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

RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#54926: May 21st 2013 at 3:33:26 PM

2014 needs a memetic message to match this one. The cycle of midterm complacency among sane people in this country has got to stop.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#54927: May 21st 2013 at 6:14:02 PM

I don't give a fuck if the cake is dangerous, those people want all of it, and that is absolutely unacceptable.
The problem is, though, that this gives rise to the "not one step back!" attitude, where nothing can ever get done because people are afraid of what may happen later, at some unspecified date. In the meantime, we have a real, actually-happening-right-now problem with gun violence. I sympathize with the fear of having guns banned entirely — I like guns and I want them to continue to be available — but I'm not willing to ignore a problem that is happening right now for the sake of avoiding a problem that may happen sometime in the future.

I think it's clear that gun control in America isn't good enough right now, given how widespread the problem with gun violence is. I think this places the burden of proof on gun rights activists to show that proposed gun control efforts will cause more problems than they solve. For things like banning scary accessories — yes, that's dumb, and should be opposed. But for things like background checks, licensing, etc? There's absolutely no legitimate argument against them, and yet the gun rights lobby fight it tooth and nail anyway.

I realize that that doesn't include you, Barkey, but that sort of thing is why I consider myself on the pro-gun-control side of the issue despite being pretty much middle of the road on the specifics of policy.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
johnnyfog Actual Wrestling Legend from the Zocalo Since: Apr, 2010 Relationship Status: They can't hide forever. We've got satellites.
Actual Wrestling Legend
#54928: May 21st 2013 at 6:36:56 PM

I think it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, now that the "genie's out of the bottle" thanks to automatics being sold in department stores, banks, fairs, mini-malls, and at children's lemonade stands.

The U.S. loves to arm both sides. They do it with military hardware, why not with civilian weapons?

I'm a skeptical squirrel
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#54929: May 21st 2013 at 6:51:24 PM

@Native Jovian: That just illustrates the curse of the NRA, though. Yes, the NRA are madmen. But they are right in that, in the '90s, HCI most certainly did fight for background checks as a first step to utterly ludicrous measures like the Assault Weapons Ban.

You can't just line both interest groups up against the wall, shoot them, and enact sound policy in a vacuum. Unless you vote for me as World Dictator on the Aperture Science platform, of course.

Belian In honor of my 50lb pup from 42 Since: Jan, 2001
In honor of my 50lb pup
#54930: May 21st 2013 at 7:03:09 PM

Well, we'll do what we must because we care about the subject.

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]
#54932: May 21st 2013 at 7:43:42 PM

The problem is, though, that this gives rise to the "not one step back!" attitude, where nothing can ever get done because people are afraid of what may happen later, at some unspecified date. In the meantime, we have a real, actually-happening-right-now problem with gun violence. I sympathize with the fear of having guns banned entirely — I like guns and I want them to continue to be available — but I'm not willing to ignore a problem that is happening right now for the sake of avoiding a problem that may happen sometime in the future.

Then why are places like Washington DC and Chicago some of the most dangerous cities in the United States? Illinois has absolutely clamped down on guns in every way that it can, and crime in Chicago is horrible. Are those measures necessary in the rest of the state? No. What about the rest of the state? Being in California, I am not Los Angeles or San Fran. I don't give a shit about those places, I don't want my entire street treated like Los Angeles is all that matters, and I wouldn't want my entire state treated like Chicago was all that matters.

I think it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, now that the "genie's out of the bottle" thanks to automatics being sold in department stores, banks, fairs, mini-malls, and at children's lemonade stands.

I think you are greatly exaggerating. Fully automatic firearms aren't even all that common, even in the most gun friendly states out there. They are expensive and require ATF tax stamps and things of that nature. Besides which, how the fuck would you know? Your location is listed as NYC, it's been a pretty long while since there's been a legal fully auto rifle sold in NYC. I get the feeling you don't really know shit about how easy it actually is to buy a fully automatic rifle.

Banning doesn't fix gun crime. That is an absolute solid fact, besides which, banning long guns in particular doesn't solve gun crime. When was the last time fully automatic rifles were used in the commission of a spree shooting? Really think back, because I can't think of anything earlier than maybe the LA bank robbery with those already illegal AK's, or Columbine with those illegally modified Tec 9's.

