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

Lascoden ... from Missouri, USA Since: Nov, 2012
...
#47626: Jan 19th 2013 at 9:03:43 PM

[up][up]I know that. It's just the fact that it happened during a bunch of pro-gun rallies with "Guns don't kill people, Obama does" signs.

boop
DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#47627: Jan 19th 2013 at 9:14:32 PM

Actress Ashley Judd 'taking close look' at Senate race against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in 2014

Think she has a chance?

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#47628: Jan 19th 2013 at 9:22:19 PM

Ordinarily I'd say that she has no chance since she's an actor but then again look at what happened with Reagan and Arnold. I doubt she'd win but it would be an interesting race if she got nominated.

edited 19th Jan '13 9:22:27 PM by Kostya

DevilTakeMe Coin Operator from Wild Wasteland Since: Jan, 2010
Coin Operator
#47629: Jan 19th 2013 at 9:26:09 PM

I don't know her politics or that of Kentucky well enough to wager a guess. It may have worked for Arnold and Reagan since I'd think California is more lenient towards having actors in political office, as opposed to Kentucky. Anything is possible, though if she is really committed to politics, like Jesse Ventura or Al Franken eventually became.

Glove and Boots is good for Blog!
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#47630: Jan 19th 2013 at 9:28:17 PM

Apparently she's an activist which is a good thing I guess. Now, what skeletons does she have?

edit: This might actually be more likely than you think.

edited 19th Jan '13 9:29:30 PM by Kostya

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#47631: Jan 19th 2013 at 9:37:31 PM

Governor Cuomo tells Reverend Al Sharpton gun law also honors MLK

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#47632: Jan 19th 2013 at 9:39:23 PM

At least he's not suggesting the Black people in the Civil Rights era should have armed themselves like some people.

edit: The comments never fail to disappoint:

"First off, The Reverend, Dr. Martin Luther King never wanted, nor was he looking for "Social Justice". The Reverend Dr. King was a confirmed, registered Republican. As was Malcolm X.

Secondly, anyone who knows their history knows that Gun Control the likes of which King Andy just shoved down law abifding New Yorker's throats, was first used to keep the "uppity Negroes" in their place.

Thirdly, always remember that the KKK was the militant wing of the Democratic party. The party doesn't change ... only their tactics.

And please don't believe ME. Go look it up for yourselves."

Uh, you mean the Dixiecrats? You know, those people that fled the Democratic party in droves and joined the Republicans after the Civil Rights Act was passed? Fucking morons! I wish people would stop perpetuating this idiocy. The GOP of today is nothing like the GOP of the 50s and beforehand.

Also what do you mean he "wasn't looking for social justice?" What the hell was he looking for?

edited 19th Jan '13 9:43:41 PM by Kostya

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#47633: Jan 19th 2013 at 9:53:05 PM

[up]

A better seat on the local bus?

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
DevilTakeMe Coin Operator from Wild Wasteland Since: Jan, 2010
Coin Operator
#47634: Jan 19th 2013 at 9:54:27 PM

I kind of feel uncomfortable with the idea that Cuomo is using MLK to defend gun laws. MLK himself was a gun owner who owned firearms for his self-defense, even as the issues of social justice continued to heat up, he simply didn't want to bring them when he demonstrated, out of fear of violence.

Some of MLK's writings basically said that he didn't think it was wise to carry guns in public, but was not at all against their use in self-defense.

As we have seen, the first public expression of disenchantment with nonviolence arose around the question of "self-defense." In a sense this is a false issue, for the right to defend one's home and one's person when attacked has been guaranteed through the ages by common law. In a nonviolent demonstration, however, self-defense must be approached from another perspective.

edited 19th Jan '13 9:55:53 PM by DevilTakeMe

Glove and Boots is good for Blog!
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#47635: Jan 19th 2013 at 9:55:37 PM

@Devil: I don't know why anyone would expect a serious answer to the question of "how do we drive away zombies"? On account of those being, you know, fictional. And shooting them apparently doesn't work that well in fiction anyway.

CDC is for disease control. While gun crime and death might be something they can do meaningful research on at this point they're not the final say on what happens that regard. What with there being the ATF. The appalling thing here as that the CDC hasn't been allowed to do research by the NRA's influence simply because the NRA is run by nutjobs who want to own any goddamn thing they want.

Belian In honor of my 50lb pup from 42 Since: Jan, 2001
In honor of my 50lb pup
#47636: Jan 19th 2013 at 9:56:23 PM

People just don't seem to realize that the political positions of both parties have significantly changed over time. They think the current policies are then ones they have always had.

My dad could go into more detail, but I would have to look all the info up and am to tired to do so right now.

Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#47637: Jan 19th 2013 at 9:57:28 PM

Devil it's possible to be a gun owner yet still be for gun control. He didn't carry them in public and for good reason.

DrunkGirlfriend from Castle Geekhaven Since: Jan, 2011
#47638: Jan 19th 2013 at 9:59:11 PM

[up] One of the firearms collectors that I personally know is all for mandatory registration, for example.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
DevilTakeMe Coin Operator from Wild Wasteland Since: Jan, 2010
Coin Operator
#47639: Jan 19th 2013 at 10:01:29 PM

[up] The question was what to do in an emergency situation where other beings (humans, zombies, wild animals, whatever) might become the immediate threat to you or your family, in case a push-comes-to-shove sort of event occurs, be it riots or brain-eating zombies, or something in the event of a prolonged emergency situation. The question became, "would it be wise to set aside a self-defense tool specifically for the emergency kit?" And nowhere in the zombie emergency kit, or any other kit the CDC recommends, does this question even become asked.

