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

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#56377: Jun 11th 2013 at 2:46:20 PM

How broad is it, by the way? How much does the public really care about it?

"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
#56379: Jun 11th 2013 at 2:58:59 PM

I'm not saying that surveillance is a desirable thing, but it's going to happen one way or another. The only question is whether we know about it.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#56380: Jun 11th 2013 at 3:02:16 PM

Well, the latetr headline is highly misleading it seems. No idea why emails or phones should be treated differently.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
terlwyth Since: Oct, 2010
#56381: Jun 11th 2013 at 3:06:29 PM

[up][up][up] Well duh! I thought it was common knowledge that the reactionaries would be happy if a Reaganite/Dubyite President did this bullshit,after all how else are we gonna get those Socialist-Un Christian-Commie-Hippies?

And then there's the radicals that would totally like a Mc Governesque guy doing the exact same thing,ya' know to knock down those evil Corps a peg,make sure they "Pay Their Fair Share" at any cost,and then stop those rednecks from turning the place into a theocracy in favor of an atheist state.

And since the ideologies keep flipping as the admin does,...well,look what happens.

That's not counting those few that would honestly support this bullshit due to misplaced cynicism.

Which leaves all the sane people that don't support this at all left out.

And yeah I know the Right/Left are exaggerated,but what isn't in politics? Although moreso the Left right now,since the Right has become like that.

edited 11th Jun '13 3:07:35 PM by terlwyth

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#56382: Jun 11th 2013 at 3:06:33 PM

[up][up]That too. It's really just a form of communication. Shall we poll people on which particular mechanisms they'd prefer to be snooped on via? "In today's results, phone calls and text messages are okay, but soup cans tied together with string are not, and emails are right out. Facebook posts and tweets are neutral."

[up] I'm just not sure that it's a realistic goal to completely suspend snooping. We can try to make it as transparent and subject to judicial review as possible, but it won't ever stop entirely.

edited 11th Jun '13 3:07:44 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#56384: Jun 11th 2013 at 4:52:05 PM

So I'm off today, but I went to the base to do some passport paperwork and I saw the TV on Fox News(Surprising on a military base, right?) and the character assassination of Snowden has already started on Fox.. "Snowden, a High School drop out." "Snowden dropped out of the Army." "Snowdens girlfriend, a stripper."

And Einstein sucked at tying his shoes, what's the fucking point they are trying to make? Some of the biggest brain surgeons in the NSA are career fuckups.

There you guys go, since the media has had a boner on sexual assault in the military for the last 2 months for some reason, possibly because they have nothing better to do.

edited 11th Jun '13 5:08:55 PM by Barkey

Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#56386: Jun 11th 2013 at 6:12:09 PM

As much as I like that people are asking for Asylum for Snowden, I would be rather suspicious of any country too eager to grant it. Snowden knows other things that he wouldn't want to disclose, and I would hate to have another country try to scoop him up and "drag" any of those things out of him.

And that wasn't a sarcastic quip about Snowden trading more secrets for a comfortable lifestyle. I'm literally worried about him being snatched up by another country and made to divulge our secrets, under verbal pressure or more physical methods.

Meklar from Milky Way Since: Dec, 2012 Relationship Status: RelationshipOutOfBoundsException: 1
#56387: Jun 11th 2013 at 6:20:56 PM

That doesn't mean that you have to like what they're doing, but the appropriate response is "we need to make this against the rules", not "they're bad and terrible people for breaking rules that don't exist but I think should".
Great, so which of the Only Two Parties With Any Chance Of Making Any Different At All™ would people have to vote for in order to get the bad rules changed?

Yeah, didn't think so. Things by now are screwed up on too many levels for that.

I asked a specific, concrete thing: how does the existence of Prism and similar programs benefit Congressmen on an individual, personal level.
Is there a specific dollar in a specific congressperson's specific bank account that I could trace directly back to the effects of PRISM without involving a whole ton of other independent factors? Maybe, maybe not. Does there need to be, in order for them to have a vested interest in perpetuating the bad systems? Heck no. There are a gazillion ways to profit by abusing power.

