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

midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#56601: Jun 17th 2013 at 2:53:10 PM

  • 1 for Snowden and how the hell did the supreme court both do the right and wrong thing in the same day?

midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#56603: Jun 17th 2013 at 5:04:56 PM

leave it to ted Cruz to campaign for the rights of states to suppress latino voters.

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#56605: Jun 17th 2013 at 5:38:55 PM

I kind of support the voter ID requirement personally, but that's something that could have its own thread.

Anyhow, as to blocking state department funds to Afghanistan, I agree. There needs to be a very high intensity investigation as to how those funds are being used, there is a ridiculous amount of waste and honestly, I feel like half of it just ends up in the hands of our enemies anyway.

midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#56606: Jun 17th 2013 at 5:42:05 PM

[up][up]

Which is funny given Iranian muslim extremists want all the same rights to repress their enemies fundies want.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#56607: Jun 17th 2013 at 5:48:33 PM

Islamic extremists and Christian extremists: Not So Different.

Requiring ID to vote is only acceptable if 100% of voters have an ID.

edited 17th Jun '13 5:49:00 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#56608: Jun 17th 2013 at 6:14:53 PM

Iran’s Supreme Leader Mocks U.S. Electoral College With Infographic

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#56609: Jun 17th 2013 at 7:05:17 PM

[up][up] I don't mean to be ignorant or anything, but why is getting an acceptable ID a problem? In Ontario at least you can go to the closest ServiceOntario office and get an ID card as long as you have some mail or a bank statement or something to prove you live at a certain address.

edited 17th Jun '13 7:05:31 PM by Zendervai

RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#56610: Jun 17th 2013 at 7:12:02 PM

Yeah, because we're sensible about giving citizens their ID when they need it and don't have an entire political party who is dependent on outright voter disenfranchisement to win national elections (the Tories aren't there yet, they depend on apathy).

In other news, are you shitting me?

But residents of Moore may be shocked when they receive their insurance checks in the coming weeks. Like survivors of previous natural disasters, they will encounter a major obstacle to rebuilding their homes and putting the catastrophe behind them: their mortgage servicer. Turns out the same companies that ripped off homeowners during the foreclosure crisis are, after disasters like the Moore tornado, withholding repair money, often to force homeowners to use the proceeds to pay their mortgage.

The key issue concerns the standard practice for large homeowner’s insurance claims. As laid out in the fine print of mortgage and insurance contracts, the insurance company will make out the check jointly to the homeowner and the homeowner’s mortgage servicer. If the homeowner has a second mortgage on the home with a different servicer, the insurer writes a three-party check. This is intended to protect the lender if the house simply cannot be rebuilt, at which point the proceeds from the insurance claim can get used to pay off the loan. But in all other cases, it means that the homeowner must secure the endorsement of the check from the servicer(s) before they can get the money to pay for repairs.

I must apologize for pulling a summary from Charles Pierce, whom I quote too often, I know.
Your house is pretty much gone, but you have to use the money to pay off the house that isn't there any more. The logic of capitalism remains unassailable.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#56611: Jun 17th 2013 at 7:12:32 PM

[up][up]Oh, you have no idea. It's... very location dependent whether you have convenient ID services in the U.S., and it almost always has a fee.

edited 17th Jun '13 7:12:40 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
DrunkGirlfriend from Castle Geekhaven Since: Jan, 2011
#56612: Jun 17th 2013 at 7:23:01 PM

[up][up] Honestly, I'm surprised more people don't know that this is standard procedure.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#56613: Jun 17th 2013 at 7:42:05 PM

@zendervai: because conveniently, a lot of DM Vs and other places you can get an ID card in the US tend to be open during hours where its far more likely a middle or upper class person can ask off work to go get one than a poor person.

In short, its far easier to get an id card if you're a WASP.

getting an ID card should be something easy. Instead, its yet another convenient way to shut out the poor and the brown-skinned.

edited 17th Jun '13 7:42:43 PM by midgetsnowman

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#56614: Jun 17th 2013 at 8:17:53 PM

So. Three smart SC decisions, one random act of brainlessness.

Better than we'd expect. (Though I'm surprised the way the dice fell on the lawyers' rights decision.)

edited 17th Jun '13 8:19:37 PM by Ramidel

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#56615: Jun 17th 2013 at 8:24:39 PM

I still don't understand why the government doesn't just issue mandatory ID cards. It would be a lot simpler than having to go and get one and would easily put to rest any disputes of whether or not someone is illegal.

In other news fuck you Rick Scott. In an ideal world you'd be voted out for this but I know that won't happen. And people wonder why we need unions.

edited 17th Jun '13 8:24:56 PM by Kostya

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#56616: Jun 17th 2013 at 8:41:27 PM

Nothing Rick Scott does can surprise me at this point. Most Floridians hate him, though, and the big question is whether he's going to get primary'd out by his own party or lose to whatever Democratic candidate ends up running against him.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#56617: Jun 18th 2013 at 12:36:30 AM

Checking Scalia's decision on shitcanning the Arizona voter-registration law, it looks like he wanted to keep it, but he was hamstrung by having to obey the Literal Word of the Constitution.