Treat the cause of the problem, banning isn't helping. All it does is make people who are scared of shadows that they don't properly understand feel a little better. It's just a boogeyman, banning those things isn't making them safer, they just like to believe that out of ignorance.

edited 21st May '13 7:51:23 PM by Barkey

Belian In honor of my 50lb pup from 42 Since: Jan, 2001
In honor of my 50lb pup
#54933: May 21st 2013 at 8:31:46 PM

[up][up] @Navy: So the Navy might need up to $6 billion more over 30 years than originally planed. Put that way, it is not that big of a deal. Besides, this would be money going to high-tech products and someone has to make those products so that means more jobs, right?

@ Immigration: The amendment means that high tech companies are not required to see if there is an American who can fill a position before looking outside the country. Isn't that sort of the point? To get the best people into those jobs/into the country no matter who they are and where they come from? Statistics show that it is these people who end up making successful start-ups and create jobs.

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
#54934: May 21st 2013 at 8:45:28 PM

[up]

The Unions are upset because, as AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka put it, "Hatch’s amendments would mean that American corporations could fire American workers in order to bring in H-1B visa holders at lower wages.”

And that's bad for unions.

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#54935: May 21st 2013 at 9:12:07 PM

^^

We're also in an unemployment crisis. Lets look after our own first.

GlennMagusHarvey Since: Jan, 2001
#54936: May 21st 2013 at 9:17:00 PM

Then why are places like Washington DC and Chicago some of the most dangerous cities in the United States? Illinois has absolutely clamped down on guns in every way that it can, and crime in Chicago is horrible.

As you observe, Barkey, a number of guns are obtained illegally anyway, and thus I think the primary reason they're so crime-ridden is likely the result of neither inadequate gun laws nor overly-restrictive gun laws, but something else entirely.

That said, since guns can always be smuggled (because we respect privacy), how easy or difficult it is to get guns in other locales in the United States is still relevant to how severe these violent crime problems are.

Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#54937: May 21st 2013 at 9:18:51 PM

I think addressing poverty in those areas would do way more to address this problem than firearms. It's a problem with the city, not the guns.

Gonna reiterate that handguns are the issue here, not long guns, and that banning long guns based on inanimate cosmetic features is absolutely futile and does nothing but take things away from honest citizens.

edited 21st May '13 9:20:45 PM by Barkey

RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#54938: May 21st 2013 at 9:40:28 PM

Doing gun control on a state or local level is mostly an exercise in futility, since there's no way to stop guns from flowing into the city/state from areas with looser gun control.

Well, except for Alaska and Hawaii, but I don't really know what the gun control laws and gun crime statistics are there.

Belian In honor of my 50lb pup from 42 Since: Jan, 2001
In honor of my 50lb pup
#54939: May 21st 2013 at 9:57:22 PM

@DB: Missed that part... that would be bad.

@Barkey: We have been losing some of the world's upcoming best-and-brightest to other counties simply because of our immigration laws. I'm not sure how many jobs we are talking here, but I don't think we are talking about that many overall. Most of our unemployed simply don't have the skills needed for the "high tech" positions that they are talking about. If companies could find the people they were looking for within the country, why would they bother looking abroad in the first place?

Also, bringing those people in will at least keep the jobs in the country and likely have long lasting positive effects on out economy.

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]
#54941: May 21st 2013 at 10:44:06 PM

^^

High tech jobs seem to work ok. My civilian job brought a guy all the way from Siberia to be a coder for us and it only took like two months.

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#54942: May 21st 2013 at 11:35:49 PM

OK, it's official now: The immigration bill, without the same sex union provision, has passed the comittee with 3 Republicans in favour and will be up for a vote in the full Senate.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#54943: May 22nd 2013 at 2:18:45 AM

Most of our unemployed simply don't have the skills needed for the "high tech" positions that they are talking about.

And the ones that do often get shut out anyway because said employers are targeting highly-experienced people who got laid off by asking for unreasonable amounts of experience for entry-level positions.

