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

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#45226: Dec 28th 2012 at 4:33:55 PM

[up][up]...

That's the same thing as creating a hierarchy. It doesn't matter if it can be revoked, as soon as you give them power they are in some ways above you until that power is removed. Your system would indeed be different but it's still a hierarchy of some form.

[up][up][up][up]Has anybody in the house expressed interest in being speaker?

edit: What happens if the Tea Party and the more moderate conservatives can't find enough common ground to give a certain member the majority of the vote?

edited 28th Dec '12 4:34:59 PM by Kostya

RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#45227: Dec 28th 2012 at 4:39:03 PM

I have no bloody clue what happens between now and 2014 if the Republican Party doesn't get its shit together. Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan are possible replacements for Boehner.

To all those discussing hierarchies and anarchism, can I ask for a resurrection of one of the previous threads on the topic? They were interesting as hell and I was sad to see them die out. They were also the place for such discussions, unlike this thread.

edited 28th Dec '12 4:39:27 PM by RadicalTaoist

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#45228: Dec 28th 2012 at 4:40:13 PM

deathpigeon: And most of us don't buy that because it's far, far too easy for big business to exploit things like that. Well, I suppose greedy people within those organizations, anyway. And if you have a system in place to enforce your rules, you have an inherent hierarchy already. Particularly since you need a system in place to bring such things into discussion to begin with.

Certain types of hierarchy are constraining, yes. But I see nothing in anarchy that allows us to reach our "true potential", whatever the fuck a nice sounding buzzword phrase like that is supposed to mean, and everything that would end up leading to petty dictatorships in the end.

[up][up]I don't know if anyone is running against Boehner at the moment, Kostya. If there is, they haven't mentioned it on the news. As it is, people are saying Boehner's trying to stall in order to secure them voting him in again as the Speaker on Jan 3, but if things continue like it has then it doesn't seem to matter if he keeps his position. Congress has proven effectively that they can and will ignore him.

[up]I think they died because we ended up saying the same things over and over. Anyway, if you want you're free to revive any one of those threads.

edited 28th Dec '12 4:41:05 PM by AceofSpades

deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#45229: Dec 28th 2012 at 5:00:40 PM

@Kostaya: They don't really have power. All they are is an extension of the group. Essentially, they do the will of the people, and nothing else.

Like, police officers have the power to arrest people in our current system, but, in an anarchist system, the police officers wouldn't. Instead, if the people decide that someone has broken the rules, they can dispatch someone to arrest the person, without giving that person the ability to do anything else. The person has no extra power, but, instead, is an extension of the will of the people.

@Ace: Most people think that anarchists throw bombs into crowds, even though the majority of anarchists are pacifists. The general public is woefully uninformed about anarchism.

How is hierarchy necessary to enforce rules or discuss rules?

All hierarchy is constraining. Those with less power than others are constrained by those above them in the hierarchy. Disagree with what those above you want or you don't want to do something those above you want you to? Too bad. You can't go against the will of those on top without getting punished. In anarchy, on the other hand, by contrast, you would only ever be punished for doing things that adversely affect the liberty of others. In some anarchist society, you might not even be punished for that, but just prevented from doing something that would adversely affect the liberty of others. (Basically, liberty doesn't give you the freedom to rule others.)

By "true potential", I mean people doing what they love and/or are good at openly.

Also, the argument that anarchy would lead to dictatorship is an argument that simply forgets about the anarchists in the society. If someone attempts to rule over others, the people would fight back for the freedom that they worked so hard to get. That's why, for anarchy to happen successfully, we need to convince the majority of people to become anarchists. An anarchist society wouldn't work if it was populated by people who have a statist mindset, and would, instead, lead to dictatorship, but an anarchist society would work if it was populated by people who have an anarchist mindset.

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#45230: Dec 28th 2012 at 5:10:59 PM

they can dispatch someone to arrest the person, without giving that person the ability to do anything else

What if the criminal uses deadly force to resist arrest?

In anarchy, on the other hand, by contrast, you would only ever be punished for doing things that adversely affect the liberty of others

So how would this handle taxes? Because under the guidelines you have provided its not a crime to not pay them.

