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

Xopher001 Since: Jul, 2012
#105001: Nov 16th 2015 at 9:37:00 AM

This makes me mad. Also how is Michigan as bad as those other states?

JackOLantern1337 Shameful Display from The Most Miserable Province in the Russian Empir Since: Aug, 2014 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
Shameful Display
#105003: Nov 16th 2015 at 9:50:13 AM

Oh and Jeb Bush apparently only wants to accept only Christians. While allowing in persecuted minorities ahead of regular groups is a legitimate strategy, the fact that he is not talking about the most persecuted and marginalized group of them all, LGBT people, speaks volumes.

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
darksidevoid Anti-Gnosis Weapon from The Frontiers (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: Robosexual
Anti-Gnosis Weapon
#105004: Nov 16th 2015 at 9:57:10 AM

I've been wondering why, when all the candidates are willing to be in more debates, the DNC hasn't decided to schedule a couple more. Pretty sure they could find a place to do it.
Frankly, it's pretty obviously because the DNC, headed by Clinton's former campaign co-chair, wants to shield their favored candidate, Clinton, from "too much exposure" and potentially bad press. Debates would be to her disadvantage because they would provide Sanders and O'Malley's messages with a national stage (which is also why all the debates are scheduled at absurd times, to garner the fewest possible viewers). As the "front-runner" and favorite of the party establishment, and with Sanders' support pretty fervent and therefore locked up, Clinton's numbers have nowhere to really go from these debates except down.

The unbelievably stupid thing about this strategy is that what's going to matter in November of next year is turnout and enthusiasm among voters of each party, since no true independents exist anymore and only a handful of swing states matter (though at least there are more swing states than a couple cycles ago). Are the Dems going to be enthusiastic about the Clinton dynasty being foisted upon them without free and fair debate? Hell no. Their turnout will be depressed. Repub voters, on the other hand, hate Clinton with a burning passion and will probably turn out in droves to defeat her, almost regardless of who their own candidate is.

And that's not even getting into the fact that lack of enthusiasm among Dems will also lead to failure to retake the House or Senate in the best cycle they have the chance to do so for the next twelve years! That leaves Dems with only two possible outcomes: divided government in which Clinton triangulates away all of the party's priorities or gets nothing done, or Republican control of all three branches.

If this sounds angry, by the way, please don't think that anger is directed at yourself. All my ire is reserved for the DNC and their hamfisted incompetency.

Heck, the most exposure I've gotten was the forum hosted by Maddow, which was on at a time when people would be home. Some, anyway. Did the DNC schedule that, too?
Nope, that doesn't count as a debate, just as a forum. Basically, candidates can't be on the stage at the same time or it counts as a debate, but single candidates at once is fair game.

GM: AGOG S4 & F/WC RP; Co-GM: TABA, SOTR, UUA RP; Sub-GM: TTS RP. I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new Empire.
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#105005: Nov 16th 2015 at 10:16:28 AM

Pastafarian claims religious liberty to break rule against wearing hats in license photos, Massachusetts shrugs and says "sure, whatever."

Doing it in Massachusetts isn't very good satire, though - nobody's going to make a fuss about it there. The proper place to do this kind of thing is in the Deep South.

tricksterson Never Trust from Behind you with an icepick Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Above such petty unnecessities
Never Trust
#105006: Nov 16th 2015 at 10:21:35 AM

Yeah but what if he, you know, wants to live?

Trump delenda est
Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#105007: Nov 16th 2015 at 10:26:36 AM

The problem with that argument is that hats aren't a part of the Pastafarian religion. You should follow the almighty Hat Goddess.

Well, "no hats" in ID photos is a trivial enough rule that I believe the state's answer was appropriate.

I'd probably argue that parody religions "Don't Count" for the protections we give other religions. Then again, I can see this rule being used against legitimate religions by falsely labeling them parodies-particularly New-Agey religions.

edited 16th Nov '15 10:29:51 AM by Protagonist506

Leviticus 19:34
Joesolo Indiana Solo Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Indiana Solo
#105008: Nov 16th 2015 at 10:33:12 AM

It's hard to draw a line, so you end up just having to let the "pastafarians" and "satanists" do their little mockery routine. Same as how the west Boro people are allowed to do their hate filled protests. That's how freedom works

I'm baaaaaaack
Luminosity Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Lovey-Dovey
#105009: Nov 16th 2015 at 10:39:34 AM

The right wing seems to draw the line on "If you aren't our kind of Christian, as far as we're concerned, you don't have religion."

Joesolo Indiana Solo Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Indiana Solo
#105010: Nov 16th 2015 at 10:46:54 AM

And that's why you cant draw a line. Someone would want to cut somebody out.

Ie, do neo pagans count? They're basically pop-culture versions of old pagans that only started in the 40s. Falun gong? (Probably butchered the name). What about non native followers of traditional Native American religions?

