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

Fish1 h Since: Sep, 2010
h
#41576: Nov 21st 2012 at 7:16:48 AM

Willing? Listen, I'd love to live in a world where politicians told the truth, and rainbows flew out of everyone's anus. Give me a call when you find one.

Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#41577: Nov 21st 2012 at 7:19:54 AM

So you want to live in such a world but aren't willing to help put in the effort to make it so? Thanks for the support

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Fish1 h Since: Sep, 2010
h
#41578: Nov 21st 2012 at 7:24:22 AM

I'm perfectly willing. Let's hear your plan.

Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#41579: Nov 21st 2012 at 7:29:43 AM

We do what we've been doing here. We hold them accountable, we push back against those politicians that lie each and every time they do, and we fight more for those who are honest. It's not complicated, it's just the kind of thing that will take a lot of time and a lot of people, you get enough people calling politicians on their bushtit and it stops being worthwhile for them to lie, and then once it no longer benefits them to lie they won't.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Fish1 h Since: Sep, 2010
h
#41580: Nov 21st 2012 at 7:34:34 AM

The fatal flaw in that plan is that it presumes that we catch the liars 100% of the time. If we don't, we'll have simply elected people who are extremely good at lying.

Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#41581: Nov 21st 2012 at 7:37:51 AM

That's assuming you are going for a 100% succeed rate. I'd consider it a success if we could get the vast majority to be in a position where lying is simply not worth the effort. Now I think there's a "Getting the Lies out of Politics" thread somewhere in OTC, so should we take this there?

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#41582: Nov 21st 2012 at 7:40:06 AM

...and that you don't mistakenly call someone a liar when they had incomplete information, and were right based on the information they had at the time and the information wasn't Classified Information.

edited 21st Nov '12 7:40:49 AM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On
Jordan Azor Ahai from Westeros Since: Jan, 2001
Azor Ahai
#41584: Nov 21st 2012 at 7:42:17 AM

Honestly, I do think that Mourdock got something of a raw deal and was misinterpreted/had his remarks taken out of context. I wouldn't say the same for Akin or Rivard though, who actually are good examples of a pro-life stance being tied to a denigration of women. Mourdock was simply indicating that he is pro-life without exceptions (a stance I disagree with) and had the misfortune of speaking about that at a time when Akin and Rivard were in the public mind.

Edit- Correcting earlier phrasing where had used Akin when I meant to say Mourdock.

edited 21st Nov '12 8:20:18 AM by Jordan

Hodor
thatguythere47 Since: Jul, 2010
#41585: Nov 21st 2012 at 7:44:09 AM

@Bestof: I've already made the decision to never bother trying to change policy again outside of when eddie decides to nuke the forums. I've been down that road many a time in my years here and it's never accomplished anything. Instead I'll just sit here and be amused by the irony of a site primarily about writing censoring people.

" not recognizing the open rapist in their social group who tells off-color jokes and mentions how this or that lady "is totally easy after a couple of drinks". There is a lot more to it."

I was thinking "If you ever think of taking advantage of a woman, don't, that's fucked up" was a pretty solid introduction to rape but you're right that there's more to it then that,

"I am admittedly looking for a topic that is probably above OTC's tolerance level for inflammatory discussion."

I remember when OTC was the sub-forum for inflammatory discussion so this sentence hits me right in the feels.

"I'd love to hear more of their views, because it would give me the chance to express the nuances of my own"

And through this disagreement you both get a clearer understanding of your points and with any luck one of you changes your minds. Isn't debate wonderful?

"You have to construct areas in which such reasoned discourse can safely occur, and where distinctions in both majority and minority positions can be clearly distinguished. U.S. Politics is not that area yet.Regardless of how many shades of nuance lie behind Mourdock's statements, which were doubtless made with the best of intent and a recognition of women as human beings at some level, the way he framed the statement and the context in which he delivered it were as bad as the premises upon which he founded it."

I'd disagree. The fact that we've spent the last couple of pages decrying the lies around his statement shows we are fully capable of having a real discussion.

"It was a harmful statement. He would have been better off not saying it."

There are better ways to frame it, certainly. The position is one I disagree with and find morally reprehensible so there's no reason to exaggerate when the position itself can be debated.

"It amazes me that Rubio is a "liar" or "stupid" or "lazy" for saying that inspite of radiometric testing, the Earth might yet still be a young Earth, but yet these people of vastly superior intellect and reason cannot read a simple statement honestly and accurately."

Well Rubio has to either invent some incredible exceptions for earth if he thinks the science is correct or he has to disregard a lot of science. On a related note I still don't get young earthers. The freaking catholic church doesn't believe the creation story in a literal sense.

", the reasoning by which one might find his position reprehensible is no more inherently valid than the reasoning by which a pro-life person might find a pro-choice person's position reprehensible."