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the places of chusing Senators."

So, "federal law trumps state, sorry Arizona."


On another subject, this is something that, in a sane world, would amount to a right-wing argument for raising the minimum wage. Wal-Mart workers are paid so little that they qualify for Medicaid, food stamps, housing assistance, et cetera.

I can just imagine how it'd go over at a Tea Party meeting, though.

edited 18th Jun '13 12:49:43 AM by Ramidel

Medinoc from France (Before Recorded History)
#56618: Jun 18th 2013 at 2:45:09 AM

...Your supreme court seriously ruled that Miranda rights don't exist until they're read to you (or you say you already know they do)? O_o

How is that not an incentive to withhold reading them?


On the Iran side, to be fair with the supreme leader, his infographic is right: Your indirect voting is a joke. We got rid of most of itnote  fifty-plus years ago.

edited 18th Jun '13 2:51:07 AM by Medinoc

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#56619: Jun 18th 2013 at 2:54:13 AM

Although the Supreme Leader is confusing the federal elections (which can't be gerrymandered, except in Maine and Nebraska) with the House ones.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Medinoc from France (Before Recorded History)
#56620: Jun 18th 2013 at 2:58:23 AM

They can't? Surely the "popular vote vs. actual election result" problem shouldn't exist in this case...

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."
Balmung Since: Oct, 2011
#56621: Jun 18th 2013 at 3:35:30 AM

The thing is, theoretically, a candidate could just barely win in the states they do win and tank hard everywhere else and come out the winner in the Electoral college with something like 30% of the popular vote.

*Looks back a page* Wow, I think Dred Scott may have a competitor for "Worst Supreme Court ruling ever made".

edited 18th Jun '13 3:42:00 AM by Balmung

GlennMagusHarvey Since: Jan, 2001
#56622: Jun 18th 2013 at 5:58:35 AM

Actually, the state boundaries were already gerrymandered. We got several states out of the whole Wyoming/Utah/Colorado/etc. area because the Republicans actually did that so they'd get more electoral votes, according to what I've read in the book How the States got their Shapes.

Also, that James Altucher guy has some interesting observations — such as that primary elections are won by turnout, and turnout is driven by consistent voters who likely have little else to do with their time, such as people in their retirement. And such people have a higher-than-par probability to be in nursing homes, and thus be available for voter outreach contact in high density.

On the other hand, he's also got some crazy-as-hell ideas, such as his idea of simply selling off everything that the government does. No, economics doesn't work like that. These are public goods provided by the government because the market, working on an every-entity-for-itself basis, underprovides public goods. Plus, private companies aim to profit from an enterprise, and that means that the return on the service (be it a bridge or the post office or whatever) has to exceed the operating costs, rather than just break even — which means it would need to charge people more than it ought to.

edited 18th Jun '13 6:00:08 AM by GlennMagusHarvey

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#56623: Jun 18th 2013 at 7:23:28 AM

...Your supreme court seriously ruled that Miranda rights don't exist until they're read to you (or you say you already know they do)? O_o
No. They exist, and anything you say still can't be used against you in court, but they're allowed to point out "well, he was answering questions right up until we asked him this question, then he stopped talking" — unless you actually say "I'm pleading the 5th", in which case they can't. There have been a handful of odd "do you have to actually SAY that you're invoking your right to remain silent, or can you just not say anything" cases in the last few years.

They can't? Surely the "popular vote vs. actual election result" problem shouldn't exist in this case...
No, federal elections can't be gerrymandered, because the entire state is the voting district, and state borders (unlike voting districts) aren't redrawn every 10 years. The reason why you can still have the "popular vote vs electoral college results" thing is because one candidate can win 100% of a small state with few electoral college votes, but only 49% of a large state with many electoral college votes, which would give them more votes overall, but fewer electoral college votes.

The reason we have an electoral college is a states' rights issue. It's a compromise between giving all states equal standing in presidential elections, which would make the "popular vote vs electoral college" thing a thousand times worse, and doing a straight popular vote, which would mean that small states get completely screwed despite every state having equal standing on the federal level in a lot of ways.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#56624: Jun 18th 2013 at 7:32:28 AM

Why the states should have "equal voice" in electing the President is a bit of a mystery to me; it means that a vote in a heavily populated state counts less than a vote in a lightly populated state, just because we assign arbitrary value to some lines drawn on a map.

I know that the Founding Fathers didn't really like the idea of Quality by Popular Vote when they drew up the Constitution, but the idea that we could elect the leader of our country with anything less than a majority vote is extremely strange.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
GlennMagusHarvey Since: Jan, 2001
#56625: Jun 18th 2013 at 10:40:20 AM

Why the states should have "equal voice" in electing the President is a bit of a mystery to me

Because we established that "one person, one vote" is less important than fulfilling the idea of everyone getting a little bit of their way when they complain loudly enough.


Total posts: 417,856
Top