Better to just accommodate anything that's easily done/ doesn't violate someone else's rights (Ie, no human sacrifice).

edited 16th Nov '15 10:51:41 AM by Joesolo

I'm baaaaaaack
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#105011: Nov 16th 2015 at 11:15:20 AM

I don't know... do we want to get to the point where each law, ordinance, regulation, and rule is assigned some kind of Permitted Religious Exemption Rating? I would be happier with the converse — no exceptions whatsoever.

However, if some religions are allowed exceptions, then all of them should. That's simple parity.

edited 16th Nov '15 11:16:16 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Luminosity Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Lovey-Dovey
#105012: Nov 16th 2015 at 11:25:16 AM

[up][up] That's inevitable. Ultimately, the only thing separating personal spiritual belief(or faking of one) with various degrees of kookiness from a full-blown religion is numbers.

I hypothesize there's a parallel universe where instead of a "Should you be allowed to wear a Hijab to school" debate there is a "Should you be allowed to go to school nude" one, because parallel universe Islam is big on nudism.

It's ultimately a case to case thing. There's no other way to go about it. If you just put a blanket allowance on everything - most laws will become obsolete due to anyone being able to make up a religion where they are. Not allowing that is arbitrarily limiting to the established and privileged religions, also not a good thing. No exceptions is harming religious expression. If a person wants to wear a hijab on their ID photo, that's their business.

Case to case, ultimately.

edited 16th Nov '15 11:26:05 AM by Luminosity

carbon-mantis Collector Of Fine Oddities from Trumpland Since: Mar, 2010 Relationship Status: Married to my murderer
Collector Of Fine Oddities
#105013: Nov 16th 2015 at 11:29:42 AM

@Michigan, pretty sure I heard that the state is actually going after the Lutheran Church and it's charity wings for arranging for aid and housing for Syrian refugees coming to the state.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#105014: Nov 16th 2015 at 11:30:28 AM

[up][up] I would rather ask the question: Does the banning of headwear in a driver's license photo serve any reasonable purpose? If the point of the photo is to allow an individual to be visually identified, and they always wear the hijab in public, then a person using the license to identify them would be better served by having it present than not.

There's also the question of whether the value of the rule outweighs the drawback of causing many people to choose not to obtain photo ID because the procedure for doing so might violate their beliefs.

We could try the alternative approach of banning religious headwear in public, but that's a terribly slippery slope and I would not advocate it.

Possibly related question: how are Muslim women (or Sikh men, for that matter) who enter the U.S. military treated? I can't imagine they'd be allowed to wear cultural garb there.

edited 16th Nov '15 11:33:17 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#105015: Nov 16th 2015 at 11:51:35 AM

They are allowed to wear religious garb, unless it poses some kind of safety hazard.

Here is an image I saw:

https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-1105bc18876cca007b6b42a91fa88546?convert_to_webp=true

edited 16th Nov '15 11:52:55 AM by Protagonist506

Leviticus 19:34
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#105016: Nov 16th 2015 at 11:52:49 AM

If the military does it, it must be Right for America (tm), according to conservatives. So there you go.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Luminosity Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Lovey-Dovey
Xopher001 Since: Jul, 2012
#105018: Nov 16th 2015 at 11:58:19 AM

@carbon-mantis well now I'm really pissed off. What good reason would you have for doing that? For specifically targeting a charity and relief org for war refugees?!

Julep Since: Jul, 2010
#105019: Nov 16th 2015 at 12:16:44 PM

I just saw Donald Trump saying that the Paris attacks would have been different had people in Paris carried guns.

I don't think any language has a word strong enough to describe what I think of him right now.

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#105020: Nov 16th 2015 at 12:17:58 PM

@Darksidevoid: I think you are possibly overblowing how badly this will dent Democrat's chances. As far as I can see, both Sanders and Clinton seem to be more popular than Republican candidates at this point.

Plus, the crazy factor on the right does have a way of motivating people on the left to vote. Actually, that seems to be a thing, whenever someone is particularly crazy or something the people on the opposing side seem to be far more motivated to vote than when their own candidates are doing something good. It's kind of strange.

Basically, while dumb, I don't think it's quite as sure to lead to a Republican victory as you seem to be. I don't think there's any one single factor in this that can lead to defeat or victory on its own, really.

[up]Oh, him and others like Ann Coulter have been saying things like that since the day the attacks happened. And Republicans have the gall to say "don't politicize" things like Sandy Hook when Dems bring things up a couple days later. It's both hypocritical and actually consistent, considering this is exactly what's been said about guns in general. Never mind the fact that terrorists and the like deliberately look for situations where everyone's guard is down.

edited 16th Nov '15 12:19:59 PM by AceofSpades

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#105021: Nov 16th 2015 at 12:20:35 PM

The attacks were suicide bombings weren't they? Unless the bombers fuck up they're going to explode on you before you even realize there's any danger.

Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#105022: Nov 16th 2015 at 12:24:20 PM

They took hostages and stuff so they did stop for a while

The only thing more guns would have caused here though?

Just the same amount of death. You know. Splodey guy gets shot. He still blows up. Stray bullets kill others. Difference is, this time it is a rallying cry for more guns as an answer to everything.

And. You know how that goes.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
Julep Since: Jul, 2010
#105023: Nov 16th 2015 at 12:25:54 PM

Yeah, we slightly lower the odds of having another bombing, and drastically improve those of a madman getting his hands on a weapon and slaughtering people without even knowing what ISIS means.

Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#105024: Nov 16th 2015 at 12:29:04 PM

How would it deter more bombings?

There are entire armies in the land the Daesh call theirs, and they are not deterred from bombing even then. It would just make them a lot more careful and, as Paris shows, they can be.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
BonsaiForest Since: Jan, 2001
#105025: Nov 16th 2015 at 1:04:25 PM

America's red state crisis.

If America’s poverty is concentrated in the South, as data clearly show, why is it that those states are the most reliably Republican voters – essentially voting against the government assistance they would seem to need?

(...)

“I think a lot of people relying on the government are fed up with relying on the government,” says John Jones, a 50-something poultry dealer without a college degree. For these people, he says, Trump is a breath of fresh air, even hope. “He doesn’t pull any punches. He tells it like it is.”

(...)

Meanwhile, data show that the primary red axis of the country, running from Appalachia to the Southern coastal plains, is the epicenter of some of the nation’s greatest stresses. It’s here that the lack of well-paying jobs and large-scale abandonment of the job market are most pronounced, where obesity and health problems are most dire, where Walmart is winning a race to the bottom of what the American consumer can afford amid stagnating wages, and where the rising dependence on disability and Medicare is most pronounced.

“We know that problems of poverty and health are more endemic … in the red parts of the country,” says Jacob Hacker, a political scientist at Yale University. “That suggests that there’s probably lots of Republicans who live in areas where more effective government action could help them.”

Yet the South is where Obamacare sign-ups lag far behind other parts of the country. Nationwide, only 38 percent of white voters without college degrees voted for President Obama in 2012.

The answer to these apparent contradictions points to the equally strong rejection of the Republican establishment so far this election cycle: Trump has owned the red state working class, with non-college-educated whites favoring him at twice the rate of college-educated Republicans.

Two of those supporters are Paul Jones and Polly Huff, siblings who are watching the light traffic in the small Georgia town of Rutledge through the dusty windows of their classic small-town hardware store. Mr. Jones (who is unrelated to the poultry dealer) says he’s on Obamacare, and resents it. “I hate taking something that other people are paying for,” he says. “People think this stuff is free. It’s not. Somebody always pays.”

Ms. Huff says the distress is palpable in their business, which hasn't recovered since the recession. The problem is that fewer people have extra money to spend, some because they're underemployed, others because “they’re scared of losing the jobs they do have,” she says.

A poll this week showed that 74 percent of Georgia Republicans would vote for Trump if he's the GOP nominee. “I’ll vote for him over anyone from the other party,” says Paul Jones.

These Americans don’t trust the Democrats’ big government agenda or the Republicans’ ties to corporate America. And amid economic hardship, they’ve been unsettled by seismic changes to the country’s social fabric, such as the Supreme Court’s legalization of gay marriage.

(...)

“Red states, like Texas, Georgia and Utah, have done a better job over all of offering a higher standard of living relative to housing costs,” wrote demographer Richard Florida in January in a New York Times opinion article. “That basic economic fact not only helps explain why the nation’s electoral map got so much redder in the [2014] midterm elections, but also why America’s prosperity is in jeopardy.”

But it is also in red states where safety nets are weakest – often at the behest of voters. On Tuesday, for example, Kentucky voters elected a new governor who promised to roll back Obamacare, despite the fact that the state’s uninsured rate has fallen by half since the program began.

Many conservative Americans have seen their safety net not in individuals or in states, but in the interconnectedness of the relatively stable and affluent communities that directly surround them, argues Yuval Levin, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and co-author of “Room to Grow,” a call for Republicans to pay more attention to the needs of the working class.

“That kind of bottom-up common life, rather than massive, distant systems of material provisions, is [for them] what makes society tick,” Mr. Levin writes in the National Review.

But that worldview is under strain.

The Republican push to cut government spending and help business has meant “more risk has been shifting from employers and government to the backs of individuals and families,” says Mark Rank, a sociologist at Washington University in St. Louis and author of “Living on the Edge: The Realities of Welfare in America.” “That means we need to shift our framework from thinking of it as ‘them’ [who are needing help] to thinking it’s ‘us.’ The fact is, it’s middle America that is really experiencing some hard times.”

Well, their worldview may have to change. It's like they never heard of Europe or something.

edited 16th Nov '15 1:04:54 PM by BonsaiForest


Total posts: 417,856
Top