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

Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#41726: Nov 22nd 2012 at 12:07:19 AM

In other words, are there 50 separate cases happening in every State Court?

Keep Rolling On
DrunkGirlfriend from Castle Geekhaven Since: Jan, 2011
#41727: Nov 22nd 2012 at 12:16:45 AM

[up] No, just California. Apple is based in California, so therefore it's being heard in the California courts.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
PotatoesRock Since: Oct, 2012
#41728: Nov 22nd 2012 at 12:17:46 AM

I believe State level patent cases get taken to very specific locations in the US typically, where the juries are rigged to be very uneducated on technical matters, such as patents, and more patriotic sorts. I know that's how it's done with East Texas. Especially if you're patent trolling/suing a foreign competitor.

Inhopelessguy Since: Apr, 2011
#41729: Nov 22nd 2012 at 12:18:22 AM

... That sounds rather weird.

So, does that mean the ruling just affects sales in California, or nationally?

shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#41730: Nov 22nd 2012 at 12:21:31 AM

It effects things nationally and internationally with the way businesses work. It's completely bullshit. There's a mess with the whole copyright/patent system in the US.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Completion oldtimeytropey from Space Since: Apr, 2012
oldtimeytropey
#41731: Nov 22nd 2012 at 1:11:10 AM

Here: The ruling applies throughout the United States, but it is tried in California because that's where one of the plaintiffs is located. Patent and copyright is a federal issue, so it is technically a federal court, but it only deals with cases in California.

50 separate courts, yes, but that's better than one court dealing with the hundreds of thousands of patent lawsuits every year. The structure of the court system is pretty solid, just patent and copyright laws are a giant fuck-ball.

edited 22nd Nov '12 1:12:03 AM by Completion

#41732: Nov 22nd 2012 at 5:51:09 AM

12 months in prison for that?

Nope. That's a misrepresentation. There's no jail penalty for refusing to agree with the KY statement that its safety depends on God. As far as I can tell from reading the actual legislation, they are getting that from the fact that the failure of an official to carry out his official duties may be a punishable offense, and the fact that this law would create some official duties for some officials (such as putting up plaques, placing orders to publishers, etc). In practice, there is no chance whatsoever that a person who refused to comply would be successfully prosecuted, and it wouldn't affect anyone except those particular officials.

It's still a potentially inappropriate mingling of church and state, but to say this is "ACKNOWLEDGE GOD OR GO TO JAIL" is a ludicrous exaggeration.

edited 22nd Nov '12 5:51:17 AM by EdwardsGrizzly

<><
#41733: Nov 22nd 2012 at 6:18:11 AM

Can we, please, move along? It's getting tedious: the old "abortion shouldn't be a forum topic" rule is... a good one.

This discussion isn't really about abortion, it's about they way a group I identify with is persistently abused in our society and specifically in this thread. We've had the abortion discussion. Everyone here knows where I stand on the subject, and I think most of you even understand my position fairly well.

But these lies about conservative Christians are a different issue. It is tedious, but I think it's important to call out this kind of thing when it happens, and since I'm the main representative of that side here I'm the main one who seems to notice or care when people uncritically perpetuate false stereotypes of conservatives.

In regards to whether or not something is a reasonable interpretation, I think interpreting current Republican policy as anti-women is quite fair.

I won't try to defend republican policy in general, because that is a nebulous thing and conservative Christians are only a small part of the GOP coalition. But I will continue to maintain that many of the claims (where "many" means "virtually all I have looked at") made about people like Mourdock or conservative Christians are false and in many cases deliberate lies.

My goal here is not to convince you all to fall in line behind the GOP agenda. My goal is to persuade you to refrain from spreading lies and offensive slander in your opposition to it.

In cases where conservative elements really do express anti-women positions, I will gladly join you in condemning it. But each case deserves to be critically examined, and the vast majority of times that I do so I find that the accusations are unreasonable if not entirely fabricated.

edited 22nd Nov '12 6:20:44 AM by EdwardsGrizzly

<><
BestOf FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC! from Finland Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
#41734: Nov 22nd 2012 at 7:59:15 AM

Now, when Bush said that God told him to invade Iraq because the biblical demons Gog and Mogag were there...

His daddy is reported to have said that he doesn't think that an Atheist can be a citizen or a patriot. Now, granted, that remark was only ever published by one of the reporters present at the conference, but none of the others ever denied it, and there's some correspondence between the White House and the reporter, where the White House talks about the remark and refuses to change their position about it.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
HilarityEnsues Since: Sep, 2009
#41735: Nov 22nd 2012 at 8:12:46 AM

@Grizzly: Ah, my bad. The article was pretty vague on the specifics of the law, so I didn't have much to go on.