TO be perfectly frank his position forces someone to carry a child conceived from rape. That is, to borrow a term from Plato "All sorts of fucked up."

"This is true because their opponents have mounted a massive campaign of lies to paint them as pro-rape and anti-women."

Which I disagree with, there are plenty of real reasons why this position is morally reprehensible, we don't need to make any up.

"This is POLITICS. There is no moral high ground, and everybody lies."

Hi doublethink, I've missed you so. There is no moral high ground, except ours! Everybody lies but the other side is evil for it!

OR you actually believe you are no better then your opponents and a liar in which case why should I ever read any of your posts?

Oh god another page crept up while I was writing this. posting anyway.

Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?
Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#41586: Nov 21st 2012 at 7:45:21 AM

Eh. Honestly, I couldnt give two shits if Mourdock was taken out of context, but thats because my personal views are an utter hatred of conservative christian values.

Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#41587: Nov 21st 2012 at 7:45:25 AM

[up][up][up] Rivard is the "some girls rape easy" one right? Because I advise you look up the context of that statement. From what I can find he wasn't talking about rape, he was talking about not having sex with someone who might shout "rape" if they end up pregnant, which is actually pretty sound advice.

[up] And you don't see the massive hypocrisy of that? What you're effectively saying is "lying in politics is bad, unless we are doing it against this particular group".

edited 21st Nov '12 7:49:11 AM by Silasw

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Fish1 h Since: Sep, 2010
h
#41588: Nov 21st 2012 at 7:47:17 AM

[up][up][up] No, I'm just a cynic. It comes with living with politicians. (And I mean in a "I share a residence with them sense.")

Anyway, I'm not talking about me, or anyone in this thread. I'm talking about the political machine, the politicians and the people who put them into power.

edited 21st Nov '12 8:01:40 AM by Fish1

Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#41589: Nov 21st 2012 at 7:51:59 AM

[up][up]

I never said I supported lying. I just said I wouldnt really be voting for someone like Mourdock anyhow. You could say I'm an anti-values voter in that the highest motivating factor for my vote is that I absolutely refuse to vote for anyone who has american conservative social views.

After all, my first assumption would be that even if he was saying "Rape is bad, but babies are a gift from gods" it'd come out to me as "welp, if you get raped, then it was god's way of forcing you to go home, live in the kitchen and be a mother"

edited 21st Nov '12 7:53:02 AM by Midgetsnowman

Jordan Azor Ahai from Westeros Since: Jan, 2001
Azor Ahai
#41590: Nov 21st 2012 at 7:52:06 AM

@Silasw- Actually, I find that pretty offensive in itself- while there are actual cases of false rape accusations, this sounds like the typical MRA paranoia that accuses women of constantly "crying rape". Also, not sure how to put it, but while a more normal phrasing of his advice would probably say "No means no" or something to that effect, he chose to phrase it as "be careful of crazy sluts who will accuse you of raping them".

edited 21st Nov '12 7:52:47 AM by Jordan

Hodor
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#41591: Nov 21st 2012 at 7:59:12 AM

O it's still a bloody stupid statement phased in a stupid way. What he should have said was "don't have sex with someone you don't trust" and left it at that. It's paranoid scaremongering. But we should be attacking such statements for the fact that he's implying that false rape claims are highly common and not spinning it into something else. Also if I remember correctly he was reiterating advise given to him by his farther, in which case I would say the wording of the advise is slightly more permissible as it was not originally intended as a public statement but more of a "lets scare the crap out of my son so he doesn’t go knocking some girl up".

In short, let's attack the statement for its actual stupidity rather then making up extra stupidity.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
thatguythere47 Since: Jul, 2010
#41592: Nov 21st 2012 at 8:00:25 AM

It's pretty solid advice, better known as "don't stick your dick in crazy." The genderflipped version isn't nearly as catching.

Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?
Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#41593: Nov 21st 2012 at 8:00:42 AM

@ Midgetsnowman:

You could say I'm an anti-values voter in that the highest motivating factor for my vote is that I absolutely refuse to vote for anyone who has american conservative social views.

Not Quite. I'd say you're still a single-issue voter — just your issue is on being anti-Social Conservative.

edited 21st Nov '12 8:01:04 AM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On
RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#41594: Nov 21st 2012 at 8:17:09 AM

Mourdock's mistake was a poor choice of words.
No. Mourdock's error was how he framed the argument. (That, plus the "fuck you" to secular Christian women and atheist women. People who believe in God have more reason to be pissed at Mourdock than I do tbh.) I'll go over it line by line later.

However, it is not reasonable to believe that his position, reprehensible or not, is founded on misogyny or rape-culture, which is the accusation that is persistently made.
Yes, it is reasonable. It's actually very easy to make this argument once you realize how pervasive rape culture, institutionalized misogyny, and unconscious misogyny are in our culture. Indeed it would be more astonishing if Mr. Mourdock were free of these pervasive influences - I'm a progressive Canadian urbanite, and I'm still working on it.

