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

Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#54951: May 22nd 2013 at 8:14:17 AM

Here in California they are actually harder to obtain legally, and handguns are still the majority of firearms related homicide.

But that's the only point I wanted to make here guys. I'm not against gun control. Background checks and some sort of competency license are on the table with me, but this stupid bullshit involving obsessing with pistol grips and "assault weapons" is pure fantasy, it isn't going to have any appreciable effect. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks it's just part of a plan by anti-gun lobbies. Sporting rifles are "scary" with all their "military" features, so it's easy to get an emotional response out of people to get them banned. Once those are banned, gun crime statistics will barely be dented, and then they'll just go for handguns or shotguns next, it won't stop there.

I want my fucking sporting rifles. Get rid of handguns if you want(well, I have a CCW so I assume I'd be allowed to keep it and my handguns I own) but leave the god damn rifles alone. It statistically doesn't make sense, just let me put my goddamn macmillan stock with a pistol grip on my M 1 A, and let me have 20 round box magazines. The statistics show that this won't end the world or make California fall into the fucking ocean.

I'm absolutely against stupid gun control. Gun control is supposed to accomplish an objective: Reducing firearms related homicide. Banning rifles does virtually nothing to even dent the firearms homicide rate, ergo it's ineffective and shouldn't be done.

This obsession with "assault weapons" must end before anyone can expect rational and mature negotiations from the pro-gun side of the fence. It's idiotic and ineffective.

edited 22nd May '13 8:16:25 AM by Barkey

Belian In honor of my 50lb pup from 42 Since: Jan, 2001
In honor of my 50lb pup
#54952: May 22nd 2013 at 8:25:04 AM

[up][up][up][up] & [up] We've been told and understand that. That is why some of the people who were going "ban AR because they serve no purpose other than shooting a lot of things quickly" have gone to "strict background checks and better mental heath assistance."

Can I propose that we ban the gun control debate unless something new comes up (or someone new comes into the thread without knowing about the ban)? It seems like everyone here is ready for a compromise—with very little difference in what each person wants. Any talk about it ends up being "We agree, but [vent feelings about specific/personal situations]." As someone who likes compromise and understanding the other side, it is getting quite frustrating to see people continually agree and yet continue arguing. [/vent frustration tongue ]

edited 22nd May '13 8:25:46 AM by Belian

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]
#54953: May 22nd 2013 at 8:27:59 AM

There's always that one person who shows up and says something about "assault weapons". tongue

How about we just ban that term whenever gun control comes up? That'd be cool. Maybe the political stage could see it as an example and copy it, it'd sure make that whole national debate a lot less idiotic.

TheStarshipMaxima NCC - 1701 Since: Jun, 2009
NCC - 1701
#54954: May 22nd 2013 at 8:31:49 AM

As long as there's a Barkey in the world, my world is complete. grin

It was an honor
Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#54956: May 22nd 2013 at 10:31:30 AM

[up]

Thats funny, Ted, because they dont trust crazy people either.

Xopher001 Since: Jul, 2012
#54958: May 22nd 2013 at 1:07:33 PM

It's way too early to be talking about the goddamn primaries. I mean it's freaking 2013! I think they started doing this shit in the middle of Obama 's last term! I hate it . It distracts evryone from real politics, like bills and congress. No one gives this much attention to Congressional elections

Joesolo Indiana Solo Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Indiana Solo
#54959: May 22nd 2013 at 1:21:13 PM

i almost think there should be a law banning campaigning for a office more than 8 months before the election.

I'm baaaaaaack
RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#54961: May 22nd 2013 at 2:09:03 PM

I almost think there should be a law banning campaigning for a office more than 8 months before the election.

Someone who isn't a Politician — and that includes fund-raising, too...

Anyone seen Canada's Laws on the matter?

edited 22nd May '13 2:09:41 PM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On
lordnyx Since: Aug, 2009
#54962: May 22nd 2013 at 2:09:55 PM

The Law?