One of the job search things run by my college lets you filter its search results by experience required. Clicking the filter for 0-2 years reduces a job pool of thousands down to like 20 (most of which are clear on the other end of the country).

edited 22nd May '13 2:19:19 AM by Pykrete

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#54944: May 22nd 2013 at 6:15:48 AM

Then why are places like Washington DC and Chicago some of the most dangerous cities in the United States?
I'm not sure how that's a response to what I said? I'm not arguing for "clamping down on guns in every way that we can", I'm arguing for really basic regulation like background checks and licensing. This won't magically fix problems with gun crime, of course, but I think the benefits would outweigh the negatives. Certainly I don't find the "universal background checks inevitably leads to the repeal of the second amendment and a federal ban on all guns forever" argument persuasive.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#54945: May 22nd 2013 at 6:30:12 AM

I'd say the dangerous conditions in DC and Chicago is less a direct correlation with gun laws (given australia also has hard gun control and low as fuck gun crime rates), and more to do with the fact both chicago and DC have absolutely huge margins between the well off and the poor in living conditions.

lonesomepaire from nowhere,wyoming Since: Apr, 2013
#54946: May 22nd 2013 at 6:54:09 AM

[up] Do you have any statistics for Australia? I haven't been able to find any reliable statistics, dose the Australian government have something like the FBI crime report?

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#54947: May 22nd 2013 at 7:13:17 AM

Inequality is what breeds crime. Guns are an enabling factor, but not the root cause. The problem I have with gun advocates is not that I think that taking away guns will magically solve crime, but that guns are being waved around as a solution rather than what they truly are: a means for people to keep "those evil [insert group here]" out of their neighborhoods.

Guns don't stop crime any more than they cause crime. Guns are a symbol of power, and it's very easy to extrapolate from that the degree to which fear drives people's feelings about gun control.

edited 22nd May '13 7:15:42 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#54948: May 22nd 2013 at 7:59:37 AM

Found some good stats from the Census folks.

Pretty much reinforces what I've been drilling on this forum for years. Nobody who picks on AR-15's and "scary black plastic assault weapons'' is vaguely serious about gun control. Let the stats show the truth here.

I've made statements many times that anyone serious about using gun control to combat homicide needs to go after handguns. Concealable weapons are what get used in violent crime. Ergo why handguns are the majority weapon used, but the anti-gun crowd rarely seems to speak up about banning them. But what's this? 4x more people are stabbed to death by knives on average than killed by long guns? And shotguns kill more people than rifles? I wonder what Biden and his stupid double barrel shotgun have to say about that.

Seriously, these stats pretty much show the truth to what I've been ranting about constantly. The anti-gun crowd need to stop picking on the fucking AR 15. It doesn't make sense statistically, it's all emotionally driven ignorant bullshit. If you want to combat firearms related homicide, here's what you do:

  1. Combat poverty in metropolitan areas by giving more money to education, increasing job growth, and having a good social services program.

  2. Enforce current laws regarding background checks(Already said I pretty much agree with everyone here on the subject of background checks and competency licenses)

  3. As a last resort, going after or further regulating handguns makes way more sense than ranting about buttstocks, pistol grips, and magazine limits on the AR-15. Wish the anti-gun crowd would use some scientific fucking logic, because these statistics back me, and not them.

Certainly I don't find the "universal background checks inevitably leads to the repeal of the second amendment and a federal ban on all guns forever" argument persuasive.

Neither do I, which is why I keep repetitively stating that I'm cool with background checks, and my state does them and they haven't been an issue for me.

I pretty much want to go all Chris Crocker on this subject and be like "LEAVE AR'S ALOOOOOONE! *sob*"

edited 22nd May '13 8:02:43 AM by Barkey

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#54949: May 22nd 2013 at 8:06:01 AM

So, handguns are used roughly 8 times more frequently than any other firearm there in crimes. Why am I not surprised.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#54950: May 22nd 2013 at 8:10:05 AM

Oh, yes, handguns are overwhelmingly the weapon used in crimes, because they are easy to obtain, carry, and conceal.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Total posts: 417,856
Top