Furthermore, the reasoning by which one might find his position reprehensible is no more inherently valid than the reasoning by which a pro-life person might find a pro-choice person's position reprehensible.
I have problems with the ramifications of how he frames the argument, entirely separate from his position.

In the context of these threads, you see this kind of bullshit pop up all the time.
For the record, remember how I didn't ascribe any assumed positions to conservatives I disagreed with? Remember how I made a post all about getting lumped in with similar positions from which you differ, and how a lack of nuance in these conversations is an annoyance we all have to put up with?

Here's the full quote from Mourdock
Thanks, it's always good to go to the source.

You know, this is that issue that every candidate for federal or even state office faces. And I have to certainly stand for life. I know that there are some who disagree, and I respect their point of view. But I believe that life begins at conception. The only exception I have to have on abortion is in that case — of the life of the mother.
All stuff I disagree with vehemently, but he's entitled to his opinion, and this is nothing new.
I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God.
This is all right for a statement, but it comes with a few implicit assumptions. One, God should determine how things work in a secular system of law, according to an candidate for a legislative position. Two, life is a gift we owe to someone else.
And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.
A premise that won't get contested here is that rape is horrible (I think we're all in agreement). You could argue that he should have spent more time stressing that point, but it's arguably a communication failure on his part.

But "God intended"?

The underlying frame of that question is that there is someone who has a plan for your well being, and rape may be the price you pay for that. If I were a Christian woman who believed God only ever wished me well, I would find this the most blasphemous insult. God doesn't intend for me to be in unfair situations!

Moreover, let's see its interactions with the previous premises. Either as a reward for paying this price or a consolation for the awful event that happened to you, you receive this gift, for which you should be thankful. Because God, who has this plan for your well being and should be dictating law in a secular country, is behind this, being thankful is the most healthy response since we won't allow you to refuse the gift unless there's a chance it will kill you. And this is coming from a man.

There's "I disagree with your position that you have a right to terminate a life" and then there's "Your input on this matter should be nonexistent". The latter is emergent from how Mourdock framed the debate. You don't get to choose how to appreciate this "gift" (the term for gifts like that are "impositions") and there's already a plan for you to follow.

To make the distinction clear, imagine what Mourdock could have said. He could have said "Rape is a horrible, horrible situation no woman deserves. Such a horror should not be followed by the additional horror of ending a life." No problem! (Well, actually lots of problem, but only in the sense of disagreement over the debate.) "Rape is a horrible, horrible situation no woman deserves. I believe God offers those women the opportunity to make something precious and beautiful, the life of a child, emerge from that horror." Okay, I disagree, but I can respect that. Do you see how those statements are framed differently?

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
BestOf FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC! from Finland Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
#41595: Nov 21st 2012 at 8:28:36 AM

I'm going to give my perspective on Mourdock's quote. It's kind of off-topic, but I think my perspective is shared by some of the posters here and maybe we're being misunderstood.

But I believe that life begins at conception. The only exception I have to have on abortion is in that case — of the life of the mother. I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God. And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.

There are two premises expressed in that quote that I disagree with: 1) that there is a God, and 2) that life begins at coception. That's enough to justify that I don't agree with that statement, but let's also look at the implications.

If God wanted a man and a woman to have a child, and the plan did not involve the two having consensual sex, then I suppose you have to conclude that God wants the man to rape the woman. (Or the woman to rape the man.) Note that I'm not putting words in Mourdoch's mouth: "even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen." So God has a plan and it includes rape; and not only that, the life that results from the rape is "a gift." Now, I suppose he probably meant that that life is a gift for the child, rather than the parents, so I don't think it's fair to say that he meant that rape is a gift for the woman. Regardless of that it still feels like adding insult to injury, though obviously the child is in fact faultless in the rape. Mourdock explicitly stated that in cases where rape results in a pregnancy (that isn't fatal to the mother) God wants rape to happen. Sure, the rape is a means to an end (that end being the gift of life,) but nevertheless.

There is no squirming out of this one: if the pregnancy resulting from rape is something that God intended to happen, then the rape is something that God intended to happen. If you want to conclude that the baby is part of God's plan and the rape is not, the only way I can see that argument being made is that God didn't want the rape, but when the woman became pregnant from it he made plans for the baby. But I don't think such a God is supported by the actual quote from Murdouch, as he said God intended for the pregnancy to happen, implying that the whole chain of events was part of the plan.

That we disagree with the premises and conclusions of a statement, however, doesn't make the statement evil; instead, the end result of the statement is what determines if it's evil.

