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

TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#41101: Nov 19th 2012 at 12:09:17 PM

Perhaps it would be better to say that liberals have a tendency to assume that any underachievement is due to the person being victimized by their circumstances, while conservatives are more inclined to hold people personally responsible for themselves.

Free will does not exist. It is a fact that people's actions are completely determined by their circumstances, including the action of will, which is not free. Postulating the opposite is committing a fundamental attribution error. There is no such thing as "responsibility". There is such a thing as "incentives" and "deterrents". If feigning or postulating that someone could have acted in a way other than they did inflicts upon them a feeling of guilt, or a negative reinforcement of some other sort (though I hear guilt works better than fear, at least), achieves the desired result of making them, and any onlookers, less likely to do it again, then it is a useful thing to do, and should be done. It's still based on a lie, though.

Starship made a very good point about rich people sacrificing expected wealth increase in exchange for a greater security coefficient. Risk taking and risk aversion are a matter of cold, mathematical, actuarial calculation. Some historical antecedents might also be of use; as an elite becomes risk-averse and takes more and more pains to secure their wealth, on average, they impoverish and oppress themselves and everyone else. They prefer being the biggest fish in a small pond. The longer this attitude is maintained, the more the tension builds up, the more they risk a revolution blowing up in their faces, which will do all of the risk-taking for them. That is not a wise course to maintain, and I am shocked to see this mistake repeated again and again.

I'm afraid I don't have the time to read what came after that and respond to it properly; I'm off to bed. Until next time, ladies and gentlemen...

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#41103: Nov 19th 2012 at 12:11:12 PM

Politicians create the fucking policies, Trivialis, and it is stupid to think or deny that they're unrelated to each other or to the topic of the thread. I suggest you drop this particular train of thought.

Also, Keynesian creationists aren't the ones in power making the policies. It's Austrian creationists, or at least the guys pandering to the Austrian creationists that are currently in power and causing the problems with their policies. It's bad science now to deny climate change, with so much proof in favor of it happening and in favor of ways to slow it down and improve things. And bad policy to try and enforce an unscientific view of world creation in science classes.

BestOf FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC! from Finland Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
#41104: Nov 19th 2012 at 12:13:38 PM

If that debate reduces to talking about the science itself, and we already have a topic for it, it's appropriate that we move it there

You're absolutely correct. I'm not trying to invite a discussion about the science of the age of the Earth into this thread. Instead, I'm talking about the ignorance of a politician about something they're in charge of.

Rubio's comments as a member of the Senate Science Committee are equivalent to someone in a Committee about Education saying that literacy levels have nothing to do with people's ability to read and understand newspaper headlines, or that the question of whether children should be offered the chance to learn new languages is best answered by basketball players.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
vanthebaron Mystical Monkey Master from Carlyle, Il Since: Sep, 2010
Mystical Monkey Master
#41105: Nov 19th 2012 at 12:14:18 PM
Thumped: Wow. That was rude. Too many of this kind of thump will bring a suspension. Please keep it civil.
Untitled Power Rangers Story
Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#41106: Nov 19th 2012 at 12:16:58 PM

Look Ace, let's calm down together. I'm just saying that while connections can exist, we shouldn't jump to conclusions with them. Normally such over-reaching conclusions would be called strawman or too broad to discuss together.

I already know your complaints about mainstream GOP; I'm sure we all do. But understand that Starship's comment wasn't to defend the GOP, but to defend a way of policy and ideals. Specifically, economic policy on how to help the poor. He wasn't speaking on behalf of GOP; it's just that the GOP happened to agree with the ideals he's talking about, and you probably think it's using that ideology as a hostage.

