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

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#56302: Jun 10th 2013 at 12:22:48 PM

[up][up] I can support that in principle, but an army cannot function if its soldiers are constantly questioning their orders. Clearly if the order is, "Shoot helpless civilians," then the idea is valid. If it's something as complex as extrajudicial killings or leaking classified material because of conscientious objection, the issues are a lot less clear.

[up]1. Now that's just silly. Whether it's that they're seeing prostitutes on government time or that we're considering it a big deal, I'm not sure. Sexual assault, on the other hand, is a problem.

2. Thank you for your opinion, "Inventor of the Internet".

3. Probably a good idea, but cue cries of "freedom of speech!"

edited 10th Jun '13 12:25:00 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#56303: Jun 10th 2013 at 12:29:15 PM

I'd like to reiterate that the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 was created specifically to address federal institutions that violate law, abuse/mismanage funds, or present a danger to public safety. The original intent was indeed to protect government-employed whistleblowers just as effectively as in corporate civil cases.

It's effectively been defanged. In 2006, the Supreme Court ruled that protecting whistleblowers from employer retaliation is unconstitutional, and the MSPB and Federal Court of Appeals that perform whistleblower hearings are both absurdly biased — the former altogether rejects 98% of appeals, and the latter has ruled in favor of three whistleblowers out of over 200 cases since the 90's.

edited 10th Jun '13 12:34:17 PM by Pykrete

Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#56304: Jun 10th 2013 at 12:39:19 PM

[up][up]

2. Thank you for your opinion, "Inventor of the Internet".

No doubt about it, Fighteer: Sir Tim Berners-Lee did invent the World Wide Web at CERN in 1989-91.

edited 10th Jun '13 12:39:54 PM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#56305: Jun 10th 2013 at 12:47:01 PM

I'm not questioning his credentials (I assume that such a headline would be fact-checked), but that his opinion carries any special weight by virtue of his credentials.

[up][up] Once again, thank you, Supreme Court, for going to such lengths to protect our basic freedoms.

edited 10th Jun '13 12:48:03 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
tclittle Professional Forum Ninja from Somewhere Down in Texas Since: Apr, 2010
Professional Forum Ninja
#56306: Jun 10th 2013 at 1:15:05 PM

OSHA hits Seaworld Florida with a fine for ignoring a court order to fix safety hazards.

"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."
TheStarshipMaxima NCC - 1701 Since: Jun, 2009
NCC - 1701
#56307: Jun 10th 2013 at 1:25:00 PM

Frankly, Manning could be tried as a spy and executed for providing secret documents to a foreign national.

That's a bit extreme don't you think?

It was an honor
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.
#56308: Jun 10th 2013 at 2:03:00 PM

[up]The operative word here seems to be "could", not "should". And if you are really letter-of-the-law its not that far fetched.

"You can reply to this Message!"
Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#56310: Jun 10th 2013 at 3:07:01 PM

[up]

Huh. Have they completely lost their minds?

Once people realize what they are doing, they'll be forced to change or die anyway.

Schild und Schwert der Partei
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#56311: Jun 10th 2013 at 3:09:36 PM

the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 was created specifically to address federal institutions that violate law, abuse/mismanage funds, or present a danger to public safety
So which of those is supposed to apply to Snowden?

That's my beef. The programs Snowden leaked about are all entirely above-board and legit (in terms of classified stuff, at least). Congress had been briefed on it and approved it. FISC, the court set up in the '70s specifically to address this sort of thing, was involved with it. Everyone on every level was doing what they were supposed to be doing.

Snowden decided to leak it, not because it was illegal or dangerous, but because he didn't like the program. He doesn't get to make that call. He took it upon himself that he knew better than everyone else involved with the program and decided to violate security about it. He does not have the right to make that choice.

Shit, every army should implement that. Like, srsly. That is the best rule ever.
They do — or at least most first-world militaries do. Only it's "illegal" instead of "immoral" for all the reasons Fighteer mentions.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#56312: Jun 10th 2013 at 3:47:41 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/valuing-physics-over-p-e-colorado-schools-test-192609786.html

so in other fun news. Apparently Colorado has decided to set teacher payscale according to demand for the position, meaning kindergarten teachers will now make less than a high school chemistry teacher despite working with kids for a far greater number of hours.

edited 10th Jun '13 3:47:54 PM by midgetsnowman

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#56313: Jun 10th 2013 at 3:55:01 PM

Yet more proof that nobody gives a shit about teachers.

Karkadinn Karkadinn from New Orleans, Louisiana Since: Jul, 2009
Karkadinn
#56314: Jun 10th 2013 at 3:59:30 PM

[up][up]

On the 'bright' side, it sounds like people over there won't have any reason to complain about the teacher's union anymore, since it won't exist. ;)

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.
midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#56315: Jun 10th 2013 at 4:07:08 PM

[up]

No, theyll just cpomplain about people who go into teaching being lazy, entitled people.

and then get mad when the teacher insists their little timmy didnt earn a good grade

edited 10th Jun '13 4:07:33 PM by midgetsnowman

IConfuseMe from Washington, DC Since: Jan, 2010
#56316: Jun 10th 2013 at 4:07:27 PM

They do — or at least most first-world militaries do. Only it's "illegal" instead of "immoral" for all the reasons Fighteer mentions.

And what happens when the country in question has gone batshit and started enacting insane laws? Nazi Germany for example.

Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#56317: Jun 10th 2013 at 4:13:02 PM

So which of those is supposed to apply to Snowden?

Violation of law: namely, the part about invasive warrantless search and seizure of private information by a federal agency. We have this thing called the 4th amendment that says not only is that not okay, but it's so not okay you can't even make laws legalizing it.

