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

#41351: Nov 19th 2012 at 10:12:07 PM

@deathpigeon: You don't seem to understand the scale of what you are talking about. The number of people you'd have to add to the foster care system to adequately parent all the children in the US would be more than the entire federal workforce today (assuming families with 5-10 kids each, which most people consider rather large).

<><
Inhopelessguy Since: Apr, 2011
#41353: Nov 19th 2012 at 10:16:29 PM

... is that good? In Britain, the immigration debate is a bit... heateed.

deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#41354: Nov 19th 2012 at 10:17:58 PM

@Grizzly: Then let's add that many people to the foster system.

DrunkGirlfriend from Castle Geekhaven Since: Jan, 2011
#41355: Nov 19th 2012 at 10:18:52 PM

[up][up] Depends on who you ask?

I'm okay with it.

edited 19th Nov '12 10:18:57 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#41356: Nov 19th 2012 at 10:20:36 PM

And I think it's a step in the right direction toward a better plan for immigration.

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#41357: Nov 19th 2012 at 10:21:21 PM

[up][up][up][up][up]

I already linked that. tongue

edited 19th Nov '12 10:21:38 PM by DeviantBraeburn

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
#41358: Nov 19th 2012 at 10:21:23 PM

[up]Given the number of children this involves, I'm pretty sure it would be the ENTIRE workforce, not just the federal workforce. Because if you want to take care of each child individually, you're going to have to fucking hire a lot of people for that. It would also be ludicrously expensive, since it would require excessive taxation to pay for all this, if you're not making the hypothetical foster parent pay for it. And you're also paying the person for doing a job. Which to my mind really depersonalizes the child and reduces them to numbers and commodities.

Children are a fuckload of work.

And dp, I'm talking about damage to the child as well. This "let parents visit the children" thing is just going to confuse the fuck out of them. As well as cause a lot of angst about who their parents are. Separating child and parent also damages the child. They need a stable home. And most parents provide that in some form. And you know what? That child gets damaged all over again when they decided it's time to have children. All you're convincing me of is something I already believe; we need a better system in place for taking care of children who are hurt.

I really don't think you understand how much a child would be hurt by this. Families are really fucking important parts of our societies, and putting them in the care of "trained individuals" the way you suggest basically just trashes the fuck out of that. You're turning raising children into a job, a mere task to be done, rather than something people choose to do with their lives. This isn't a good way to structure a society.

It's just. So impersonal. Reducing children and parents to units that don't matter. That's not the kind of society I want. And that's not the kind of society my sister and my niece and my nephew deserve. And yes, I think there are some things my parents did wrongly, or at least should have done differently. But I love them. So very much. And I don't doubt that they love me. (Loved, in the case of the dead one.) And the state can't replace that sort of connection. It's a very vital part of my life.

Goddamn ninjas, this thread was quite for like twenty minutes then six posts while I'm typing.

edited 19th Nov '12 10:22:03 PM by AceofSpades

DrunkGirlfriend from Castle Geekhaven Since: Jan, 2011
#41359: Nov 19th 2012 at 10:22:54 PM

@Deviant: Fine! I'll link a different thing to talk about! tongue

Hobby Lobby isn't a religious organization, therefore must follow the laws put down by the ACA.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#41360: Nov 19th 2012 at 10:25:50 PM

@Ace: ...I was about to write a response, then I realized we were getting really off-topic. We probably shouldn't continue this in this thread. I'd be open to continuing this in PMs, if you'd like.

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#41361: Nov 19th 2012 at 10:27:13 PM

Oh come on Hobby Lobby! I get most of my art supplies from you! Be cool man, be cool!

[up]Okay I guess.

edited 19th Nov '12 10:27:41 PM by AceofSpades

Euodiachloris Since: Oct, 2010
#41362: Nov 19th 2012 at 10:27:59 PM

[up]I'm just trying to get my head around the morning after pill in conjunction with acrylics and needlepoint...

What the heck?

edited 19th Nov '12 10:29:01 PM by Euodiachloris

DrunkGirlfriend from Castle Geekhaven Since: Jan, 2011
#41363: Nov 19th 2012 at 10:29:18 PM

[up] It's a bit misleading, they have to provide health insurance that covers all forms of contraceptives, including emergency ones like the morning-after pill. They had sued to get an exemption to the law because the owner is Christian, therefore is against such stuff.

edited 19th Nov '12 10:29:59 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
Euodiachloris Since: Oct, 2010
#41364: Nov 19th 2012 at 10:30:43 PM

[up]Another "what the heck": paper-craft and health insurance?! <shakes head>

[down]I'll never get used to employer-health schemes.

edited 19th Nov '12 10:32:16 PM by Euodiachloris

DrunkGirlfriend from Castle Geekhaven Since: Jan, 2011
#41365: Nov 19th 2012 at 10:31:53 PM

[up] Yeah, under the ACA, all employers have to offer insurance to their employees.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
Inhopelessguy Since: Apr, 2011
#41366: Nov 19th 2012 at 10:34:07 PM

... But what if their employees aren't, and are perfectly okay with having contra pills?

RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#41367: Nov 19th 2012 at 10:35:56 PM

How did getting insurance through your job get started, anyway?

Inhopelessguy Since: Apr, 2011
#41368: Nov 19th 2012 at 10:38:58 PM

Surely having employer insurance is a paradox?

When you're ill, you're not exactly going to work.

And... you need work for insurance...

deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#41369: Nov 19th 2012 at 10:44:46 PM

Personally, I think that getting health insurance through your job is a thing that should be replaced by getting health insurance from the government. Single-payer universal healthcare is something that I feel should happen. :/

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#41370: Nov 19th 2012 at 10:45:02 PM

Something the unions may have come up with, since employers are generally expected to provide a safe and welcoming work environment.

TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#41371: Nov 19th 2012 at 10:47:39 PM

@Starshoip:

These are facts Fighteer, not acknowledging them doesn't make them go away.
Oh, Starship, that was a beautiful thing to say!

there are more lazy and entitled people in the upper class than in the lower, by percentage

While it stands to reason that, once you're rich enough to get paid for being rich, you wouldn't have much incentive not to be an Immature Hedonist, there's greed, passion, and just plain boredom that can cause these people to be active, although it doesn't have to be economically productive activity in any way. It's more tempting to be "lazy" when you're paid so low and your working conditions are so degrading that the rewards just aren't worth the effort, and being idle is in fact less humiliating and degrading.

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.

Appeal to Inherent Nature is obviously a very unproductive approach to problem-solving. However, sometimes some problems are legitimately impossible to solve or even alleviate. It can be just and fair to give up on improving them if one focuses one's effort into more rewarding opportunities.

"Hey if you hold people accountable for the state of the world, maybe they'll care enough to make it better."

Remember, to let it into your heart, then you can start, to make it better. And well you know that it's a fool, who plays it cool; don't carry the world upon their shoulders.

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.

What is the limit between "significant" and "insignificant" number?

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. [[/quoteblock[[

[citation needed]

[[quoteblock]]I'm never going to cosign on taking something from somebody that they earned fair and square.

Starship, you don't think the government should levy taxes?

This is classic aristocratic arrogance. We'll give to the poor because it makes us feel better about being rich, but we don't want them thinking they can ever truly be as good at us. So what we'll do is find a few of them that we can elevate above the rest, call it an example of what can happen if you really work hard, while making it clear that we won't help them one bit along the way. This way they come to believe that they are indeed undeserving and will stop trying so hard, so we can justifiably blame them for being lazy.

I had missed that, thank you for linking it back. This is a very quotable quote. Do we have a place on this wiki to store quotable quotes? Can I create a quotes page to your troper page, Fighteer?

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

Actually, they both do; the programs make further horizons accessible, the thinking makes you raise your head and take notice of them. But there's no point in keeping your head tall if you can't go nowhere, and you'll get tired and despair soon enough.

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.

The point of you being their father is your ability to pass on your love, values, knowledge, skills, and connections. I don't see how money, the raw power you have over other people, needs to come in that package; in a social environment where people are justly rewarded on their merit, they can easily earn it all over again. In an unfair environment, though... you'd be perpetuating injustice.

There is no such thing as fair and square in a system that is not equitable to begin with.

I am a self-employed entrepreneur. I'm busting my ass with this company of one getting it off the ground. I'm going to pay more taxes next April, probably, than I've ever paid before in my life. And I'm fine with the risk of funding deadbeats. I would rather a hundred deadbeats enjoy a new phone than a single person who didn't deserve their misfortune go without a month's rent. The cost of a deadbeat mooching off of the system for his entire freaking life is so much less than what society gains from someone who gets that opportunity and gets somewhere with it. That's a family that succeeds. That's a new business. That's kids that don't get into a life of crime. That's a consumer (and his or her dependents) who support local businesses, driving demand. That's potentially the scientist who discovers a cure for cancer or the businessman who revolutionizes an industry or the greatest statesman in the history of the country, if we roll really high. We get so much more out of this gambit when we win, by such an order of magnitude, that worrying about when we lose seems ridiculous. What does all the welfare fraud in the United States add up to? A couple million? Tens of millions? The country is flush with people who make that much in a month.

This is also very quotable, RT, and I'd like to hang it up somewhere.

As a student of mathematics (queen of science tongue), I have to caution you about the notion of proof.

Mathematical proof and scientific proof are two very, very different things. Mathematics is the language of science, but it is not a science. Scientific proof is writing a map of the city, going out to the city to try the map out, test for inconsistencies, find them, write a new map making the best possible guess from what you know, try again. Mathematic proof is making sure the map is self-consistent. You can draw beautiful self-consistent maps without looking at the city. If they're accurate, it's an amazingly unlikely coincidence. You, just by going to the city over and over again, draw incredibly ugly maps that have some absolutely ridiculous bits, but which still work most of time.

It's possible to do science without math. It's certainly possible to do math without science. And the reason scientific assumptions are right (or rather, less wrong than non-scientific assumptions) is because they go out and test them out against reality, and assumptions that are proven wrong are flushed down the toilet.

proof is a construct using logical validity

Validity = it's consistent with my previous assumptions. Truth = factual. Validity is a secondary concern.

This thread goes too fast. I'll come back later.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Completion oldtimeytropey from Space Since: Apr, 2012
oldtimeytropey
#41372: Nov 19th 2012 at 11:02:22 PM

Health insurance through employers started with unions in the 1950s. Then it became expected. It worked for a while, since people typically stayed with the same company throughout their career, until the 1980s when it became more common to change jobs.

TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#41373: Nov 19th 2012 at 11:28:39 PM

Why wasn't it dropped then?

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
Completion oldtimeytropey from Space Since: Apr, 2012
oldtimeytropey
#41375: Nov 19th 2012 at 11:44:37 PM

It became a structural thing and it's still the best way to get your health insurance to this day, especially since the ACA standardizes plans allowing them to be rolled over to a new job during periods of cyclical or frictional unemployment. COBRA, passed in the 90s, alleviated the cancellation of plans during frictional unemployment.

Having individual plans will be much cheaper now, too, due to subsidies.

[up] Right, because the cheapest and most simple way of obtaining health coverage can be chalked up to "people are stupid". I'm against private insurance, too, but at least attempt to understand how the system works.

edited 19th Nov '12 11:50:35 PM by Completion


Total posts: 417,856
Top