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

Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#42051: Nov 27th 2012 at 3:38:50 AM

[up]

I'll believe it when I see it in 2016.

Schild und Schwert der Partei
Sledgesaul Since: Oct, 2011
#42053: Nov 27th 2012 at 5:39:41 AM

Remember what Reagan said about the LGBT community? "Homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles."

Yet, the GOP is irrefutably anti-LGBT. Weird, huh?

deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#42054: Nov 27th 2012 at 5:39:51 AM

he hopes “his wife understands that commitments last a little longer than two years”

Really, Norquist? Really? Low blow, man, low blow.

Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#42055: Nov 27th 2012 at 6:32:50 AM

[up]

In case you havent noticed from other interviews the man has done, Norquist is a rather mean-spirited person. He's even been on record that if his choices were "keep grandma alive" or "raise marginal tax rate on the top 1% by even 1%", he'd console himself with having good memories of his grandma when she was alive.

edited 27th Nov '12 6:33:11 AM by Midgetsnowman

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#42056: Nov 27th 2012 at 6:36:09 AM

Norquist is a shill for his 0.1% overlords.

Here's an interesting analysis of some of the proposed "tax loophole" plans that starkly illustrates the true reason why keeping tax rates low at all costs is the goal of Norquist and Co. It's because these "loophole closings" overwhelmingly impact the "working stiffs" of the 1% — the people earning $250,000 to $400,000. The 0.1% is willing to throw the 1% under the bus to preserve their wealth.

Looking at these numbers reveals how petty the conversation really is. It's not about the economy, and it's not about "confidence", and it's not about the deficit. It's about wealthy people screaming "MORE MORE MORE" and "HOW DARE YOU TAKE AWAY WHAT'S MINE".

edited 27th Nov '12 6:37:48 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#42057: Nov 27th 2012 at 6:46:35 AM

^

The 0.1% is willing to throw the 1% under the bus to preserve their wealth.

...and how many of the 0.1% are willing to throw the other members of the 0.1% under the bus to preserve their wealth?

In the end, There Can Be Only One.

Keep Rolling On
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#42058: Nov 27th 2012 at 6:51:47 AM

Not that I have any personal experience with this, but my observations of the blog and news articles I've read that deal with the subject indicate that being rich becomes a goal in and of itself once you reach a certain point. There's a "millionaires' club", but that's just a foot in the door. You haven't really made it until your wealth hits the ten million mark, and then it's a whole new climb to the hangout of the hundred-million guys, and so forth.

There's a social stratification that comes with wealth and the conspicuous consumption thereof. Each "rich man's club" has its own rich man's club, and so on up the line. In these circles, it's all about the ego trip of your net worth and the respect it commands, and anything threatening that is your worst nightmare. Nothing invokes the wrath of a rich person by daring to suggest that he must have some of that money taken away involuntarily.

edited 27th Nov '12 6:52:05 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#42059: Nov 27th 2012 at 7:05:37 AM

Which is why unrestrained capitalism will never work and is morally wrong. The people who are rich enough will do anything to be richer, so, without any restraints, they will make everyone suffer in their endless cycle of greed. Unrestrained capitalism just enables them, and allows them to screw over the proletariat.

Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#42060: Nov 27th 2012 at 7:10:32 AM

^

The people who are rich enough will do anything to be richer, so, without any restraints, they will make everyone suffer in their endless cycle of greed. Unrestrained capitalism just enables them, and allows them to screw over the proletariat.

But wouldn't that happen anyway, money or not?

There will always be an Elite.

edited 27th Nov '12 7:14:13 AM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On
DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#42061: Nov 27th 2012 at 7:27:05 AM

[up]

Well of course there will always be an 'elite', but it is for the best to handicap there ability to exploit and unfairly profit.

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#42062: Nov 27th 2012 at 7:31:57 AM

[up][up] Sure, there will always be an elite. However, the elite is best without teeth and claws. One cannot abolish the elite, for they will always make themselves from nothing, one can only make them harmless. Unrestrained capitalism lets the elite of their leash to bite and claw at the weak and downtrodden. That is wrong. That is immoral.

Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#42063: Nov 27th 2012 at 7:41:42 AM

[up]

One cannot abolish the elite, for they will always make themselves from nothing, one can only make them harmless.

May I ask, how would one do that?

edited 27th Nov '12 7:41:57 AM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On
DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#42064: Nov 27th 2012 at 7:44:34 AM

[up]

You can't really.

You can make them less harmful, but never truly harmless.