Or littering for that matter?

Or animal abuse? Does the 'others' include animals? And if so which animals?

edited 28th Dec '12 5:20:02 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
#45231: Dec 28th 2012 at 5:16:04 PM

The thing about dictatorships is that "benevolent dictators" exist, and are good at convincing people they deserve to be in power. And clever people can always circumvent the rules, particularly in an anarchy where you have to convince EVERYONE to enforce a damn rule. An anarchy would be far easier to exploit than a democracy. Hell, it's easier to exploit than a monarchy for God's sake. That's not a "statist" mindset, that's "I want all the power" mindset that you can't root out of people entirely. It's one of those "as long as there evil" kind of things.

And a police officer that can only arrest someone without investigation is completely useless. Hierarchy determines who has what responsibility to do what in regards to rule enforcement.(this is obviously not the only function or result, but it is one of the practical applications of a hierarchy.) So once you determine a system to do that, you have a hierarchy, however much defused or temporary. It's a symptom or feature of having a rule enforcement system. Discussing rules can be done by anyone, but policy enforcement is done by those given the authority to do so.

There is nothing inherent to democracy as a system that prevents us from doing what we love and do well. The practicalities are what does it, and it would be a thousand times worse in an anarchist society. (And frankly, the practical application of any system is weighted down by the history of what systems went on before. That's getting into another rant, though.)

As for going against those above us, you obviously haven't read about things like the Civil Rights movement, or about the fact that we can vote. And that one of the most serious complaints about politicians is that they pander to keep their jobs. The people have power, it's a matter of actually convincing people in this country to exercize that right. It's not "too bad there's nothing you can do" it's "get off your ass and use the rights you're given instead of complaining." You act like laws never change and are ironclad.

Also you don't need to throw the "pacifists" thing at me like it's a revelation. I already know that, I've been doing my own reading and I've been on this site longer than you. Also, the most outspoken anarchist that's been on this site is Savage Heathen, who was that stereotype. And that's all I'll say openly about that guy.

edited 28th Dec '12 5:17:00 PM by AceofSpades

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#45232: Dec 28th 2012 at 5:18:24 PM

I should point out this is all very off topic.

edited 28th Dec '12 5:20:48 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#45234: Dec 28th 2012 at 5:41:54 PM

What if the criminal uses deadly force to resist arrest?

Then the person would be allowed to use proportional response in defense, just as he or she would if he or she didn't have this mandate and someone used deadly force against him or her.

So how would this handle taxes? Because under the guidelines you have just provided its not a crime to not pay them.

Most wouldn't. Anarcho-communism would get rid of money altogether. Mutualist anarchists would create a democratically run mutual bank or credit union. Individualist anarchists would see an abolition of capitalistic private property in favor of "use and occupancy" private property law, and what they see as a "true" free market develop.

Or littering for that matter?

Dealt with by the community. Probably through volunteers picking up the litter.

Or animal abuse? Does the 'others' include animals? And if so which animals?

The community would probably seek to rescue the animal or animals.

However, there is no one size fits all solution, and every community would innovate and produce their own solution.

@Ace: If the people in the society believe that hierarchy and authority are wrong, then no amount of "Oh, I will be a benevolent ruler" will convince the people. In fact, anarchists are exactly the sorts of people who would oppose a so-called benevolent dictator. Anarchists have done so in the past. Anarchists opposed and fought against Mussolini when the majority of the world thought he was a pretty good chap. Anarchists did similarly with Franco and Lenin (I mean, that's just what the Black Army did, defy the Bolsheviks). Anarchists, while not flawless by any means, are also inclined to oppose people who seek power, even those who seek it for the best reasons.

Of course investigation would happen, but the people would never be out of the loop on it and the person doing the investigation would have a mandate to do that and only that. Other times, people could do independent investigations, then report to the rest of their community on their findings, at which point someone would be given a mandate to apprehend the person. Again, though, it would depend on the community for how it would happen.

There is inherent things about capitalism that prevent it, such as the capitalistic private property law, which creates an inherent hierarchy, but that's something that's much better suited for the Economics thread where I have had that exact argument in, before.