Government intelligence agencies in practice get a silent free pass to do whatever the fuck they want, but that doesn't make it legal or constitutional.

edited 10th Jun '13 4:24:53 PM by Pykrete

DrunkGirlfriend from Castle Geekhaven Since: Jan, 2011
#56318: Jun 10th 2013 at 4:20:16 PM

[up][up] Well, if the US got to that point, it'd be so far gone that leaking information wouldn't do much of anything to stop/change it, unless other countries decided to declare war.

edited 10th Jun '13 4:20:41 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
IConfuseMe from Washington, DC Since: Jan, 2010
#56319: Jun 10th 2013 at 4:33:39 PM

The point I was trying to make is that the legality of a law doesn't mean anything about the appropriateness of the law. Plenty of unconstitutional laws have set on the books for extended periods time, simply because no one challenged them. And other times unconstitutional laws have been challenged and stayed on the books, only for the US Supreme Court to change their minds at a later date.

So promoting a culture where people don't challenge laws is a dangerous one.

I don't know enough about Snowden to make a judgement in that particular case, but in general, being approved by the authorities does not in and off itself mean the order is one that should be followed.

edited 10th Jun '13 4:34:27 PM by IConfuseMe

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#56320: Jun 10th 2013 at 5:10:17 PM

There's a difference between objecting to a law because you don't like it or because it personally inconveniences you and objecting to it because you find it morally repugnant.

Bear in mind that if we allowed the latter to be the universal standard, then murdering gay people (or black people) could be considered an act of "conscientious objection".

Societies cannot function if laws are only obeyed when it's convenient.

edited 10th Jun '13 5:10:51 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
IConfuseMe from Washington, DC Since: Jan, 2010
#56321: Jun 10th 2013 at 5:34:11 PM

And one could argue that if people never rebelled on moral grounds abolitionists would not have sheltered runaway slaves, Germans (and people of occupied territory) would not have sheltered Jewish people from the Nazis, and without civil disobedience India would would still be a colony and segregation might be alive and well in the States.

That said, I don't think there is such a thing as a universal standard whether you should obey a law. It's something that's going to vary on a case by case basis.

after all, if we said law was to be always obeyed, state sponsored genocide would be a-ok.

Neither extreme (Neither absolute obedience nor arbitrary refusal) are the ways to go about. And I don't think implied that.

edited 10th Jun '13 5:35:17 PM by IConfuseMe

Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#56322: Jun 10th 2013 at 5:49:35 PM

Snowden decided to leak it, not because it was illegal or dangerous, but because he didn't like the program. He doesn't get to make that call. He took it upon himself that he knew better than everyone else involved with the program and decided to violate security about it. He does not have the right to make that choice.

Here's the problem with this specific type of leak, because it was classified and the FISA courts were the ones who were tasked with deciding it was ok, nobody knew about it to object to it. Therefor it is protected from any form of outside scrutiny.

But from a personal perspective, I agree with Snowdens decision. PRISM is essentially a nation-wide wiretapping warrant that applies to everyone and has absolutely zero probable cause. It's unethical, immoral, and illegal in the sense that you're supposed to have probable cause to obtain a warrant to invade someone elses privacy.

This was essentially a classified court with zero public oversight saying that it would grant the largest blanket warrant in the history of the United States without probable cause. It's immoral and in my opinion, illegal. If a civilian PD requested a warrant on someone because "We want to check their phone calls to see if they are doing anything wrong." but has no probable cause for why they may be doing something wrong in the first place, the judge would say "What are you smoking? No way."

That's why in this matter, I do support Snowden. Mannings leaks didn't have that justification. He is mentally troubled and had a grudge against the Army, so he did the digital equivalent of grabbing as many armfuls of classified paperwork as possible and running out the door.

I'm surprised that I find myself saying this, but something like this requires public consent in my opinion. This is something that most people in the United States would say "Fuck no." to if you walked up and asked them, and our elected leaders are supposed to be doing things that we support. A breach of privacy this huge shouldn't be happening in the dark without public knowledge.

Now what they should have did is gotten a warrant in advance saying that when they have probable cause, they are allowed to subpoena internet and phone companies for this data. The warrant is already in place so that all that is needed is for a FISA judge to say "Yeah, go ahead. Seems legit." Instead, they said "We want access to everyones shit, and we want the ability to just plow through any of it whenever we want with little to no oversight."

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#56323: Jun 10th 2013 at 5:57:00 PM

Violation of law: namely, the part about invasive warrantless search and seizure of private information by a federal agency.
It has court oversight. There's a whole court, FISC (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court), dedicated to nothing but overseeing stuff like that. It's also been noted that Congress was not only aware of the program, but approved of it. It's not the like NSA was doing this all in-house and keeping it shielded from scrutiny.

Now what they should have did is gotten a warrant in advance saying that when they have probable cause, they are allowed to subpoena internet and phone companies for this data. The warrant is already in place so that all that is needed is for a FISA judge to say "Yeah, go ahead. Seems legit." Instead, they said "We want access to everyones shit, and we want the ability to just plow through any of it whenever we want with little to no oversight."
My understanding is that they grabbed everything in order to run high-level analysis on it, without any of it being personally identifiable. If they actually want to use any specific information in relation to a particular person, they do have to get a warrant exactly like you're describing.

edited 10th Jun '13 6:05:06 PM by NativeJovian

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
GlennMagusHarvey Since: Jan, 2001
#56325: Jun 10th 2013 at 6:30:00 PM

The name "Judge Napolitano" annoys me because it makes me think of "Janet Napolitano", who also has a five-letter J-word preceding "Napolitano".


Total posts: 417,856
Top