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

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#48351: Jan 27th 2013 at 9:20:11 PM

Aside of the practicality of a politician actually voting to approve of that, that's a bit much to ask of anyone, particularly as they quite often go into other fields of employment after quitting politics, when they don't flat out retire. I mean, I think it's ridiculous the sort of bubble these guys live in, but I'm not going to begrudge someone the right to enjoy or buy a fancy house or car if that's what they want to do with their own money. I'm not asking any representative to deny themselves nice things. I'm asking them to consider the fact that it's nearly impossible for others to get those nice things.

Ultrayellow Unchanging Avatar. Since: Dec, 2010
Unchanging Avatar.
#48352: Jan 27th 2013 at 9:20:40 PM

@Deviant: Or an AMAZING sitcom premise.

Think it over...

edited 27th Jan '13 9:21:03 PM by Ultrayellow

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#48353: Jan 27th 2013 at 9:21:05 PM

Or hijinks. One of the two.

ninja'd, but I've got a source so there.

My favorite suggestion was to have them live on a capped stipend equal to the median wage. Less petty than the poverty thing, and gives a direct incentive to undo business bullshit.

edited 27th Jan '13 9:23:35 PM by Pykrete

Ultrayellow Unchanging Avatar. Since: Dec, 2010
Unchanging Avatar.
#48354: Jan 27th 2013 at 9:25:15 PM

Fine, it's a tie.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#48355: Jan 27th 2013 at 9:28:32 PM

[up][up] That sounds like a good idea. Wrap it up with some rhetoric on how it will make them feel more for how the average person lives and it would be rather awkward to shoot down without looking bad.

Ultrayellow Unchanging Avatar. Since: Dec, 2010
Unchanging Avatar.
#48356: Jan 27th 2013 at 9:31:03 PM

And then it comes to a vote in Congress and...

They notice that .5% of the country is watching.

edited 27th Jan '13 9:32:59 PM by Ultrayellow

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#48357: Jan 27th 2013 at 9:32:56 PM

Out of curiosity, does the American political system allow for referendums where everyone gets the chance to vote directly on something?

Ultrayellow Unchanging Avatar. Since: Dec, 2010
Unchanging Avatar.
#48358: Jan 27th 2013 at 9:34:20 PM

At the state level, yeah. But it's legally complicated and I'm not an expert on the subject. I'm pretty sure you can't write a law with a referendum.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
Belian In honor of my 50lb pup from 42 Since: Jan, 2001
In honor of my 50lb pup
#48359: Jan 27th 2013 at 10:06:32 PM

While there might not be a way for everyone to vote on a national law, there IS a legal way for the entire country to vote on an amendment to the Constitution. It is just EXTREMELY hard to do and has only been done once in our history.

It was to repeal Prohibition.

Guess we really wanted our alcohol.

Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!
Medinoc from France (Before Recorded History)
#48360: Jan 28th 2013 at 2:30:08 AM

Wait, Prohibition was in the constitution?

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#48361: Jan 28th 2013 at 2:34:51 AM

Yep. They had to make a Constitutional amendment at these times to get Prohibition.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#48362: Jan 28th 2013 at 2:36:15 AM

[up][up]

Yup. The 18th Amendment to the US Constitution:

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited. Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress

It was repealed with the 21st Amendment, which returned power to the states:

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed. Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited. Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

edited 28th Jan '13 2:36:27 AM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei
Lawyerdude Citizen from my secret moon base Since: Jan, 2001
Citizen
#48363: Jan 28th 2013 at 7:52:12 AM

RE: Congressional pay. The Constitution requires that members of Congress receive a salary. It also prohibits changes in salary until after the next election. But that doesn't apply to cost-of-living increases.

I would like for a Congressman who opposes health care reform to be interviewed and explain why he should have taxpayer-funded health care for life, but his average voter should't.

Also, I think all election campaigns should be publicly-funded. Every candidate who gets on the ballot gets a budget, and that's what he gets to get the message out.

And there is no national initiative or referendum provision. The Constitution can be amended by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states, or conventions in 3/4 of the states.

edited 28th Jan '13 7:54:31 AM by Lawyerdude

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.
3of4 Just a harmless giant from a foreign land. from Five Seconds in the Future. Since: Jan, 2010 Relationship Status: GAR for Archer
Just a harmless giant from a foreign land.
#48364: Jan 28th 2013 at 7:56:32 AM

How about you pool the contributions to the candidates of a specific election and then give everyone an equal share.