@Best Of: I wasn't too pleased about that remark either, but that doesn't genuinely worry me. I know that atheists aren't going to be stripped of their citizenship anytime soon. The idea is practically comical in it's implausibility.

Divinely inspired wars, however, are a bit harder for me to dismiss as silly.

Chalkos Sidequest Proliferator from The Internets Since: Oct, 2010
Sidequest Proliferator
#41736: Nov 22nd 2012 at 9:16:55 AM

I, uh.

Really don't think it's appropriate to suggest that "conservative Christians" are "persistently abused in our society." This thread maybe, but in our society? Laughable at best, unless you take things like the fictitious "War on Christmas" as evidence. I'd be more specific, but I'm about to go eat dinner. Regardless, Christianity has such a chokehold on culture and even governance in the United States that it's almost impossible to actually "persistently abuse" it.

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#41737: Nov 22nd 2012 at 9:41:56 AM

To be honest most supposed attacks on Christianity are nothing more than it no longer having such a priveleged place in society and being treated like any other religion. Obviously this bothers more fundamental types but too bad. The US is not a theocracy and they aren't entitled to special treatment based on their religion.

TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#41738: Nov 22nd 2012 at 10:00:38 AM

I apparently willfully turn a blind eye to the bashing of Christians in this thread, because while I see a lot of objections, I tend not to see anything too unwarranted, and that which I DO see usually gets called out by the mods. So, I'm less sympathetic.

Also: PolitiFact has officially jumped the shark.

edited 22nd Nov '12 10:39:15 AM by TheyCallMeTomu

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#41739: Nov 22nd 2012 at 10:41:42 AM

As a Christian myself I have to say that most of the complaints I see appear to come from people who actively have conservative Christians against them to some degree or other, and are understandably upset about it. Frankly, I'm upset because Christianity is supposed to be about being kind to each other and not actively denying things like protections against sexual assault and access to healthcare. Hell, Christian values tell me that we should already have single payer and the like because yes, it is our responsibility to help everyone in every way we can. Such as paying higher taxes for everyone's health benefits. That countries like Finland and Canada haven't gone bankrupt or lost freedoms just gives me facts to that it's quite helpful and certainly not harmful to individuals to provide these things.

So yeah, fuck "moral hazard."

And yeah, Grizz, show me how conservative Christians are being attacked in the broader society, aside from losing a privileged status that came from being the majority for so long. The reason people complain is because that particular group is attempting to create very real harm. They may think they're in the right, but by and large they're not.

[up]Uh, I'm pretty sure that's just something they wrote for fun for the holiday. People are allowed to do that sort of thing.

edited 22nd Nov '12 10:42:33 AM by AceofSpades

DrunkGirlfriend from Castle Geekhaven Since: Jan, 2011
#41740: Nov 22nd 2012 at 10:47:32 AM

[up][up] Actually, that recipe for dinner rolls does look delicious. tongue

"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
#41741: Nov 22nd 2012 at 10:52:49 AM

A.) It is the presentation of a subjective point as though it were fact and

B.) It's just silly, which is pretty much what I meant by jumping the shark. It's like, really? You're gonna do this? It's not even April Fools day!

RTaco Since: Jul, 2009
#41742: Nov 22nd 2012 at 11:15:41 AM

It's pretty obviously a joke, Bud.

BestOf FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC! from Finland Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
#41743: Nov 22nd 2012 at 11:55:15 AM

While I personally couldn't care less about Thanksgiving (and BTW, you're welcome for getting to see the correct way to say "couldn't care less",) I don't think something like that "Fact Check" to commemorate a national holiday could undermine the authority of a site like PolitiFact. It's just a bit of fun.

edited 22nd Nov '12 11:55:41 AM by BestOf

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
BestOf FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC! from Finland Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
#41745: Nov 22nd 2012 at 12:22:00 PM

I'd love it if they did a serious fact check on Santa during the Christmas season. I'm sure we've all seen those calculations about how fast he'd have to go and so on but it might be fun to see if PolitiFact could find a new angle on it.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#41746: Nov 22nd 2012 at 12:26:27 PM

I am pretty sure they don't rule on such things.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#41747: Nov 22nd 2012 at 1:18:40 PM

@Grizzly: All right, let's do this: *cracks knuckles*

Rape Culture and Conservatism

What I find totally baseless and false is the idea that conservative Christianity and the pro-life movement in particular are things that stem from or are supportive of this harmful part of our culture. In my experience, the conservative Christians like myself who tend to be strongly pro-life are also some of the first to be offended when people around them treat women like objects.
We've clashed before on the "inspiring lustful thoughts" issue, so it's entirely possible that your category of "treatment of women like objects" has different boundaries compared to where I draw 'em. Private messages, or an OTC thread titled "Tactics Used To Appeal to Women Voters" or "What is Rape Culture?", would be where to discuss this.