One can argue that the CDC just doesn't want to be liable for an accident, but it is a legitimate question.

Glove and Boots is good for Blog!
DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#47640: Jan 19th 2013 at 10:01:45 PM

Speaking of MLK:

Martin Luther King III: Culture of Violence Must Change

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#47641: Jan 19th 2013 at 10:05:21 PM

I didn't know his son was still active in that sort of thing. I wonder what he has to say about these new laws.

DevilTakeMe Coin Operator from Wild Wasteland Since: Jan, 2010
Coin Operator
#47642: Jan 19th 2013 at 10:07:43 PM

Nowhere did I say it was impossible to be a gun owner and for gun control, I simply said it was uncomfortable using MLK to defend a gun law which may have prevented MLK himself from owning a gun to defend himself or his home since he was often arrested for a number of different things over time. New York's gun laws make that very difficult.

Glove and Boots is good for Blog!
OhnoaBear I'm back, baby. from Exiting, pursued by a... Since: Jan, 2011
I'm back, baby.
#47643: Jan 19th 2013 at 10:09:58 PM

By that same token, however, conceivably those gun laws could have made it harder for James Earl Ray to have a gun on April 4th, 1968.

"The marvel is not that the Bear posts well, but that the Bear posts at all."
DevilTakeMe Coin Operator from Wild Wasteland Since: Jan, 2010
Coin Operator
#47644: Jan 19th 2013 at 10:36:12 PM

[up] Sure, but does that mean MLK would be for the law that could have conceivably prevented James Earl Ray and himself from owning a gun for self-defense? Would he have been for the Gun Control Act of 1968, the law that was passed because of his assassination?

MLK desired to get a concealed carry permit in Alabama. He was denied. He had guns for the defense of his home, however, and to think he wouldn't have them, or think it was unnecessary for a person's self defense is hardly appropriate thinking, when he himself writes that he believed that firearms for self-defense was a lawful purpose.

edited 19th Jan '13 10:37:29 PM by DevilTakeMe

Glove and Boots is good for Blog!
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#47645: Jan 19th 2013 at 11:58:17 PM

Using MLK in a campaign against gun control is just tacky in general, considering how well the man kept to his policy of peaceful resistance. Plus, considering the time period and place, racism likely played a part in him being denied that permit.

It's not unreasonable to think he'd be for better gun control, given how they're treated in this society. And given the most vocal reactions we've had, which are in no way encouraging people to say "hey yeah, we should totally let this guy who's actively threatening to kill people more access to guns or let him keep the ones he already has."

DevilTakeMe Coin Operator from Wild Wasteland Since: Jan, 2010
Coin Operator
#47646: Jan 20th 2013 at 12:28:26 AM

[up] It's also just as tacky to use him as a rationale for gun control as much as it is using him to be against gun control.

If racism is the reason why he was denied, then that's probably a better argument for relaxing gun control.

Simply put, yes, Martin Luther King was a proponent of peaceful, nonviolent protest, but at the same time, in his own home, he was consistently surrounded by firearms for his protection and for the protection of his family.

What he was against was a culture of violence, as his son, in the link above, advocates as well. In that media and the common upbringing of people in his lifetime were cultivating that violence was socially acceptable, that people were being taught that the hero was the person who used guns to solve all of his problems, rather than as the last defense against violence.

Glove and Boots is good for Blog!
Deboss I see the Awesomeness. from Awesomeville Texas Since: Aug, 2009
I see the Awesomeness.
#47647: Jan 20th 2013 at 12:32:10 AM

That's the advantage of "will issue" states. Then again, it's likely that he would have had his application lost in such events.

edited 20th Jan '13 12:32:38 AM by Deboss

Fight smart, not fair.
TamH70 Since: Nov, 2011 Relationship Status: Faithful to 2D
#47648: Jan 20th 2013 at 12:39:24 AM

Is it too early to say who the lead Democrat and Republican candidates will be for the next election, given that Hillary says she is out (and has serious health problems anyway), and the only Republicans I have heard of (Mc Cain and Romney) have both shot their bolts?

Oh and I hope Obama's speech goes well today. It would be highly embarrassing if he makes a complete arse of it like what he did last time.

edited 20th Jan '13 12:40:22 AM by TamH70

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#47649: Jan 20th 2013 at 12:45:53 AM

There were several pages of discussion of just that Tam, if you feel like putting yourself through the tediousness of combing through the thread. But general consensus is that yeah, it's too early to guess, given the last few elections have brought up several relative unknowns for presidential candidacy.

And what was wrong with his speech last time? You keep saying things without giving us context. Like with the Hillary thing. Even after we ask.

edited 20th Jan '13 12:46:30 AM by AceofSpades

Deboss I see the Awesomeness. from Awesomeville Texas Since: Aug, 2009
I see the Awesomeness.
#47650: Jan 20th 2013 at 12:54:46 AM

I vaguely recall something about Hillary stepping out of politics in general for health reasons or some such. One sec, googling.

Not getting any sources I recognize, so I'll just leave it as a rumor.

edited 20th Jan '13 12:56:14 AM by Deboss

Fight smart, not fair.

Total posts: 417,856
Top