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

optimusjamie Since: Jun, 2010
#54802: May 19th 2013 at 2:21:05 PM

[up] What evidence do they have that the IRS was specifically targeting Republican-affiliated groups? I think I saw something about Democrat groups having been investigated as well.

Direct all enquiries to Jamie B Good
deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#54804: May 19th 2013 at 2:44:18 PM

[up][up]It sounds like they targeted political groups in general. They didn't even deny any conservative groups tax exempt status but they did do this for liberal groups. The real scandal should be why blatantly partisan groups are getting tax exempt status.

KBSL Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: Forming Voltron
#54805: May 19th 2013 at 2:48:33 PM

You know Barkey, though you did provide a new prospective for me, while I was reading your entire thing I couldn't help but think "So, in order for you to keep getting paid, we have to keep up some pointless and illegal war?" Yeah, no" Sorry, but it strikes me like the argument that because some people who work at prisons will lose their jobs we should keep up the war on drugs and other unfair policies to throw as many people in prisons as possible. It makes it hard for me to sympathize.

TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#54806: May 19th 2013 at 2:56:38 PM

[up]I don't think starting or even maintaining wars is necessary to protect those jobs. There's a lot other uses to PSG (Personnel Such as Grunts) than pointing it at people to kill.

Nevertheless, if they were to start a war, I wouldn't be against, say, kicking Kony's ass.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
GlennMagusHarvey Since: Jan, 2001
#54807: May 19th 2013 at 2:59:37 PM

The real scandal should be why blatantly partisan groups are getting tax exempt status.

terlwyth Since: Oct, 2010
#54808: May 19th 2013 at 3:20:38 PM

Where the hell is a good Silent Majority speech when you need one?

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#54810: May 19th 2013 at 3:32:33 PM

Darrell Issa is R not D, Brae.

That violence tax would be up for 1st Amendment consideration, tho.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#54811: May 19th 2013 at 3:41:16 PM

Even if that didn't seem unconstitutional it is still not going after the problem.

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#54812: May 19th 2013 at 3:46:23 PM

[up][up] Fixed.

Donald Rumsfeld on Sunday said the public’s trust in President Obama is being “eroded” and the administration’s credibility has been undermined.

edited 19th May '13 3:46:37 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Mars444 Since: May, 2013
#54813: May 19th 2013 at 5:37:14 PM

[up]Oh Rumsfeld, you're so cute when you blunder into your own rampant hypocrisy like that.

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#54814: May 19th 2013 at 7:14:57 PM

As someone who is not a soldier, I'm not exactly too sympathetic to holding anything sacred about soldiers' jobs. My problem with contractors is a combination of their unaccountability and the fact that they're less cost-effective than sworn soldiers, because they're private sector and overly porked, and not because we should preserve military jobs for men in uniform.

That said, I do think that military pensions, GI Bill, and VA benefits should be so sacred that the mooing can be heard around the world, since a soldier gives his loyalty to his country and deserves the same in return (you know, the very reason that the Pentagon feels free to cut them, because it's not like the troops can do anything about it). I don't think that that should extend to a right to a job, though.

Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#54815: May 19th 2013 at 7:38:22 PM

^

If you're already in, plan on staying, and you have a good record of service, I believe it should.

Obviously people to whom this means nothing to(I.E. not troops) aren't that sympathetic. Those of us who depend on that income to survive, however, are obviously very interested. Just explaining why we feel that way.

None of us are going to vote for some one who may fire us without cause. Ergo the military doesn't support the Obama Administration at a personal level.

Besides, we can be useful for a variety of other things. One of which is that we're the best damn manual labor group in the entire country. Turn the US Military loose on building infrastructure and helping with public works projects when wars aren't going on and we have spare personnel. Instead we have this bullshit where it's required at some bases as part of their agreement with the county or state that they have to let 50 percent of all construction work on-base be performed by civilian companies. They tend to do pretty shitty work, there is a major difference between work done by military engineers and work done by general contractors.