In the Civil Rights movement, people had to fight to take their freedoms, while the people above in the hierarchy resisted against and fought against it. They were fighting to destroy the hierarchy of institutional racism, just as the feminist movement seeks to destroy the hierarchy of the patriarchy (and, incidentally, many early feminists were anarchists as well, such as Emma Goldman).

I wasn't throwing that out as a shocking revelation. I was referring to the common misconception of the people of the Bomb Throwing Anarchist.

Also, people like Savage Heathen are in the minority in the anarchist movement and I feel like mostly just hurt our cause, like the minority who subscribed to the Propaganda of the Deed in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Of the anarchists I know, none of them fight the stereotype. (I don't actually know Savage Heathen. I just know of him.)

Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#45235: Dec 28th 2012 at 6:04:21 PM

I should point out this is all very off topic.

Lately there's been this centralization where many discussions get piled into existing megathreads. Maybe we should have more specific topics.

Baff Since: Jul, 2011
#45236: Dec 28th 2012 at 7:06:08 PM

yea. As much as I love the topic, lets not discuss the abstract ideology or/and the theoretical application of anarchism...

Coming back to the fiscal cliff... Or rather, the automatic taxation hike and secuestration thingy.

Lets hope the democrats dont "compromise". We need them to be tough on something, at least once.

They should get everything they are asking for (even more I would say). But something tells me the administrations really doent want taxes to go up for the rich, they are just putting a show and creating a sense of urgency so they can get votes and lower the taxes of their corporate overlords.

edited 28th Dec '12 7:07:53 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#45237: Dec 28th 2012 at 7:23:16 PM

Really? If they secretly wanted taxes to go up then why don't they just compromise already? It's stupid of them to not do so.

Baff Since: Jul, 2011
#45238: Dec 28th 2012 at 7:28:54 PM

[up]

Because they would need to create a sense of urgency to make people think they are actually not another front for corporate America.

I am not saying there wont be a compromise. Theyll come out with something like, "O.K, now its above 450 000, not 250 000, see!! We are so reasonable." and then I would go like "but why re you even compromising???? The tax hike is automitc!! Let the Republicans run over the fiscal cliff!!!"

In fact this are not even tax hikes but the expiring of tax exemptions. Democrats should not only let the tax cut expire, but increase taxes on the very wealthy! (Either that or lower taxes on everyone and put more stimulus in the economy but since we are going the draconian way...)

But even then this country by all lights needs a more progressive tax system, and it would have one if democrats where not a bunch of paid losers.

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#45239: Dec 28th 2012 at 7:29:18 PM

Baff, I question how much attention you've been paying attention to US politics lately.

But yeah, no one wants taxes to go up on the middle class because it makes them look bad. At the very least, they don't want to be seen as the cause, which is the risk for the Republicans right now. And unless they do a last minute deal on Sunday, it looks like we're going over the cliff. Which is really more like a bumpy ditch.

[up]The Democrats do not have a majority right now, and literally can't do anything with the Republicans revolting amongst themselves right now. Most of the hullaballoo is going on in the House, not the Senate, as well.

edited 28th Dec '12 7:30:21 PM by AceofSpades

Baff Since: Jul, 2011
#45240: Dec 28th 2012 at 7:36:32 PM

[up]

Let them run over the cliff! Then introduce a bill giving all americans earning under 250000 the tax exemption and appropiate all the spending that was cut automatically.

It would be political suicide to vote againt it.

The democrats have all the political leverage in the world.

of course the republicans are in mini civil war. But democrats need very few defections. Something like 13 if I remember correctly. This does not make the situation worse for the democrats but better. The republicans dont need to vote in block, so this division can be productive.

Edit: they actually need like 30 republicans to vote with them, but thats is more than doable.

edited 28th Dec '12 7:40:48 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#45241: Dec 28th 2012 at 7:40:26 PM

All the anarchism talk is very off topic. It does not belong in this thread. Please take it elsewhere.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#45242: Dec 28th 2012 at 7:42:14 PM

Again, I wonder how much attention you've been paying attention to US politics. Right now the Republicans are rebelling against Boehner likely because he's not being "conservative" enough. The only way this is going to improve is if in the next session the Republican's influence in the House is reduced, and I can't remember if that happened right now or not.