[up]van, stop yelling. Do you see the page I just linked? I don't care if you're 100% correct, you're still misbehaving right now.

edited 19th Nov '12 12:17:43 PM by Trivialis

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#41107: Nov 19th 2012 at 12:21:01 PM

@vanthebaron: Calm down. Your attitude, regardless of whether it is factually accurate, is inflammatory and unhelpful. Please take a break if you can't be civil.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
vanthebaron Mystical Monkey Master from Carlyle, Il Since: Sep, 2010
Mystical Monkey Master
#41108: Nov 19th 2012 at 12:23:06 PM
Thumped: Wow. That was rude. Too many of this kind of thump will bring a suspension. Please keep it civil.
Untitled Power Rangers Story
Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#41109: Nov 19th 2012 at 12:23:39 PM

Best Of

You're absolutely correct. I'm not trying to invite a discussion about the science of the age of the Earth into this thread. Instead, I'm talking about the ignorance of a politician about something they're in charge of.

I understand. I can see that in your viewpoint, the ignorance you are talking about is having political ramifications. I agree on those ramifications if we agree on the ignorance. but I think the subject matter of ignorance should be discussed separately. That's not appropriate talk here, so I'm requesting that we move it.

So, have we moved on from Starship's post, and do you want us to discuss this new topic?

edited 19th Nov '12 12:24:26 PM by Trivialis

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#41110: Nov 19th 2012 at 12:24:30 PM

There is a reasonable argument to be made that a person who does not believe in science should not be on a legislative committee whose job is to evaluate and discuss science issues. There is a separate argument, which is how, in this day and age, it is possible to get elected to public office while not believing in science, factual analysis, and/or reason. That derives directly from the demographic that votes for those people.

So one can make a logical argument that the people who vote for Marco Rubio and his pals are ignorant — or voted for him for reasons other than his scientific prowess.

Of course, you cannot have a reasoned debate when you are calling one side of the table ignorant rubes.

edited 19th Nov '12 12:25:48 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
vanthebaron Mystical Monkey Master from Carlyle, Il Since: Sep, 2010
Mystical Monkey Master
#41111: Nov 19th 2012 at 12:26:20 PM

we are talking about Marco Rubio's comment on the age of the planet right now and the fact that he's in on the science committee while denying basic things we already know that have been proven by science.

Not saying the voters are ignorant, I'm saying they voted for a clown.

"The United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is a standing committee of the United States Senate in charge of all senate matters related to the following subjects:

  • Coast Guard
  • Coastal zone management
  • Communications
  • "Green" Technologies and Practices
  • Highway safety
  • Inland waterways, except construction
8Interstate commerce
  • Marine and ocean navigation, safety, and transportation
  • Marine fisheries
  • Merchant marine and navigation
  • Nonmilitary aeronautical and space sciences
  • Oceans, weather, and atmospheric activities
  • Panama Canal and other interoceanic canals
  • Regulation of consumer products and services, including testing related to toxic substances, other than pesticides, and except for credit, financial services, and housing
  • Regulation of interstate common carriers, including railroads, buses, trucks, vessels, pipelines, and civil aviation
  • Science, engineering, and technology research and development and policy
  • Sports
  • Standards and measurement
  • Transportation
  • Transportation and commerce aspects of Continental Shelf lands

It also studies and reviews matters relating to science and technology, oceans policy, transportation, communications, and consumer affairs, and reports on those findings."

from the wikipedia page for United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation

edited 19th Nov '12 12:32:28 PM by vanthebaron

Untitled Power Rangers Story
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#41112: Nov 19th 2012 at 12:32:50 PM

Van, I'm suspending you from OTC. You were warned many times about this.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#41113: Nov 19th 2012 at 12:43:00 PM

The Handle

Free will does not exist. It is a fact that people's actions are completely determined by their circumstances, including the action of will, which is not free. Postulating the opposite is committing a fundamental attribution error.

I definitely disagree with you there; the fact that influences exist doesn't mean free will doesn't. But again, this is worth another topic too. It's very metaphysical and not really a political topic.

Fighteer

There is a reasonable argument to be made that a person who does not believe in science should not be on a legislative committee whose job is to evaluate and discuss science issues. There is a separate argument, which is how, in this day and age, it is possible to get elected to public office while not believing in science, factual analysis, and/or reason. That derives directly from the demographic that votes for those people.