There's also, of course, the possibility that the conservative Christians in your region are a lot saner or nicer than in the rest of America, a possibility you've publicly pondered yourself.

Implicit Assumptions

These are both positions you can support or oppose, but since neither are related to misogyny or rape culture they are irrelevant to the point I am making here, which is that a vile and false accusation has been made, not that Mourdock is a candidate you would ever like to see in office.
In and of themselves they are not misogynistic; I brought them up because of their interaction with others. I mentioned them to make latter parts of my argument clear, as it's really the later premises that make them problematic in the sense I'm describing. (Although I'm sure I don't need to explain why secular atheistic empirical rationalists in America would find the first premise, that God should determine how things work, to be scary as hell.)

God's Intentions

My apologies, but I'm going to sidestep your elaborate theology argument, which you did devote some time to, because I'm not arguing theology and because it's not relevant to my point. It's entirely possible that your theological position is consistent with Scripture and that it is the belief Mourdock holds. I'll grant that.

I'm arguing for the actual effects of his position on actual people, which means I care about what actual people actually believe. Let's take the women who self-identify as Christians and believe in that benevolent uncle who you butter up with praise in order to get blessings. Are they not 'true' Christians? What about the Christian women who agree with you and don't believe in a benevolent uncle, but hold a more hands-off belief on God's acts - say, they believe capital-L Life is a gift of God, but they don't believe that any individual life is necessarily an explicit gift from God, any more than the rapist was a gift from God. Are they not 'true' Christians?

There are a lot of interpretations of Christianity, and always have been (I understand some wars have been fought over this issue). If Mourdock's intent was to scare out the "false Christians" so they become soft deists or even secular atheists, well then fantastic, I've got [tup][tup]s all day for that. But somehow, I don't think that was his intent, and it won't be the only consequence of his actions. American Christian women whose interpretation differs from Mourdock's may call into question their own beliefs, or his, and ask themselves if they are true Christians. Mourdock was a candidate for a legislative body - people wanted him to make the rules. Lots of people, including lots of men, agree with him. American Christian women may look at that, and look at the social costs (in their relationships and their communities) of trying to break with that interpretation of Christianity, and decide that the proper Christian thing for them to do is shut up and accept how things go, like women have done for thousands of years.

Or, you could argue that these women would just be happier, and any conflict resolved, if they agreed to believe in the interpretation of Christian doctrine that the man in authority says is right. That's an interesting standard; women of belief should adjust to the theological interpretations held by men in authority. It's a standard that has seen some criticism in the past.

You see now why the ecological validity of positions matter? Positions like Mourdock's gain press, and regardless of the nobility of his intentions (again, I'm granting the pro-life side considerable benefit of the doubt), the consequences are yet another "shut up and sit down" to half the American electorate. Even if you regard the baby as God's gift to humanity, the entire event is framed as a transaction. Something horrible happens to the woman, the result is positive, God oversees the exchange. The woman's choice never enters the equation. Either I condemn Mourdock for framing the issue in this way, or I thank him for pushing that idea into the public discourse where it can get the public drubbing it deserves. And at the cost of his political career no less! Quite a guy, that Rick!

Framing and Interpretation

The difference between those two statements is essentially "the woman's rights do not override the child's rights" versus "the woman doesn't matter", and there is no reason to place Mourdock in the latter category other than a preconceived idea that people like him are anti-women.
See above. And see below, in the links I post.
Yes, and I think that those statements are only different in that they are less fundamentalist in nature, and are in no way more or less misogynistic or supportive of rape culture.
The difference is that they acknowledge the women's agency at all. Y'know, the whole sticking point in this debate. I'm bending over backwards here to raise hypothetical anti-choice positions that still recognize women's agency.
It is dishonest, reprehensible, and simply wrong to portray him or his beliefs as anti-women or to act like that is the reason you oppose him.
Now I must ask you not to make misleading statements about my position. We have a valid argument to consider the anti-choice position inherently anti-women and built upon a double standard; we've had it for 40 years. You may disagree, but disagree with the premises then, as the reasoning is solid. (I'd like to note that personhood is not the relevant premise here; the argument stands even if we grant that a fetus is a person.)