Our solution is to just throw people at problems until they are fixed, we've got a ton of peacetime applications.

edited 19th May '13 7:40:28 PM by Barkey

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#54816: May 19th 2013 at 8:21:33 PM

...okay, I definitely agree that that kind of pork-barreling needs to go. I get the feeling that that kind of contract was part of the quid pro quo for the military getting a base at all (and also because the civilian companies in question are looking to hire ex-colonels, preventing the Pentagon or Congress from simply telling the locality in question to shut up and behave). Not that I have a problem, necessarily, with civvies doing construction work on-base, but only if they can do it as cost-effectively as the military and to the same quality standards. And frankly, expecting civilians to do better engineering work than the military engineers who will have to live on that base is ludicrous (ignoring the fact that military engineers have always been top-notch professionals).

But yeah, if the troops can perform useful civilian functions during peacetime without making civilian infrastructure too dependent on military support (because that leads to vested interests cutting into our military readiness, and I don't have to tell you where that leads), then by all means, devote the troops to doing that.

Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#54817: May 19th 2013 at 8:25:09 PM

I've got a question cus all this talk is confusing me, I thought the budget was done by congress? I thought they were the ones who messed about with the budget and added all the pork in. What am I missing here?

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#54818: May 19th 2013 at 8:54:59 PM

It's not purely budgetary issues, and having money assigned to specific places isn't the only way to pork out. I doubt that Congress, for example, was involved in any of the agreements that say "if you build a base in our county, fifty percent of construction work will be done by civilian companies, because we want to MAKE JOBS!"

You can have corruption at the administrative level, not just the legislative. And a lot of the people who work at the Pentagon retire, then go into really good jobs with defense contractors. I'm just sayin', there's a few conflicts of interest there.

edited 19th May '13 8:56:58 PM by Ramidel

Karkadinn Karkadinn from New Orleans, Louisiana Since: Jul, 2009
Karkadinn
#54819: May 19th 2013 at 9:31:24 PM

Setting aside the actual quality of the work, if we terminated civilian jobs to keep the military shored up, that's just more shell games. As long as we have anemic stimulus, poor job mobility and a meh social security net, people are going to have problems, and you can, at best, shift those problems from one sector to another one.

And in times like these, where the vast majority of people are suffering through poverty together, I think it's important to be able to look beyond your own personal bone, rather than fighting like starved mutts over the scraps.

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.
Belian In honor of my 50lb pup from 42 Since: Jan, 2001
In honor of my 50lb pup
#54821: May 19th 2013 at 9:51:44 PM

Wait, there are labor unions associated with our immigration/deportation procedures?

Excuse me while my mind tries to sort out all the ways that complicates things. Though it might also explain why it is so hard for even local interpreters working with our military to immigrate...

I can understand them not wanting to lose their jobs, but this is a Government Policy decision that has nothing to do with contracts/pay/benefits/etc. I don't see any logical reason for the Unions to have an opinion.

Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!
Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#54822: May 19th 2013 at 10:06:59 PM

^^

There's no such thing as high-capacity ammunition, Quinn is an ignorant POS, just like the rest of the Illinois legislature that treats the whole state like Chicago is all that matters.

And only the media has ever termed those as "high capacity". 30 round AR mags are considered to be "standard" capacity, while 10 and 20 rounders are considered "Low Capacity". Those terms have been in place since before the word "assault weapon" was ever dreamed up.

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#54823: May 19th 2013 at 10:16:45 PM

@Belian: Labor unions are out for the interests of their workers. They've been political organizations from the get-go; of course they want to keep the jobs padded.

storyyeller More like giant cherries from Appleloosa Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: RelationshipOutOfBoundsException: 1
More like giant cherries
#54824: May 19th 2013 at 11:44:43 PM

Nevertheless, if they were to start a war, I wouldn't be against, say, kicking Kony's ass.

If we're going to war anywhere, it's obviously going to be Syria.

There's no such thing as high-capacity ammunition, Quinn is an ignorant POS, just like the rest of the Illinois legislature that treats the whole state like Chicago is all that matters.

My uncle's a retired policeman and he thinks 30 round magazines should be banned. I figure he knows at least something about guns.

edited 19th May '13 11:47:42 PM by storyyeller

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#54825: May 20th 2013 at 12:19:13 AM

@Storyyeller: "High-capacity ammunition." Read that phrase again. The actual thing to oppose is high-capacity magazines, as in the gun's capacity to hold bullets.


Total posts: 417,856
Top