I agree with you on most points. It's obvious that legislators work best if they're given the most appropriate committee positions, and that committee members should bring in some level of knowledge on their field.

On how they're elected, I don't think many people are voting for him because of his science. That's probably not why Edwards Grizzly and (others here, as a reasonable Republican) would like Marco Rubio. After all, even supporters might debate on whether Rubio's approach here is a wise move. It's probably other agreements, and looking at his competency as a general senator.

It's just that Marco Rubio know this, and is playing the role of a challenger. He's not trying to troll the committee by proposing something he doesn't believe in. His scientific views may be different. And even if his view is inaccurate in that part, it doesn't necessarily mean that he doesn't believe in science altogether. You might feel that way, though.

By the way, let me summarize the philosophy of Keynesian creationists. It might go something like this:

  1. God created the world.Note
  2. Furthermore, God cares about the creation.
  3. Also, God has established the idea of civil government, for the benefit of humanity to stay orderly.
  4. Therefore, government should play a role in fulfilling God's plan to benefit people.
  5. Thus if corporations are "unruly" and not obeying godly order, then government should intervene.

My personal experience says one would have voted Democrat in 2012.

edited 19th Nov '12 12:47:38 PM by Trivialis

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#41114: Nov 19th 2012 at 12:48:17 PM

Trivialis, I'm not so much saying that "Keynesian Creationist" is an oxymoron, but it seems that folks can believe in the power of government to lift up the poor and sick without necessarily deriving that stance from a scientific analysis. Believing this doesn't make you a Keynesian, it makes you compassionate.

A Keynesian is someone who applies mathematical models to economic history and concludes that tangible quantities like GDP and employment, plus intangible (but measurable) quantities like satisfaction and confidence, are highest when a government uses its power to blunt recessions through deficit spending/stimulus, and pays down the resulting debts during boom times. It's not a moral argument, but it can be used to fuel a moral argument.

Someone who rejects a scientific model of history but accepts a scientific model of economics would seem to be ... well, one wonders if one part of their brain is talking to the other part. But what I'm saying is you don't need the scientific analysis to conclude that government should help the poor in a downturn, taking the money to do so from the rich who benefit by exploiting the downtrodden.

edited 19th Nov '12 12:51:35 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#41115: Nov 19th 2012 at 12:58:19 PM

I see what you're saying: Keynesian theory uses mathematical modeling rather than moral philosophy, but the two tend to align well.

To answer your point: non-deist creationists (broadly speak) have three principles: 1) God exists, 2) God created, and 3) God intervenes beyond the deist theory (which leads to "there is some way to explain the text of the Bible, literal or otherwise").

A scientific model works under certain assumptions, but if these three points get in the way of some assumptions, then you believe that the model doesn't fit the actuality. Then you would have an adjusted or new model that works with these assumptions. Your model is going to be different because the underlying points are different. That's why they may have a different model from people that disagree on 1, 2, or 3.

But I'm (currently) unaware of principles that would clash with one of the assumptions of the Keynesian model.

edited 19th Nov '12 1:01:35 PM by Trivialis

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#41116: Nov 19th 2012 at 1:01:55 PM

Triv, I wasn't even talking about Maxima's comments with my post. I was specifically talking about how people with poor knowledge of science or who deny scientifically provable things create incredibly bad policy. Specifically regarding business regulations and environmental protections, with a side of education policy. I also pointed out that politicians that deny science tend to be the hard right wingers.

I was not talking about social welfare programs or Maxima's opinions about those. I don't even know how you got the idea that I was when I didn't even bring up social welfare in any of my recent posts.

Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#41117: Nov 19th 2012 at 1:04:19 PM

[up]I was commenting on the radial topic shift from about whether people should be fiscally responsible or society should serve (this post up to this page), to Best Of's post here. I see that you weren't part of the former discussion in the latest pages.

edited 19th Nov '12 1:12:25 PM by Trivialis

TheStarshipMaxima NCC - 1701 Since: Jun, 2009
NCC - 1701
#41118: Nov 19th 2012 at 1:11:03 PM

It's amazing that Rubio says he doesn't think the Earth is 4 billion years old and he's stupid, quote unquote, but many people here who flaunt their intellect and rationality seem unable to read the actual arguments being written, and instead resort to straw arguments that exist nowhere except their imaginations.

Well, there is that 'judge not lest ye be judged' bit, and his emphasis on helping out even the lowest and most disdained members of society (see also, Matthew 25:40).
All true. Your point being?

Statistics, not anecdotes, Maxima.

Tell you what, I'll show stats if you can provide the data that backs this assertion:

To be frank, Starship, there are more lazy and entitled people in the upper class than in the lower, by percentage.

It appears from statements like this that there's this belief that nobody ever got rich through any other means that puppy-kicking and dog-raping. It can't be that maybe, they took a chance and worked hard.

And that's my point. This isn't about eliminating social programs. That's a patently absurd idea and nobody would advocate for it. It's about the fact that some people honestly believe things are "just the way they are" and that kind of thinking is a disease.

I've witnessed the effects of that line of thinking. I've personally suffered the effects of that line of thinking.

It basically amounts to you fucking over the lazy and entitled at the expense of the poor and needy. You do not want to actually do this, because you're subconsciously liberal, but you hold on to this view due to years of being manipulated by regressive ideals that have invaded the collective consciousness in the US.

With all due respect Ekuran, you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm very conscious of my liberal, if you want to label them that, tendencies. The views I have of the world, justice, and personal responsibility are important to how I live my life and thus I take deliberate effort to make sure I support things that are right and true.

You are also wrong that I'm willing to sacrifice the poor and the needy in my crusade to stick it to the entitled and the lazy. Far from that.

I'm saying I'm tired of watching people live and die in the projects because they simply can't even consider that there's more out there. I'm tired of people living and dying in trailer parks because, doggone it, they're daddy did it, and his daddy did it, and they're gonna too. I'm fed up with the rich slobs hoarding and squeezing the very life out of the economy just so their 2% appreciation rate is protected. I'm tired of the ozone layer thinning and the seas rising because people just can't be troubled to even consider that maybe, just maybe, there's something to reusing grocery bags and exploring solar power.

The liberal-conservative divide is always presented as rational, intelligent, wholesome people fighting for a better world vs. old rich white guys who'd rather destroy the world than share it. In some casese that divide is accurate.

In other cases, conservatives want the same better world you do. We're simply saying, "Hey if you hold people accountable for the state of the world, maybe they'll care enough to make it better."

It was an honor
BestOf FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC! from Finland Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
#41119: Nov 19th 2012 at 1:23:25 PM

If you reply to this:

To be frank, Starship, there are more lazy and entitled people in the upper class than in the lower, by percentage.

with this:

It appears from statements like this that there's this belief that nobody ever got rich through any other means that puppy-kicking and dog-raping. It can't be that maybe, they took a chance and worked hard.

you don't get to accuse others of strawmanning.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
TheStarshipMaxima NCC - 1701 Since: Jun, 2009
NCC - 1701
#41120: Nov 19th 2012 at 1:27:11 PM

[lol] Best Of, I was making a point.

Suggesting that all rich people, or even a significant number, got, or maintained, their wealth through nefarious means or not through some degree of personal effort is as baseless as saying all welfare recipients, or even a significant number of them, are parasites gaming the system.

As in, both statements are bullshit.

It was an honor
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#41121: Nov 19th 2012 at 1:31:40 PM

In other cases, conservatives want the same better world you do. We're simply saying, "Hey if you hold people accountable for the state of the world, maybe they'll care enough to make it better."
You'll forgive me if I don't see how this statement means we can't work on redressing economic imbalances so that poor people have a chance to stand on the same footing as everyone else. You are the one who keeps bringing up the "what if lazy entitled people get some of the money" argument.