The end result of the train of thought expressed in the quote is that a raped woman is forced to endure a pregnancy and birth of a child that she didn't want and quite probably won't want even after the child is born. Terminating the pregnancy, according to Mourdock, would go against God's plan, so there's no choice but for the woman to have to endure it. I believe that this is an evil statement. I know people will disagree, saying that it's at least equally evil to end the life of the child.

(Even secularists like Christopher Hitchens can end up supporting this position; he was opposed to abortion except in extreme cases, precisely because he believed life to begin at conception and valued the life of the baby as high as that of the woman. I disagree with him because I don't believe the developing embryo has rights, as it doesn't even have a nervous system and I don't believe in a soul.)

That's where we disagree, and I'll agree to disagree because it's not on-topic for this thread. But I have the right to consider a statement that a woman has to endure a pregnancy and birth that results from a rape as evil.

Another problem I have with Mourdock's reasoning is that it reduces the woman to a device for making babies. He does admit that rape is horrible and that abortion is the right thing to do when the mother's life is at stake. Good for him. But that doesn't change the rest of what he said.

Mourdock said that even pregnancies that begin with rape are intended by God. So God makes the decision and the woman doesn't get to dispute that decision. Even if I believed in God, I would consider this an evil statement to make. It's not only wrong, it's also harmful to the woman. Now, my position is harmful to the embryo, but that only applies if you believe that the embryo has rights, which I don't. So again, this is where we disagree.

If a woman doesn't want to endure a pregnancy that she didn't intend to happen in the first place (and in the case of rape she probably resisted it,) I don't think anyone has the right to prevent her from trying to limit her suffering in any way, assuming that she is mentally capable of making decisions about her own body.

And I haven't even touched the issue of making policy decisions based on religion, which is against the Constitution of the US and imposing religious policies on those who don't hold those religious beliefs.

So, here. I've disagreed with Mourdock's statements and explained why I think they're not only wrong, by also harmful and evil. I can respect that he seems to have thought long and hard about this, so I'll give him credit for that. Still doesn't change the fact that I'm very happy that a person like that wasn't elected, any more than I would be about a climate change denier who had thought long and hard to arrive at their position but still started from false premises. Hopefully this post illustrates that I have spent more than "half a brain cycle" thinking about this, and that I have more than "half a sense of morals."

@Liberals lying v Concervatives lying: I think some of the Democrat voters in this thread have actually demonstrated double standards and hypocricy, and you need to start holding your politicians to the same standard you demand from the other side.

If you're going to respond by saying that politics is politics and you win by lying, then please don't complain when the other side does it. And I think you're underestimating your own people (assuming you're American) when you say that the voters will always pick the bigger liar.

edited 21st Nov '12 8:29:04 AM by BestOf

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
storyyeller More like giant cherries from Appleloosa Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: RelationshipOutOfBoundsException: 1
More like giant cherries
#41596: Nov 21st 2012 at 8:39:15 AM

Hey I don't like it when Democrats lie either.

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play
Jordan Azor Ahai from Westeros Since: Jan, 2001
Azor Ahai
#41597: Nov 21st 2012 at 8:44:24 AM

[up][up][up] and [up][up] Those are very well-put and do get at why outside of misrepresentation, Mourdock's comments were seized upon/objected it. I think it is the case that if you believe in a Supreme Being than technically you should believe that everything is part of His plan- Mourdock is either (depending on how you look at it) more honest about it or taking it to a disturbing and evil conclusion.

I don't mean to be flippant, but there is a definitely "if life gives you lemons, make lemonade" (possibly stolen from Rachel Maddow) implication- essentially saying to any rape victim who wants/gets an abortion, "How dare you interfere with God's plan". Now from the way he phrased it, it is clear that this isn't a conclusion he reached lightly, and unlike Akin

edited 21st Nov '12 8:46:55 AM by Jordan

Hodor
Fish1 h Since: Sep, 2010
h
#41598: Nov 21st 2012 at 8:47:23 AM

[up][up][up] I don't complain when the other side lies. I complain when more people believe the other side's lies than my own side's. You may find this horribly, horribly cynical, but it's the result of having politics drummed into my skull since a very young age.

edited 21st Nov '12 8:47:35 AM by Fish1

thatguythere47 Since: Jul, 2010
#41599: Nov 21st 2012 at 8:58:00 AM

@Fish: And therefore we have no reason to talk to you, as you've said you're perfectly okay with lying and that has no place in proper politics.

Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?
Fish1 h Since: Sep, 2010
h
#41600: Nov 21st 2012 at 9:04:20 AM

[up] You just did exactly what you have been complaining about this whole time, and have proved my point completely. Did I ever say I was perfectly okay with lying? No. I don't like lies in my personal or professional lives, or hell, even in my political life. But you just went and twisted my words around, exactly in the way the Democrats did to Mourdock.


Total posts: 417,856
Top