Contributions are then towards the democratic system, not a specific candidate...

"You can reply to this Message!"
Medinoc from France (Before Recorded History)
#48365: Jan 28th 2013 at 8:19:40 AM

And they would then grind to a halt, reducing the money received on both sides.

Because face it, people are less likely to contribute if it's not to give themselves a political advantage...

edited 28th Jan '13 8:20:09 AM by Medinoc

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#48366: Jan 28th 2013 at 8:21:18 AM

I believe that all elections should be publicly funded. You get a certain number of signatures to get on the primary ballot, and then all your advertising and campaigning is paid for at negotiated rates out of the primary pool. Then the candidates get an equal share of the pool of funds for the general election.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
SpookyMask Since: Jan, 2011
#48367: Jan 28th 2013 at 9:12:39 AM

Philosophy has nothing to do with religion, its type of science that people don't understand that its science tongue

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#48368: Jan 28th 2013 at 9:15:00 AM

While it's true that "Ph.D." stands for "Doctor of Philosophy" and some sciences refer to themselves as philosophies, it's a bit disingenuous to equate noodling over the meaning of existence to digging around in existence and figuring out how it works.

edited 28th Jan '13 9:15:12 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#48369: Jan 28th 2013 at 9:47:37 AM

The best way to put it is that the philosophers used to be the scientists. It wasn't until relatively recently that the two disciplines split.

Of course, you still end up with some weird mixes like one of the most famous modern philosophers is a biologist.

SpookyMask Since: Jan, 2011
#48370: Jan 28th 2013 at 9:52:36 AM

I pretty much say that everyone who thinks that philosophy has more common with religion than science has never done philosophy :P Though it does have common with both in the way, but not really "religion" in "Christianity" sense since Christianity is rather bad example of religion anyway.(as in, Christianity isn't good example since other religions can be rather radically different from it)

Also, it isn't 'just' pondering about meaning of life, its also pondering about metaphysics like whether concepts exist without object(or however you say that "Concept of roundness exists without world having any round objects" theory which name I don't remember) and substance and stuff :p Also pondering about ethics and development of society and stuff.

Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#48371: Jan 28th 2013 at 9:54:26 AM

Quantum Physics slips really easily into philosophy, I know that.

SpookyMask Since: Jan, 2011
#48372: Jan 28th 2013 at 9:58:33 AM

Better way to explain it would be saying that philosophy studies (mostly) abstract concepts that you have no clear cut answer for :P And really, I'd like to do more explaining about it, but philosophy is based heavily on logic and arguments that calling it religion makes more sense when referring to eastern philosophies which almost everyone of them has religion version of them.(only eastern philosophy thing without religion that I can think of is Zen. Also, Confucianism(stupid English name of Kunfutze) isn't really religion at all, its ethics code thing. Only reason it is referred to religion is that it contains ancestor respect part of eastern cultures and Confucious/Kunfutze wasn't even religious person)

Also, its bit of derail to talk about it here ^^; So umm, is someone seriously considering making philosophy same thing as religion law wise in USA? That wouldn't really make sense since philosophies don't have rules that you have to live by stuff and such.

edited 28th Jan '13 9:59:05 AM by SpookyMask

Belian In honor of my 50lb pup from 42 Since: Jan, 2001
In honor of my 50lb pup
#48373: Jan 28th 2013 at 11:00:44 AM

@funding the elections: The problem is that just about everyone hates one of the parties and wants to make sure that their money goes to their party. How many people would donate to a fair/ballanced fund when they know that their money could be used to help the other party's canidate?

Face it, people want their party to win more than they want fair elections. That would have to change if we wanted to reform that aspect of govornment.

I could probably come up with other ways to make that initial pool of money (a MINIMAL increase in taxes), but there is just no political or public will to truely change it.

Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!
Euodiachloris Since: Oct, 2010
#48375: Jan 28th 2013 at 2:46:08 PM

About Palin... Well, it certainly explains some of her pointless rambling on Fox, then. tongue I'd go on wild verbal goose-chases around bushes as well, if I were being paid that much. tongue

edited 28th Jan '13 2:47:37 PM by Euodiachloris


Total posts: 417,856
Top