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

RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#41751: Nov 22nd 2012 at 2:20:51 PM

You're kinda screwed if the bigoted hick demographic uses you as political cover to advance their agenda.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
#41752: Nov 22nd 2012 at 2:26:27 PM

It's true. Just as the democrats suffer from their association with socialist revolutionary types. But we didn't ask you to kick them over to our side of the aisle...

<><
RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#41753: Nov 22nd 2012 at 2:28:34 PM

We have the good luck that their positions are so politically radioactive we don't even have to bother; they couldn't use social capitalist policies as cover if they tried. How do you hide "abolish inheritance and institute a centrally controlled economy" behind "increase taxes on the rich"?

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
Topazan from San Diego Since: Jan, 2010
#41754: Nov 22nd 2012 at 2:28:56 PM

[up][up]The problem there is the two-party system, and the voting system that led to it.

[up]There are commonalities in the philosophy motivating those two actions.

edited 22nd Nov '12 2:30:18 PM by Topazan

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#41755: Nov 22nd 2012 at 2:29:39 PM

[up][up]With a "more taxes == more goverment == central planning" logic?

edited 22nd Nov '12 2:29:52 PM by SeptimusHeap

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Euodiachloris Since: Oct, 2010
#41756: Nov 22nd 2012 at 2:34:38 PM

"Socialist revolutionary types", Grizzly? <looks confused>

Um... remind me to introduce you to this lot... Yup, they get votes. Not as many as the Communist Party of Great Britain once did, but... that's the price you pay for schisms. Example... look here. tongue

Then there are the die-hard socialist, Old Labour group. <shrugs> New Labour is barely centre-left these days... but they're dyed red. smile

Mate, you don't know Left. evil grin

edited 22nd Nov '12 2:35:19 PM by Euodiachloris

#41757: Nov 22nd 2012 at 2:35:01 PM

[up][up][up][up] In the same way, "reinstitute segregated schools" or "fine women for wearing pants" would never fly. It's the little things that are the issue.

edited 22nd Nov '12 2:35:33 PM by EdwardsGrizzly

<><
shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#41758: Nov 22nd 2012 at 2:53:44 PM

[up] Funny you should mention the first. Texas Republicans are currently campaigning to be allowed to discriminate and prohibit groups from voting based on race again.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#41759: Nov 22nd 2012 at 2:56:59 PM

That link is too long.

Also, I am not sure if this comparison is valid.

"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'
#41760: Nov 22nd 2012 at 3:30:33 PM

Anyways, Grizz, to bring our discussion re: Mourdock to a close on this thread and return to the topic, I see where we disagree.

You feel that since Mourdock's premises and resulting position do not have to be explicitly misogynistic, and because he did not express an explicitly misogynistic position, it is unfair to treat him as a misogynist. I do not care about positions held in theory; I care about the consequences. When Mourdock or anyone like him frames the issue in a way that advances misogyny and rape culture and then expresses his position therein, he is advancing misogyny and rape culture, even if by accident. Nuance doesn't dispel the consequences of your actions; the responsibility is on you to deliver your argument in a way that does not do implicit harm, if you know how. At best, those like Mourdock don't need to find nicer words or refine their positions further, they need to smarten up and understand framing effects (according to my position of course). That is my position. It follows from its premises and I state it openly and sincerely.

Your position is that it is not misogynistic to oppose the legalization of abortion. My position is that it is, because it innately creates a double standard that would restrict the bodily autonomy of a pregnant woman, but not of a medical donor in an equivalent situation (if you want a summary and with to skip him ranting, go back to this link and use the Find command on the phrase: "A person is in desperate need"; it will skip right to the Cliff Notes version and you don't need to read him losing his temper). The important issue is that we differ on whether bodily autonomy trumps right to life in any cases at all, not merely in the case of women, and whether that standard is universally applicable.

We can disagree on these things, but it should be clear where we disagree. And if you hold a position like mine, well, there's no reason not to tear into Mourdock with both hands. If he wanted civil disagreement, I gave two examples of how he could have expressed his position in a way that would have deserved civil disagreement in response.

We're not being unfair to fundamentalist Christian conservatives here; they have the chance to express their positions in ways that don't harm people, and too often, that's not happening.

There are commonalities in the philosophy motivating those two actions.
No, I mean the actual task of getting it into law. What dog-whistle words do you appeal to voters with? How do you word the legislation that would do this? There isn't enough political cover on the left to get away with this stuff.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
#41761: Nov 22nd 2012 at 3:31:00 PM

@shimaspawn: They aren't campaigning to be allowed to discriminate based on race. They are campaigning to end the requirement that they clear any change to voting rules with the federal courts, on the grounds that it is no longer necessary as Texas is no longer attempting to discriminate racially in voting like it was at the time to requirements were instituted.

Now, it may be that they actually have a concealed racial motive and would reinstitute racially directed laws were they freed from the feds, but that isn't what they are campaigning for and frankly I consider it unlikely.

edited 22nd Nov '12 3:44:57 PM by EdwardsGrizzly

<><
RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#41762: Nov 22nd 2012 at 3:34:07 PM

Y'know, they actually have a point if Texas is attempting to discriminate racially in voting via new and different ways, but somehow I don't think the courts are going to be that sympathetic in such a case.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
#41763: Nov 22nd 2012 at 3:45:10 PM

@Radical Taoist 41760: None of that is anything that I have a major problem with. I respectfully disagree as to the equivalence of the analogy you linked to, but that is a subject for an abortion debate which isn't something we want to have here. My only problem is when people quote things that a person did not say and associate people with positions that they do not endorse.