The limited horizons of these folks that you lament are no more or less of a moral issue than the farmer's son who doesn't want to leave the farm, the government worker who puts in his thirty for a pension and teaches his kids to do the same, the military family that enshrines Guns and Country, or the rich kid who didn't work a day in his life and is inheriting millions.

I know you're willing to listen to rational arguments, so how about this. Economically speaking, we're all richer when we take from the rich and give to the poor. Nowhere in this are we devaluing work; far from it. The vast majority of people want to do productive work and it is only fair that we reward them with a living wage and the economic security to reach out beyond their comfort zone if they have the will and desire to do so.

edited 19th Nov '12 1:33:57 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
TheStarshipMaxima NCC - 1701 Since: Jun, 2009
NCC - 1701
#41122: Nov 19th 2012 at 1:34:59 PM

You are the one who keeps bringing up the "what if lazy entitled people get some of the money" argument.

Where is this argument?? Where do you get that I don't want to redress social issues. You know, neither I nor Barkey brought up anything about social programs except to say we both support them and view them as completely necessary.

The question I ask you is why must be either help those who need OR get people to consider their own potential? As Tony Stark asked, "Is it too much to ask for both??"

Economically speaking, we're all richer when we take from the rich and give to the poor. Nowhere in this are we devaluing work; far from it. The vast majority of people want to do productive work and it is only fair that we reward them with a living wage and the economic security to reach out beyond their comfort zone if they have the will and desire to do so.
Except about the part about taking from the rich, I actually agree with what you wrote. I'm never going to cosign on taking something from somebody that they earned fair and square.

edited 19th Nov '12 1:37:35 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#41123: Nov 19th 2012 at 1:37:29 PM

We are asking for both. Where do you get this idea that we are not? In fact, I'm saying that economic support enables personal responsibility by giving people the means by which to exercise it. You're attacking an argument that none of us is actually making, nor is anyone else on the liberal end of the social justice debate. You only hear that argument from conservatives who oppose it. What does that say about them?

What it shows about you is that you've fallen victim to the scapegoat trap that they set in front of you. It's a very easy one to fall into, believe me.

Did you read the rest of my post here? Where I mentioned the basic formula of aristocracy for controlling the poor? Promote a few exceptional ones while sending the message that aspiring to this level is beyond the rest of them. Leave them to self-reinforce that message and you can proudly claim that they are "too lazy" to ever make it in the world.

edited 19th Nov '12 1:40:43 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
BestOf FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC! from Finland Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
#41124: Nov 19th 2012 at 1:40:15 PM

I was making a point.

If the point wasn't that "I can make straw men, too," I don't know how your post wasn't strawmanning.

If you were parodying the post to which you were responding, then I just missed your sarcasm.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
TheStarshipMaxima NCC - 1701 Since: Jun, 2009
NCC - 1701
#41125: Nov 19th 2012 at 1:41:04 PM

Well, it seems the straw men are dancing all up and down these threads aren't they?? tongue

I never said anything about social programs not being needed or beneficial to us all. I simply question your assertion that social programs automatically enable personal enterprise.

Social programs don't defeat personal horizons. Better thinking defeats limited horizons.

Also, I disagree with the moral issue of a rich kid inheriting money. If I'm blessed with wealth one day I have the right to pass that blessing on to my children. It's kinda the point of me being their father.

If you were parodying the post to which you were responding, then I just missed your sarcasm.

Actually I took a post and made the parallel that it was as unsubstantiated as the one I posited. Neither saracasm nor strawmanning, actually.

@Fighteer: I did read your post. Like many things you write, it was totally spot on. I merely question your assertion that all cases of wealthy people touting their hard work, or disadvantaged people being asked to take some responsibility for their circumstances are rendered null and void because some aristocrats do what you say.

edited 19th Nov '12 1:45:03 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor

Total posts: 417,856
Top