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

Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#48276: Jan 26th 2013 at 8:21:28 PM

It's probably a bad idea to go too far into the specifics of hypotheticals, and it's really not relevant to the point, but I'll address this first. If the Democrats splintered at all, they obviously wouldn't be able to hold a coalition, because a political party is already the optimal form for a political coalition, and if they had to splinter in the first place then there would surely be enough bad blood among them to prevent them from cooperating. Besides, the plurality matters most on the level of district. We have single-member districts, meaning only one member is elected from any one district, by the plurality of votes. Hence, practically the entire Senate would be made up of Republicans, as would most of the House, and the Presidency would probably be Republican as well, considering the nature of the electoral college.

But all of that is based on the assumption that we're using the current system. Instead, the hypothetical case is where we already reformed the system so that we don't have single member plurality. By then, I don't see how Republicans can keep a plurality because they'll lose the same electoral advantage Democrats lost; there's less incentive for voter base to unite when libertarians, for example, can freely get elected on their own. But even if Republicans somehow got a plurality, by then it's a lot less significant.

Picture the situation where Democrats push for multiparty reforms, vs Republicans resisting them. If reforms do not pass, Democrats still keep their two-party advantage (they can say "we tried" while they keep trying). No loss to them. Meanwhile people get annoyed if the Republicans become obstructive. That will whittle down popularity of Republicans.

Are you calling what we have now an active suppression of democracy? It's not. Having a functional democracy does not inherently require that we have as many parties as possible. The reason we don't have viable third parties is that the existing parties already encompass what the voting public wants to see, and existing third parties don't encompass enough of it. Otherwise, voters would be moving away from the Republicans and Democrats and moving toward the Libertarians and Greens.

I don't think the current encompassing is how it's supposed to be. It's skewed for a couple of reasons.

Part of the reason existing parties are small is because people don't know enough about them. They see too much D vs R. This awareness is something that needs to be pushed alongside reforms. And part of the reason is because the current electoral system discourages it, and it makes it difficult for you to vote for third parties without wasting votes. I don't think either the voters or the elected representatives themselves would be as encompassed if they could help it. Right now, they can't help it. Or so they think.

I mean, I agree that US two-party system still works somehow, and it's better than undemocratic countries that don't listen enough to their citizens. Still, the third parties (and other activists) are proposing more fair systems of voting (alternatives to single-member plurality and mixed systems), and to actively turn that down is to refuse a better system. When I mean by suppressing democracy I mean something specific: suppressing more effective multiparty democracy. It's just more subtle because we don't hear enough of it; we're busy enough talking about the other party.

Any and all systems are flawed. You will not find a perfect system, nor will you be able to fix a flawed system into a perfect one. It will merely be flawed in a different way, though perhaps marginally less flawed. Electoral reforms sound great on paper, and we could use some, but it's when you get to the specifics that any coalition you may have built will fall apart like a house of cards. I'd like to lower the vote threshold required for third parties to get on the ballot, and I'd like campaign finance reform and to impose term limits on Congress, and that's about it, though the last one would probably require a Constitutional amendment. Then, if We The People really want a third party to win, we'll vote for them and/or start a movement behind them.

It's not just on paper, though. We know that there are working multiparty systems in other countries; they rely on coalitions, and that shows it's possible. I personally think reducing the reliance on single-member, FTPT district elections would do more good than simply lowering thresholds for parties and term limits.

In any case, I don't feel like this is such an essential issue that the Democrats ought to abandon the rest of their policy agenda and potentially destroy themselves for the sake of it. And that's exactly what would happen if they tried it, because the amount of political capital required would be astronomical. I might be of a different opinion if wholesale electoral reform had actually been something that the Democrats had campaigned on, because then it would be the will of the people.

I just think the benefit/impact of this issue is potent, but Democrats at large are unable to see it for short-term gain in the partisan fight.

edited 26th Jan '13 8:29:41 PM by Trivialis

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#48277: Jan 26th 2013 at 11:12:08 PM

Removing the electoral system is a task to big for any one party to do alone.

Besides the Democrats began disliking third parties after Nader. So I really don't think there going to back any legislation that empowers other parties.

Speaker Boehner: Ending Taxpayer-Funded Abortions ‘One Of Our Most Fundamental Goals’

edited 26th Jan '13 11:15:24 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#48278: Jan 26th 2013 at 11:29:04 PM

Oh, so we should fund abortions with deficit spending, Boehner? Let's get right on that!

edited 26th Jan '13 11:29:37 PM by deathpigeon

Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#48279: Jan 27th 2013 at 4:02:52 AM

[up][up]

Speaker Boehner: I am an idiot and this will never happen.