To return to topic, TL:DR: I'm not 'unfairly picking' on Richard Mourdock because I disagree with him. His statement has consequences. Moreover, the way he framed his statement has consequences - not how he said it or his choice of words, but how he framed the ideas in his argument. I find the consequences abhorrent. You may disagree and say they're not that bad, but then we differ in priorities. It's entirely likely that this is such an intractable debate in American politics because of a deep underlying different in priorities between different segments of the U.S. electorate.

edited 22nd Nov '12 1:20:16 PM by RadicalTaoist

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#41749: Nov 22nd 2012 at 1:56:27 PM

Really don't think it's appropriate to suggest that "conservative Christians" are "persistently abused in our society."

Grizz, show me how conservative Christians are being attacked in the broader society

I'm talking about things like this:

Frankly, I'm upset because Christianity is supposed to be about being kind to each other and not actively denying things like protections against sexual assault and access to healthcare. Hell, Christian values tell me that we should already have single payer and the like because yes, it is our responsibility to help everyone in every way we can. Such as paying higher taxes for everyone's health benefits.

You're taking some political positions you disagree with and simultaneously trying to make them less credible by acting like they are the result of religious fundamentalism while smearing Christianity itself by acting like it is the source of our nation's problems.

This is the thing that bothers me. There seems to be an attitude that Christians of my type (that is, those whose religion significantly influences their political views) are Acceptable Targets, and reports of supposed bad things done by them are met with credulity and even glee even when they are totally false.

I'm not referring to all Christians in the nation, or even all Christians who vote republican. I'm talking about specifically people like Daniel Webster or Richard Mourdock, who unashamedly profess Biblical values in the public sphere, and are then given names like "Taliban Dan" or "Rape-is-a-gift-from-God Mourdock".

I'm specifically fighting the perception that fundamentalist Christians and bigoted hicks are equivalent demographics. It's true that bigoted hicks will generally identify as Christian and republican, but they aren't the same as the organized Christian right, or at least I little evidence suggesting so in my personal experience or in the actual statements that I see so frequently misrepresented.

<><
#41750: Nov 22nd 2012 at 2:19:35 PM

Let's take the women who self-identify as Christians and believe in that benevolent uncle who you butter up with praise in order to get blessings. Are they not 'true' Christians? What about the Christian women who agree with you and don't believe in a benevolent uncle, but hold a more hands-off belief on God's acts - say, they believe capital-L Life is a gift of God, but they don't believe that any individual life is necessarily an explicit gift from God, any more than the rapist was a gift from God. Are they not 'true' Christians?

The beliefs of other Christians aren't really relevant to the question of what is reasonable to read into Mourdock's statements.

Or, you could argue that these women would just be happier, and any conflict resolved, if they agreed to believe in the interpretation of Christian doctrine that the man in authority says is right. That's an interesting standard; women of belief should adjust to the theological interpretations held by men in authority. It's a standard that has seen some criticism in the past.

Again, I don't really see how that is relevant. Whether Mourdock's scriptural interpretation is correct or whether his interpretation might influence others don't matter to whether it is fair to apply the title "rape-is-a-gift-from-God" to his name.

The important things are:

-Mourdock apparently holds certain views about the sanctity of life and God's will regarding it.

-Given those beliefs, his position on this particular issue follows naturally, with no need for or implication of misogyny or support of rape culture.

-It is therefore unreasonable and dishonest to present him as a person who is misogynistic or supportive of rape-culture.

A Defense of Abortion

That treatise also has nothing to do with this subject. It presents a moral argument suggesting that abortion ought to be permissible because the woman's right to not have to support the child outweighs the child's right to live. That has nothing to do with whether one must be a misogynist to believe that the the reverse is true, something which is not the case.

I didn't read the second link, I couldn't get past the dripping condescension and bile in the first paragraph.

I also disagree that the conclusion in that article follows from the premises, but as I've said before, I'm not going to argue the morals of abortion itself here. It's off-topic, we've had it before, and it's not my point. I am arguing that to be pro-life is in no way to be misogynistic.

edited 22nd Nov '12 2:22:03 PM by EdwardsGrizzly

<><

Total posts: 417,856
Top