.

And I don't think "we should scrutinize ideologies to see who's right whenever we report about ideologies" always holds. As Greenmantle said, news would the become nothing more than bare fragments reporting about car chases and weather. There are other events besides that. Political speeches, maneuvers, and enactments are news, too. Whether the substance of a statement is true or not, whether an action is misguided or not, if it has an impact on society and people, that's an event. Analysis of the speech/action can be put separately in an editorial.

I think that you're missing the basic fact that not all people's opinions are equal. When one side has objective data, and the other doesn't, you can said with a decent amount of certainty which side's right.

I agree with that. But, in certain cases (and more likely as the clashing ideas become more complex), the news can't judge which side's right without being a firsthand source itself.

Again, read my "car chases and weather" point. If you think news should be only about facts even though the role of beliefs is inevitable, that's what news becomes.

[down]

My "paradigm" is that, even though we try hard to pin down truth, it's not fully possible.

edited 15th Nov '12 12:40:42 PM by Trivialis

DrTentacles Cephalopod Lothario from Land of the Deep Ones Since: Jul, 2012 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Cephalopod Lothario
#40520: Nov 15th 2012 at 11:53:44 AM

I feel like I'm debating from a totally different paradigm of reality. Beliefs need to be examined and tested, where liberal, or conservative. I want news that is biased toward facts, science, and empirical reasoning.

RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#40521: Nov 15th 2012 at 11:57:39 AM

[up][up] So if someone from the Flat Earth Society appears on a news program, it's not the responsibility of the reporters to point out the plethora of evidence indicating the Earth is round?

edited 15th Nov '12 11:58:08 AM by RavenWilder

Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#40523: Nov 15th 2012 at 12:04:19 PM

[up][up]It's not a simple "single case" as you put it. There's a distinction between events and substance of proposals.

If a society has just come up with a proposal equivalent to "CERN measures a previously-thought-impossible FTL", then you note, "This is highly implausible by current knowledge", you cite that knowledge, and note that this society is nevertheless willing to challenge that knowledge.

But if the said society is hosting a humanitarian aid, that's an event. You present it. You don't spend 3/4 of the news derailing the topic about what the society believes.

Now present a case that's not flat earth society. The debate on affirmative action, for example. Should news try to find the "correct philosophy" and censor out what it doesn't agree with?

At some point it becomes more about freedom of speech, and we have to consider this.

edited 15th Nov '12 12:06:25 PM by Trivialis

HilarityEnsues Since: Sep, 2009
#40524: Nov 15th 2012 at 12:09:40 PM

Personally, I'd rather just see the old media (naturally) die out entirely in favor of net news. Even when they aren't being obtuse in the way they present the facts, you can generally count on them to cover vapid nonsense or be cheerleaders for war and imperialism. That, to me, is more reprehensible than the centrist act they put on.

edited 15th Nov '12 12:09:56 PM by HilarityEnsues

Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#40525: Nov 15th 2012 at 12:13:24 PM

Personally, I'd rather just see the old media (naturally) die out entirely in favor of net news.

I can sort of agree with that. A lot of online news sites are more editorial-based but they're honest about it. It's a lot more accessible and hands-on.

Still, I warn that they need to watch themselves because some have tendency to become "A victory for X! Rejoice!" and "Y is gaining ground! A travesty!".


Total posts: 417,856
Top