So congress/senate.

and eventually the supreme court because it'd liable to be seen as an affront to someone's 1st amendment rights if they can't start annoying us less than eight months after the last election...

edited 22nd May '13 2:10:36 PM by lordnyx

DevilTakeMe Coin Operator from Wild Wasteland Since: Jan, 2010
Coin Operator
#54965: May 22nd 2013 at 3:43:57 PM

[up] First amendment rights, right? It's like saying that you're for gun bans, but you own or want to buy an assault weapon.

No, noone buys the "research" defense. It's a pretty idiotic thing to do - the comparison is a pedo looking for child porn for the sake of "research" - if it's something you think is wrong, you don't do it!

You know damn well it's stupid and hypocritical for you to say it, but then you go and do or say something completely contrary to what you just said.

Don't forget the NRA also made their own video game to showcase firearms after saying Video Games also caused violence.

edited 22nd May '13 3:54:47 PM by DevilTakeMe

Glove and Boots is good for Blog!
Know-age Since: May, 2010
#54966: May 22nd 2013 at 7:14:17 PM

So it seems Bush has been convicted of war crimes. Anyone think this is going to be relevent?

lordnyx Since: Aug, 2009
#54967: May 22nd 2013 at 7:16:43 PM

No since it was a year ago and nothing has come since.

Do people just miss the 2012 in the link, or what?(thats the third time linked or so...)

edited 22nd May '13 7:17:38 PM by lordnyx

Know-age Since: May, 2010
#54968: May 22nd 2013 at 7:18:03 PM

I know full well Bush isn't getting arrested, but do you think this decision will have any effect on the policies of future presidents?

lordnyx Since: Aug, 2009
#54969: May 22nd 2013 at 7:21:41 PM

Since no one gives a hoot about Malaysia, no it won't be liable to effect them besides future presidents ignoring Malaysia even more than they do now.

edited 22nd May '13 7:22:22 PM by lordnyx

Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#54970: May 22nd 2013 at 7:22:46 PM

It isn't by any authority that we recognize, so nothing is going to come of it. Saying "The US and the Pentagon is monitoring this trial closely" is giving themselves way too much credit. I'm pretty sure they got an eye roll and a dismissive wave up in DC when they heard about this.

I mean really? Kuala Lumpur? The only outside authority we would even close to ever recognize the weight of when making such a judgement would be the UN itself, and we're a Security Council member. So essentially, the US couldn't give two shits what anyone else has to say about it.

edited 22nd May '13 7:23:50 PM by Barkey

RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#54971: May 22nd 2013 at 7:24:27 PM

I wonder if how the U.S. will respond when that is no longer the case. I'm not sure our national psyche will take it well when there's someone bigger on the block we're not allowed to blow off.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#54972: May 22nd 2013 at 7:27:23 PM

I don't see that happening any time in the near-future. Even if China tried Bush in absentia and said he was guilty of war crimes, regardless of the fact that our economic partnership means that would never happen, we wouldn't care because it could only be recognized through the UN. And as a security council member, we would just shitcan that plan from the get-go with our veto power.

From a diplomatic perspective, our position in the UN essentially means we can just tell everyone to screw themselves. And I can't think of any Security Council member who would react differently. If we tried to pass judgement on leaders of any of the other members, they would use their veto power as well and just tell the US to go screw itself.

Odds are Bush will be dead by the time a threat like that looms, but if another nation ever tried to abscond with a former President, that'd mean war in a heartbeat.

edited 22nd May '13 7:27:59 PM by Barkey

QuestionMarc Since: Oct, 2011 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
#54973: May 22nd 2013 at 7:35:59 PM

Would Bush even be accountable for these warcrimes? Isn't he worried about stuff other than managing what every trooper does across the sea?

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#54975: May 22nd 2013 at 8:11:41 PM

The House passed a bill on Keystone... but doesn't Obama get a chance to veto it? So what exactly do they hope to prove?

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

Total posts: 417,856
Top