The equivalent situation from my end would be that I consider the pro-choice movement to be contributing to the mass deaths of millions of innocents. I strenuously oppose them in the political arena and bring arguments to the table which I believe support my view and invalidate theirs. What I do not do is describe pro-choice activists as "genocidal eugenicists" or say "this is all because of atheists undermining our nation's values". Those would be unreasonable things for me to say, because most pro-choice activists do not in fact have an secret agenda to kill off the children of poor people and minorities, and most of them are not motivated by some atheistic amorality.

That's all I am asking: that you (or rather people in general, you personally aren't one of the main offenders) would be honest in your opposition and not feel the need to paint your opponents as something that they are not, and that you would be more vigilant in noticing when others do so.

edited 22nd Nov '12 3:45:28 PM by EdwardsGrizzly

<><
RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#41764: Nov 22nd 2012 at 3:50:03 PM

@Radical Taoist: Re: abortions vs. organ donations:

It's not a double standard if you believe that letting someone come to harm is more acceptable than inflicting the harm yourself. If you believe that a human fetus/embryo counts as a person, then performing an abortion means going out of your way to kill someone. Meanwhile, if you refuse to give someone an organ transplant that they need, you're not actively killing them; you're just refusing to offer them help.

Many laws and ethical standards are based around this point of view: even in cases where letting someone come to harm is illegal, the punishment is usually much less severe than if you inflicted the harm yourself.

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#41765: Nov 22nd 2012 at 4:00:44 PM

You people just love talking about abortions don't you?tongue

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Zephid Since: Jan, 2001
#41767: Nov 22nd 2012 at 4:03:48 PM

I can't follow shima's link (keep getting a "thread not found" message), are they talking about Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act?

I wrote about a fish turning into the moon.
Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#41768: Nov 22nd 2012 at 4:09:17 PM

[up][up]

You have no idea how tempting it is to start listing off dead baby jokes >.>

But then, I never said I wasnt something of a horrible person.

edited 22nd Nov '12 4:09:39 PM by Midgetsnowman

RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#41769: Nov 22nd 2012 at 4:28:39 PM

Don't wanna discuss abortion itself, thanks.

@Grizzly: What do I do, then, in cases where I feel that the people with whom I'm arguing have become something they don't realize they are? When, from my perspective, their positions have consequences that they don't recognize? How much benefit of the doubt do I give them, especially when they deny what I see? "How to deal with people you consider deeply misguided" is a trickier question than "how to deal with people who are actively evil", which is probably why more people default to the second when it comes to political debates.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
HilarityEnsues Since: Sep, 2009
#41770: Nov 22nd 2012 at 4:38:03 PM

I'm tired of the abortion debate, not just in this thread but in the national discourse. It just takes too much of the spotlight away from problems like global warming, our foreign policy, and the massive amount of corporatism that is poisoning our government. I don't deny that it has importance or that people feel strongly about it, but at the same time it has also become a cheap and cynical way to Divide and Conquer the electorate.

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#41771: Nov 22nd 2012 at 4:38:19 PM

Joe Lieberman: Iran Fans Flames Of Israel-Hamas Conflict

Texas Gov. Rick Perry condemns 'outrageous' attacks on Israel

Governor Deval Patrick pledges support for Israel during rally in Chestnut Hill

> "has also become a cheap and cynical way to Divide and Conquer the electorate."

All issues become this. That's just how politics work.

edited 22nd Nov '12 5:01:25 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
HilarityEnsues Since: Sep, 2009
#41772: Nov 22nd 2012 at 4:59:07 PM

That is true to some extent, but abortion seems particularly exceptional at how well it fulfills that task. The fact that it is outright forbidden to talk about here clearly takes this into account.

And not every issue has the potential to become that contentious. I couldn't see legalizing prostitution, for example, garnering much support amongst anyone besides hardcore libertarians. And it's certainly not something I or any sane person with decent priorities would be willing to ascribe the level of importance that single issue voters do with abortion.

edited 22nd Nov '12 4:59:32 PM by HilarityEnsues

Euodiachloris Since: Oct, 2010
#41773: Nov 22nd 2012 at 5:02:54 PM

[up]Then, I must be a hard-core libertarian. tongue I happen to think legitimising prostitution would, over all, be not only safer and saner, but more humane than having it remain part of the black market. tongue

But, yeah... not a single-issue wonk for me. <shrugs>

edited 22nd Nov '12 5:03:11 PM by Euodiachloris

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#41774: Nov 22nd 2012 at 5:05:41 PM

[up][up]

True...but Abortion involves taking a life (or something close to a life at least). Its understandable why some consider it a huge issue.

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#41775: Nov 22nd 2012 at 5:08:27 PM

[up][up]Yeah but is it the sole deciding factor in who you support? For many it is which is why there are a lot of problems in this country. In all honesty the pro-life people are more along the lines of "pro-life until you're born after which who cares what happens to you."

If they truly care about people's lives then they should probably work on making sure the world is a better place so abortions don't have to happen as much. Unfortunately they just go after the effect without actually giving any thought to the cause and trying to stop it.

[up]Yes and the military takes lives all the time. So do the police.

Look, if you really don't like abortion then you would champion things such as better access to birth control, welfare, public schooling about sex ed, and things like that. These are all proven to reduce the rates of it.

Also they seem to think that banning it is a magic bullet that will just make it go away. Guess what, murder is illegal yet it still happens, prostitution is illegal yet it still happens, drug smuggling is illegal yet it still happens. The notion that banning abortion will prevent it from ever happening is laughable. People will just go across the border (if rich) or go to a back alley clinic (if poor) and possibly die as a result.

edited 22nd Nov '12 5:12:02 PM by Kostya


Total posts: 417,856
Top