I also don't think you realize how difficult it is to get thirty politicians to agree with the group they've been steadily opposing for four years on the tax issue.

Serocco Serocco from Miami, Florida Since: Mar, 2010 Relationship Status: Faithful to 2D
Serocco
#45243: Dec 28th 2012 at 7:42:16 PM

Senators, including Diane Feinstein, rejected three attempts to regulate the warantless wiretapping by Bush.

The wiretapping policy has been renewed earlier today, without any of the amendments that were supposed to regulate it.

edited 28th Dec '12 7:45:03 PM by Serocco

In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.
Baff Since: Jul, 2011
#45244: Dec 28th 2012 at 7:47:23 PM

[up][up]

Republicans dont vote in block.

See, there is a vote per representative. Each representative gets a vote. Representatives dont have to vote the same way as others. Even if they are in the same party. Some representatives could vote in a way different than other people that are in their same party.

Bohenner needed all republics to vote with him. A minority of them didnt. Democrats need a couple of republicans to vote with them, they dont have the same factional dispute so they can be expected to vote in block.

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#45245: Dec 28th 2012 at 7:47:25 PM

[up][up][up]The Democrats gained eleven seats.

[up]That doesn't mean they'll be willing to break rank with their party. Even with the influx of Dems in January you'd need at least 19 Republicans. That's not exactly easy especially when you'll probably have a hard time getting your party to all vote in your favor.

edited 28th Dec '12 7:48:45 PM by Kostya

Baff Since: Jul, 2011
#45246: Dec 28th 2012 at 7:51:20 PM

I'll just put this link here since it might explain this idea better.

Let's Not Make a Deal

Also, republicans will break when their donors get scared and tell them to compromise.

But of course, the democrats will probably brake first, becuase, as I said, they are paid losers.

edited 28th Dec '12 7:53:53 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#45247: Dec 28th 2012 at 7:54:49 PM

...

Yes, that's what I want him to do. The problem is that getting enough Republicans to remove the cuts on social programs is going to be hard.

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#45248: Dec 28th 2012 at 7:55:36 PM

Baff, I am not a child who doesn't realize how voting is apportioned to representatives. How the Republicans have been voting is in LOCK STEP with each other. Which means they've been blocking compromise on the tax issue this entire time. It's not a matter of whether they can vote, it's a matter of how they have voted.

And they rebelled against Boehner because it would mean concessions to the Democrats. If they can't agree with their majority leader on raising taxes on the rich, then they aren't and HAVEN'T been agreeing with the Democrats on raising taxes on those making 250,000 and more.

I'm not judging purely on "they don't have to do such and such" I'm judging on what they've actually been doing. You seem to be disregarding that, and as a result are not seeing the difficulty that the Democrats are and will be having with getting Republicans to vote with them. It's harder than you think. In general, you seem to think too simplistically lately.

Baff Since: Jul, 2011
#45249: Dec 28th 2012 at 7:56:31 PM

[up][up]

They get to say they had no choice. Which would be true, if the Dem party grew some balls.

[up]

How do I put this? There are 2 groups in the republican party. 1 is big. 1 is small. The big one wanted a conservative deal. The small one wanted a more conservative deal. The big group couldnt get their deal because the small one voted against it. Now the big group doesnt now what to do. The democrats (another party), need a small amount of people from the big group to vote with them.

edited 28th Dec '12 8:01:13 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#45250: Dec 28th 2012 at 7:57:35 PM

[up][up]Do we have any numbers on how many voted in favor of Boehner's plan? I know it was a crushing defeat but I'm curious if we know specific numbers.

[up]What indicates they haven't? Yes, they could still compromise, but I have a feeling they would have by now if they were going to.

edit: What does waiting this long gain them?

edit 2: I think you flipped those. I'm pretty sure the group that wants the even more extreme deal is bigger. Also any Republicans that vote for a Democratic plan will be removed come 2014. There is no incentive for them to vote in favor of this.

edited 28th Dec '12 8:00:41 PM by Kostya


Total posts: 417,856
Top