Well that's a step in the right direction, whether it's for the right reasons or not.

Snowden knows other things that he wouldn't want to disclose, and I would hate to have another country try to scoop him up and "drag" any of those things out of him.
Uh...doesn't this apply to thousands of other intelligence people too?

edited 11th Jun '13 6:22:41 PM by Meklar

Join my forum game!
DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#56389: Jun 11th 2013 at 7:39:31 PM

@Barkey: Wow, they actually finally got a woman to look into that. I was kinda annoyed when I saw the gender makeup of the last panel they called to examine the issue. Lotta medals, not a single woman.

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]
#56390: Jun 11th 2013 at 9:59:39 PM

My favorite general was actually the last general to be in charge of it, Mary Kay Hertog, she's adored by cops everywhere in the Air Force and was in that documentary "Invisible War". However she was only at the post for about a year, and one of the thing she complained about was that she didn't have the latitude to change policy much. She retired after she finished her tenure at that post.

She's been the top cop for Security Forces several times, as well as the head of our training academy and the training group(larger organization)'' that it falls under.

There was nothing wrong with her command of the SAPR office, just sort of a lack in control for its acting director to create policy.

Though at the end, I really don't know what it is that can be fixed. The military really does never shut up about sexual assault, at least the Air Force doesn't. Anyone in the AF can tell you, we sit through tons and tons of briefings on sexual assault awareness, sexual harassment, et cetera. The briefings aren't piss poor by any standard, and the Air Force really does pay a lot of attention to the subject.

That's seriously the typical briefing I receive every year, usually from at least a Lt Colonel. I don't know how things are done in the other branches, but the Air Force response is not lackluster, and has not been at any point in my career. One of the big problems is victims not coming forward, and then eventually, at a later date, coming forward to talk about it and just being another number because it's too late to prosecute.

edited 11th Jun '13 10:05:57 PM by Barkey

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#56391: Jun 11th 2013 at 10:16:55 PM

Great, so which of the Only Two Parties With Any Chance Of Making Any Different At All™ would people have to vote for in order to get the bad rules changed?

Yeah, didn't think so. Things by now are screwed up on too many levels for that.

Words cannot express how much I loathe this attitude. If you want to make a change, then fight for that change, don't just say "I FEEL SUPER STRONGLY ABOUT THIS!! Oh, but actually doing anything about it is hard, so whatever."

Is there a specific dollar in a specific congressperson's specific bank account that I could trace directly back to the effects of PRISM without involving a whole ton of other independent factors? Maybe, maybe not. Does there need to be, in order for them to have a vested interest in perpetuating the bad systems? Heck no. There are a gazillion ways to profit by abusing power.
And which of those gazillion ways involves Prism? Seriously. You made a specific claim: that Prism exists because it benefits people positions of power. I've asked for an explanation of that specific claim. All you've been able to give me are sweeping generalizations that power is bad because bad people can misuse it. Unless you can give me something about Prism specifically being misused to give someone a personal advantage somehow, then you're blowing smoke.

Uh...doesn't this apply to thousands of other intelligence people too?
Thousands of other people haven't put themselves into a situation where their options are "accept asylum in a foreign country" or "go to federal prison for crimes against the government".

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#56392: Jun 11th 2013 at 10:36:42 PM

Unless you can give me something about Prism specifically being misused to give someone a personal advantage somehow, then you're blowing smoke.

People in charge of Prism beholden to Political Interest X. They use Prism against civilians who oppose X and are likely to gather support. Cherrypick gathered info to paint them as "dangerous" enough to detain, maybe find an opportunity to trump up a red tape charge to stick them with a criminal record and impoverish them with legal fees and unemployment. Further dissidents are intimidated from action. Supporters of X get their thing pushed through.

Unless you were asking for a specific example of how it's already been used that way? Because frankly we don't need to. You don't make a system that open to abuse that big, put it in the hands of a group known for overstepping its authority and giving the middle finger to what few regulations it has, then wait for someone's life to get fucked to hell to realize it was a bad idea long after it's too late to push back.

edited 11th Jun '13 10:42:34 PM by Pykrete

Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#56393: Jun 11th 2013 at 10:47:27 PM

Frankly it's unnecessary.