Also, all that will do is create abortion tourism, like the Irish do with Britain.

edited 27th Jan '13 4:03:11 AM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei
Bluesqueak Since: Jan, 2010
#48280: Jan 27th 2013 at 9:30:20 AM

So I just found out that Bill O'Reilly stated Christianity is a philosophy instead of a religion.

Uh, no. Really, really no. It makes you wonder which word he's having problems with; the meaning of 'philosophy' or the meaning of 'religion'.

The only parts of Christianity which are 'philosophical' are the ethical and doctrinal parts. It's got a whole load of ritual, narrative and experiential stuff which isn't remotely philosophical.

Actually, the doctrine in Christianity is often a desperate attempt to make sense of an incomprehensible religious experience. grin

It ain't over 'till the ring hits the lava.
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#48281: Jan 27th 2013 at 9:43:50 AM

You don't have to convince me, I know he's being stupid. I was just saying someone should use his statements as an excuse to advocate taxing churches. I mean if they're not religious institutions then they clearly don't need to be exempt.

Although Christian Atheism could possibly fit with what he's talking about.

Bluesqueak Since: Jan, 2010
#48282: Jan 27th 2013 at 9:54:23 AM

[up]It depends on the argument used for not taxing churches. As I understand it, the constitutional issue is that - if you tax churches - you have the power to prohibit the free exercise of religion.

The UK argument is that churches are de facto charities, supported largely by donations of living and dead members. So trying to remove their charitable status on the grounds that they're a 'philosophy' would be pretty much a non-starter; they could just point to their charitable 'works'.

It ain't over 'till the ring hits the lava.
Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#48283: Jan 27th 2013 at 10:01:13 AM

[up]

Churches are considerably less political in the United Kingdom. Once you use your religion to offer support and financial aid to blatantly political projects, as many American churches are wont to do, your case that you are "purely a philosophy" is severely undermined. As George Carlin said "If churches want to play the game of politics, let it pay the admission fees like everyone else". In the UK, the Church of England is the established church, and the Church in Wales and the Church of Scotland have a proximity to the state that keeps them fairly quiet.

Schild und Schwert der Partei
TamH70 Since: Nov, 2011 Relationship Status: Faithful to 2D
#48284: Jan 27th 2013 at 10:22:22 AM

The Church of England has bishops sitting in the House of Lords. How is that not political? Separation of Church and State is preferable to the alternative.

Bluesqueak Since: Jan, 2010
#48285: Jan 27th 2013 at 10:22:26 AM

[up][up]Still dodgy. What part of politics would you like churches taxed for? The right wing stuff you might not like, or the debt cancellation you might agree with? Does the Archbishop of Canterbury lose his tax exempt status whenever he makes a speech that can be construed as critical of the current government's position? Or - going back into history - would you have taxed those U.S. churches which were heavily involved in the Civil Rights movement?

And so forth. 'Religion' isn't some nice, neat little section of existence that can be cordoned off from 'real life'. It affects the way people think about the world - and that will also affect their views on politics and politicians.

Which is probably why the First Amendment enshrined the 'let's stay out of this whole can of worms' principle grin

edited 27th Jan '13 10:23:14 AM by Bluesqueak

It ain't over 'till the ring hits the lava.
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#48286: Jan 27th 2013 at 10:28:50 AM

I think churches should be made to pay property taxes, even if it's at a very small rate, if they take in a certain amount of money. It's not much per church but it would add up.

Remember that "rape babies are evidence" bill? Somehow I have a hard time believing she genuinely missed that. She's just covering her ass.

edited 27th Jan '13 10:34:07 AM by Kostya

Bluesqueak Since: Jan, 2010
#48287: Jan 27th 2013 at 10:34:10 AM

[up]Again, the danger is that the power to tax can be used punitively. I'm sure you can think of one or two cases where property taxes have effectively been used to evict people.

Now, imagine a case where property taxes mysteriously increase for, say, a mosque? Or that historically-black church? Or any Mormon temple in South Carolina?

Etc.

It ain't over 'till the ring hits the lava.
NoName999 Since: May, 2011
#48288: Jan 27th 2013 at 10:36:49 AM
Thumped: This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping. Stay on topic, please.
Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#48289: Jan 27th 2013 at 10:39:11 AM

@Tam:, the Lords Spiritual are a joke. I'd rather have the Church of England with the state so we can keep the thing under control.

