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

Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#51451: Mar 18th 2013 at 4:29:56 PM

of course. I still find it hilarious that a talk on racial "tolerance" at CPAC was named "trumping the race card" as though race was nothing more than a way for mean libruls to shut down good god fearing white people from talking.

Ultrayellow Unchanging Avatar. Since: Dec, 2010
Unchanging Avatar.
#51452: Mar 18th 2013 at 4:30:21 PM

They could do some of them.

A states' rights position on gay marriage, for instance, would make groups like GOProud and the Log Cabin Republicans a lot more successful. And being less explicitly pro-rich and explicitly racist would allow them to pull in a lot more voters.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#51453: Mar 18th 2013 at 4:31:54 PM

The thing is. I dont think they actually realize how racist they are. It simply doesnt process in their brains that saying the sort of things they do about blacks and latinos and asians are actually racist.

I've seen people in my hometown say such ridiculous shit as talk down how latinos live in my town as though the only reason they live 5-10 to one house is somne sort of secret profit-sharing scheme and not seeming to realize at all Mexicans tend to live communally as a family unit.

Its not some secret scheme to get a big screen TV you cant afford, its because brothers, sisters, grandma, and even cousins tend to live either next door to or in the same house together and pool money because thats how its simply /done/ in mexican society.

edited 18th Mar '13 4:34:35 PM by Midgetsnowman

RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#51454: Mar 18th 2013 at 4:32:12 PM

They can't be less explicitly pro-rich because the rich people who want them to be pay a majority of their campaign funding, and they can't be less racist because a quarter of the country will ditch them for a third party willing to be explicitly racist if they start doing real outreach to "those people".

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
Ultrayellow Unchanging Avatar. Since: Dec, 2010
Unchanging Avatar.
#51455: Mar 18th 2013 at 4:35:12 PM

They can so. Easily.

There's a difference between being pro-rich and being explicitly pro-rich, for one thing. Say "we won't raise taxes on anyone, taxing businesses hurts the economy," not "the rich got where they are through hard work and we should reward that, corporations are people." Easy.

And I don't think America is as racist as you think. I just don't believe that we'd see another Dixiecrat splinter if Republican leadership started cracking down on statement about lazy blacks.

edited 18th Mar '13 4:35:40 PM by Ultrayellow

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#51456: Mar 18th 2013 at 4:37:02 PM

[up]'

speaking as someone who's father hails from mexico city? Its both not as racist as you think and yet moreso. Explicit racism isnt as bad, albeit more loud than its been in a while.

Implicit, people not even thinking about how patronizing and cruel theyre being racism? Its there in spades. And its goddamn everywhere.

Just look at how the republican party does it. Their attempts to bring in latinos so far is to plaster the same usual talking points about the lazy poor into the mouth of a Cuban in the hopes this will somehow woo us.

edited 18th Mar '13 4:37:55 PM by Midgetsnowman

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#51457: Mar 18th 2013 at 4:38:35 PM

@Achaemenid: Yeah, aggressive atheism is a secularist position. If you really want to purge religious influence from your politics, then either placing heavy restrictions on religion or banning it outright is one way to go.

Calling the Soviet Union a "scientific" state, of course, is pure propaganda.

TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#51458: Mar 18th 2013 at 4:54:29 PM

Being originally from Michigan, I'm not sure I agree with the notion that they should look to the state governors.

What with out "eliminate local democracy" guy.

RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#51459: Mar 18th 2013 at 4:55:53 PM

[up][up]Aggressive antireligious atheism is not secular if your idea of secular is a government that is religion-independent. A truly secular government in that sense does not care about any religious position in one way or another; it is a non-element. Naturally, this is the definition of secular that makes the most sense.

edited 18th Mar '13 4:56:06 PM by RadicalTaoist

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#51460: Mar 18th 2013 at 5:03:04 PM

[up]

What 'e said.

Schild und Schwert der Partei
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#51461: Mar 18th 2013 at 5:04:41 PM

@Radical Taoist: The definition of secularism I was using is as follows: "A position that religious belief should not influence public and governmental decisions." For example, Turkish government is intentionally secular; to that end, it has a consistent, constitutional policy of stepping on Islamist movements that try to get into politics (the current Islamic party is highly watered down, and the military's been watching it very carefully).

This is different from "religion-independent."

edited 18th Mar '13 5:05:19 PM by Ramidel

Ultrayellow Unchanging Avatar. Since: Dec, 2010
Unchanging Avatar.
#51462: Mar 18th 2013 at 5:09:42 PM

But the Soviets had a position on religion. Namely, that it shouldn't exist in any way, shape or form. A secular state would have no position on religion.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#51463: Mar 18th 2013 at 5:18:39 PM

...did you even read the definition I was using, Ultrayellow?

deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#51464: Mar 18th 2013 at 5:22:01 PM

Dictionaries are highly unreliable when it comes to political terms.

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#51465: Mar 18th 2013 at 5:26:49 PM

Political terms and hard definitions in general are not always on speaking terms, y'know. 's why I clarified the definition I was working from. If you insist that a secularist state means religion-independence, rather than "religion is not involved in politics," then no, the Soviet Union wasn't secularist.

deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#51466: Mar 18th 2013 at 5:28:17 PM

I define secular as religion not involved in government, and government not involved in religion.

Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#51468: Mar 18th 2013 at 5:34:42 PM

[up]

I love how they completely ignore those grassroots candidates got murdered at the last election set after they got into washington and diid nothing.

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#51469: Mar 18th 2013 at 6:04:34 PM

I've actually come to like Biden. He's kind of the Big Friendly Dog of the Obama administration; he runs his mouth a lot, but it's nearly always harmless, and every now and then he says something insightful that everyone else has been avoiding.

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#51470: Mar 18th 2013 at 6:13:12 PM

Okay so if CPAC's ideas don't address the core issues with the party then what are these issues?

Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#51471: Mar 18th 2013 at 6:19:15 PM

How to keep doing exactly what theyre already doing and force the rest of america to see how right they are.

Not to mention theyre stilkl utterly convinced that when republicans are identifiable as "not liberal" they win. In short. Theyre convinced america is 100% conservative and anyone who isnt coinservative is an enemy of the nation.

edited 18th Mar '13 6:21:44 PM by Midgetsnowman

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#51472: Mar 18th 2013 at 6:28:49 PM

Studies have actually shown that politicians from both sides believe the populace is more conservative than it is. This probably has to do with the fact that polling them on the issues indicates they prefer Democratic positions but when you mention the Democrats support it they're against it.

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#51473: Mar 18th 2013 at 6:30:10 PM

I wonder what happens when the Tea Party try to primary Chris Christie and get their asses kicked?

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#51474: Mar 18th 2013 at 6:33:29 PM

They continue to believe doubling down on extremism is the answer.

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#51475: Mar 18th 2013 at 6:39:02 PM

In other news, Her Majesty the White Queen has promised them jam tomorrow.


Total posts: 417,856
Top