How many Americans die of domestic terror attacks per year? Often times zero.

We're going to give up this level of privacy and make ourselves this open to exploitation for that?

Not a fair trade.

Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#56394: Jun 11th 2013 at 10:55:47 PM

That's the other thing. We're implementing excessively invasive Orwellian shit to supposedly provide a slight edge against a threat that has a lower death toll on US soil than bathtubs, mountain goats, bees, pet dogs, and falling off the roof while installing solar panels.

edited 11th Jun '13 10:58:57 PM by Pykrete

deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#56395: Jun 11th 2013 at 10:58:24 PM

Google, Facebook, Microsoft seek right to tell users what is going on

...Now, I loathe corporations, but I have to take their side, here, really. I'm starting to suspect that the things they said after about "Oh, we don't know about this" were because they realized that, legally speaking, they were still bound by the confidentiality or something and could be prosecuted for saying more, so they were playing it safe. Once they can, they'll say everything they can about it. Not cause they're good hearted, but because it will make them seem good hearted, making people more likely to buy their stuff.

As much as I like that people are asking for Asylum for Snowden, I would be rather suspicious of any country too eager to grant it. Snowden knows other things that he wouldn't want to disclose, and I would hate to have another country try to scoop him up and "drag" any of those things out of him.

I expect he'd know which places would actually grant him asylum and which places will torture him for information.

Words cannot express how much I loathe this attitude. If you want to make a change, then fight for that change, don't just say "I FEEL SUPER STRONGLY ABOUT THIS!! Oh, but actually doing anything about it is hard, so whatever."

Yes, because saying voting for neither party will fix the problem means that we'll do nothing. Voting is NOT the only way to bring about change. In fact, in a representative democracy, it isn't even a very good way (at least when it comes to voting people into positions). Direct action is where it's at. Protests and whistleblowing and even petitions. Those are all things that help spur change. You say that we aren't doing anything because we're recognizing the futility of using indirect action (aka voting people into positions) to change this while we are doing stuff to change things. Heck, what Snowden did was probably the one thing that anyone could've done at that time to spur any sort of change since, you know, people didn't know about it so they couldn't even know to use indirect action to solve it, no matter how ineffective that indirect action would be. Now it's gone from an issue that Congresspeople have debated in the shadows, some actually opposed to it, and most tacitly voting yes for it, secure in knowing that it's all below the radar, to one of the hot button topics right now, surpassing Benghazi, the Fiscal Cliff, Birtherism, the 47% comment, and the IRS scandal combined note .

Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#56397: Jun 12th 2013 at 1:09:27 AM

I expect he'd know which places would actually grant him asylum and which places will torture him for information.

And which places would do both — or at least, extensively question him after they've given him asylum...

Keep Rolling On
Medinoc from France (Before Recorded History)
#56398: Jun 12th 2013 at 1:27:15 AM

The fact it's Marine Le Pen doing that rather than, you know, François Hollande or Jean-Luc Mélenchon gives me a bit of Your Approval Fills Me with Shame (or just simply Even Evil Has Standards), but I guess Hollande can't really stick his neck out at the time.

edited 12th Jun '13 1:27:32 AM by Medinoc

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#56400: Jun 12th 2013 at 4:04:00 AM

@Fighteer: So why shouldn't we force the government's share of the snooping way the hell underground?

I'm serious. If we put a crippling lock on the alphabet soup's ability to legally snoop on Americans, then yes, they'll just do it illegally. But it's a lot harder for the government to use illegal snoops. If someone is investigated for terrorism based on an illegal email tap, then how the hell will they get a case against that person that isn't irrevocably tainted by said illegal procedures?

Corporate snooping, of course, is impossible to block even with your suggested database because, if people opt-out of releasing data, the companies will just acquire and use the data illegally.


Total posts: 417,856
Top