Schild und Schwert der Partei
Belian In honor of my 50lb pup from 42 Since: Jan, 2001
In honor of my 50lb pup
#48290: Jan 27th 2013 at 10:46:54 AM

[up][up][up][up]EVEN THE RE-WORDED BILL IS HORIBLE. It IS possible for a woman to rape a man and by saying "In no circumstance shall the mother of the fetus be charged." it does not work against that sort of rape even if it would work at all. I'm not even going to begin on the other aspects of it *grumble*

...sorry, had to get that off my chest.

edited 27th Jan '13 10:47:09 AM by Belian

Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#48291: Jan 27th 2013 at 10:53:47 AM

Bluesqueak: Obviously it would have to say that all religious institutions are to be taxed at the same rate. That way you can't discriminate based on religions or specific churches.

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#48292: Jan 27th 2013 at 11:07:38 AM

[up][up][up] People, this is the US POLITICS thread.

Not the 'dump random , unrelated subjects and hope someone discusses' thread.

EDIT: The taxing of religious institutions would be a blatant violation of the separation of church and state, so obviously I'm opposed to the idea.

On top of that, it would close down a lot of churches/synagogues/temples/mosques/etc,.

Senator Feinstein (D-CA) sees Sandy Hook as an 'epiphany'

Gingrich: Assault-Weapons Ban Would Punish the ‘Innocent’

Representative Paul Ryan says he thinks ‘sequester is going to happen’

edited 27th Jan '13 11:18:49 AM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Belian In honor of my 50lb pup from 42 Since: Jan, 2001
In honor of my 50lb pup
#48293: Jan 27th 2013 at 11:17:15 AM

Taxing them all at the same rate is not vary fair. If you have a church in the middle of NYC and a church in a small rural town that are the same size and bring in simular amounts of money (not likely, but possible), the one in NYC almost certainly has larger bills and would be less able to afford taxes.

You can let them deduct their bills before figuring out how much they should be taxed, but then the question becomes "what bills should they be able to use?"

Though I do agree with taxing all religous buildings at the same rate (if we could at all), I'm sure that there will be huge pressure to but in a bunch of little loopholes that certain religious will be able to use while others won't be able to. One religion does X activity all the time while another would never do X activity for some religious reason.

...This is why tax law is so complicated and hard to change. It needs to be simplified and the country needs more income, but there are few good ways of doing ether let alone both at the same time.

Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!
DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#48294: Jan 27th 2013 at 11:21:46 AM

Again, 'Separation of Church and State'.

You know its that thing that liberals constantly attack social conservatives for wanting to violate. Kinda coming off as a tad hypocritical here.

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#48295: Jan 27th 2013 at 11:22:46 AM

I've changed my mind on taxing them because it would be too confusing to implement but how is this violating separation of church and state?

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#48296: Jan 27th 2013 at 11:26:05 AM

[up]

Because the state is directly taxing the church.

Senator McCain (R-AZ) to GOP: Accept path to citizenship in immigration-reform bill

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#48297: Jan 27th 2013 at 11:29:27 AM

Still not sure how that violates it. I'm assuming you're getting at the state using the church to fund its own programs but churches still have to follow the laws of the state even if they're their own entities and don't directly benefit from them.

edited 27th Jan '13 11:29:51 AM by Kostya

Belian In honor of my 50lb pup from 42 Since: Jan, 2001
In honor of my 50lb pup
#48298: Jan 27th 2013 at 11:41:53 AM

[up][up][up][up]Note I said "if we could at all" in there. I was just explaining why it is not as easy as saying "raise taxes" and how it applies to our whole tax code.

If you ever want to have some "fun" and learn about how our tax code got so complicated, look into the rules of Schedule A (Itemized Deductions: accessable through irs.gov). Try to figure out why those rules were created in the first place and what you could change/remove (in order to increase tax revenue) without making a LOT of people upset (AKA: loose your job as a representitive). And if you think that one is too complicated, check out Sch C (Self Employment) and SE (Self Employment Tax).

edited 27th Jan '13 11:43:26 AM by Belian

Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!
MarqFJA The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer from Deserts of the Middle East (Before Recorded History) Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
#48299: Jan 27th 2013 at 11:42:58 AM

@No Name 999: I assume you're mentioning this as a way of calling the US out on supporting Israel?

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
Lawyerdude Citizen from my secret moon base Since: Jan, 2001
Citizen
#48300: Jan 27th 2013 at 11:43:41 AM

Churches don't have to pay income tax because they are usually organized as 501(c)(3) exempt organizations under the tax code

Taxing them at the same rate as any other business (and let's not delude ourselves, churches are businesses) would not violate separation of church and state. If anything, exempting them from taxation puts them in a privileged position over other types of organizations. It wouldn'tchangetheir rates based on doctrine or religion. Whatever they take in is taxed, minus their ordinary deductions.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Total posts: 417,856
Top