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
SecretLink Since: Jul, 2010
#42065: Nov 27th 2012 at 7:45:41 AM

@Philippe O

huh. Okay I stand corrected. People did die. Sigh. this is one of those times I would have been happy to be wrong.

[up][up][up] absolutely correct. Unrestrained capitalism would be a very bad thing in America today. And I say this as one of those radical right Christians.

[up] the solution from the christian perspective is to have more Christians. No, really. the idea is summed up in this quote by John Adams. “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

[down] government is the unrestrained bogeyman for many conservatives

edited 27th Nov '12 7:53:07 AM by SecretLink

“ I am not insane… What I am saying is most true and reasonable”
DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#42066: Nov 27th 2012 at 7:46:58 AM

[up]

Anything unrestrained tends to be a bad thing.

EDIT:

The problem with far-right Conservatives/Libertarians is there belief that anything but the bear bones of government is excessive and unrestrained government Government

But truly unrestrained government as the Fascist and Communist regimes of our time has shown are something that should be both feared an loathed.

edited 27th Nov '12 7:56:49 AM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#42067: Nov 27th 2012 at 7:51:02 AM

[up]

Aye, Moderate everything is better for everyone, especially if the strengths of Business and Government are combined; also if there was a lack of Right Hand Versus Left Hand.

Keep Rolling On
deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#42068: Nov 27th 2012 at 7:51:33 AM

[up][up][up][up][up] There are several methods. One would be to introduce regulation to keep them from doing things that would screw the proletariat over too much and progressive taxes to redirect their money toward the proletariat and make getting more money harder, after a certain point. Another way would be to make the "elite" meaningless by creating a system that makes no one hold any more power than anyone else politically, and in which all money is held collectively, so anyone making lots of money would be benefiting the whole rather than themselves, and make it so that the money is managed in such a way that everyone has equal control of it. I favor the later method, as the former would only make them weaker, but the former method is more feasible.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#42069: Nov 27th 2012 at 7:51:51 AM

Government is, by definition, constrained by its founding principles and by the voters. Not all countries can boast of that, but at least we can in the United States. The primary constraint on business is government. As a system of checks and balances, it works out fairly well.

Business is constrained by government. Government is constrained by the voters. Voters are constrained by... business? Education? That side of the triangle is a bit fuzzy.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
SecretLink Since: Jul, 2010
#42070: Nov 27th 2012 at 7:54:21 AM

[up] I suppose the short answer would be their morals, values, etc.

[up][up] I suppose I could be stereotypical and say "you dirty socialist/communist!" but the truth is that would work in a perfect world. obviously, we don't live in a perfect world. Unfortunately the overreaction of many conservatives is to want the government to be as small as possible to get out of their lives. The problem is that as a nation decays morally the government tries to control people more to try and keep order. Many Christians still live in unicorn land with fairy rainbows that they think the U.S. is.

So they scream and holler that the government should stay away and stay small, while everybody else scratches their heads and says "but we need for the government to have more power to keep law and order and protect us."

edited 27th Nov '12 8:10:10 AM by SecretLink

“ I am not insane… What I am saying is most true and reasonable”
deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#42071: Nov 27th 2012 at 7:55:27 AM

Voters are constrained by other voters. I can't institute my anarcho-communist direct democracy dream government because of the people busily working to institute their libertarian dream government or their fascist theocracy dream government.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#42072: Nov 27th 2012 at 7:57:15 AM

Well, in the end it all comes down to people, anyway. Businesses can't function if nobody buys their products. Politicians can't do their politics if they get voted out of office. To the end of having the most efficient, productive society possible, our goal would seem to be to make each individual person as empowered as possible in their lives.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#42073: Nov 27th 2012 at 7:58:16 AM

@ deathpigeon:

Another way would be to make the "elite" meaningless by creating a system that makes no one hold any more power than anyone else politically, and in which all money is held collectively, so anyone making lots of money would be benefiting the whole rather than themselves, and make it so that the money is managed in such a way that everyone has equal control of it.

Someone, or maybe a group, would take control in the end due to sheer Inertia*

.

@ Fighteer:

Voters are constrained by... business? Education? That side of the triangle is a bit fuzzy.

Human Nature?

edited 27th Nov '12 7:59:04 AM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On
DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#42074: Nov 27th 2012 at 8:14:09 AM

The Law. Which is written by Government.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#42075: Nov 27th 2012 at 8:16:39 AM

Which is run by People. It all comes down to People in the end.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Total posts: 417,856
Top