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

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#106476: Dec 10th 2015 at 7:52:57 PM

Yeah, that varies widely between states. Maine and Vermont even let people vote while they're incarcerated.

edited 10th Dec '15 7:53:24 PM by LSBK

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#106477: Dec 10th 2015 at 7:59:49 PM

It is also not clear to me what reasoning or mechanism could be used to justify revoking his citizenship, short of a conviction for treason.

Which wouldn't even revoke his citizenship anyway. It'd revoke his life. Treason is a capital offense.

Another reason why it's really hard and you have to really f*ck up to get a treason conviction. Treason isn't something that we just throw around to get rid of people, it means you've screwed up so hard that the federal government is demanding your head.

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#106478: Dec 10th 2015 at 8:01:07 PM

Last time someone got hit for treason it was this couple who sent all of our nuclear bomb designs to the Soviets.

Like it just straight up doesn't get worse than that.

Oh really when?
Ogodei Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers from The front lines Since: Jan, 2011
Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers
#106479: Dec 10th 2015 at 8:02:29 PM

Revoking citizenship is a violation of human rights treaties, at any rate. Protection from Statelessness is an international no-no.

Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#106480: Dec 10th 2015 at 8:05:08 PM

Re: definition of treason: for our purposes, it's written directly into the Constitution (for the reason mentioned before: the founding fathers were wary of the British tendency to define treason with a broad brush).

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The last time I remember a successful conviction in history, I forget exactly, but I want to say it was the 1920s. Ninja'd, 1950s

Re: Atheisim - America has always been a hotbed for evangilisim - the Pilgrims and Puritins were themselves a radical protestant sect (though officially, their crime was not bowing to the Church of England), as were the Quakers that founded Pennsylvania (though they were much more open to religious tolerance and the modern-day sect that bears their name has shed most of its more puritan practices. Maryland was founded as a Catholic haven (in an era where being an English Catholic left you open for fairly serious persecution). The 1800s saw multiple evangelical revival movements that directly or indirectly gave rise to many of today's evangelicals as well as the Mormons. Former black slaves took to Christianity in spite of it having been touted out as one of the tools of their opression because they identified with the Old Testiment story of Exodus and the New Testiment themes of "love thy neighbor" and "love the poor and downtrodden" and weren't blind to the hypocrisy of their white masters in using it. (A century later, a Baptist preacher would become the face of the Civil Rights movement: Martin Luther King Jr.)

In the 1950s it became about the Cold War and vilification of everything communist - and communist states enforced athiesim. This was the era that "In God We Trust" got added to the currency and "one nation under God" added to the Pledge of Allegiance.

The founding fathers, contrary to evangelical belief, were not all extremely religious - a lot of them subscribed to a sort of Englightenment-era Diesim, Thomas Paine was an athiest, and the religious freedom and non-establishment clauses of the 1st Amendment were both a recognition of America's diverse faiths and an awareness of the problems of state religion that England had (best summed up in an essay by Edmund Burke that I'm not going to hunt down right this minute).

Nonetheless, religion and Christianity in particular, got rooted in hard, compared to, say, France and it's attempts to officially secularize. I can't find it, but there was a poll and a corresponding article in The Economist saying that an overwhelming majority of those Americans polled would not trust an athiest President; I'm fairly sure such a poll would have to cross party lines include plenty of moderate Christians. The argument-from-religion basically boils down to God as the original lawgiver, and if you don't respect Him, how can you be trusted with regards to law and morality.

(This is another reason I don't think Bernie Sanders has a prayer (ahem) even if it weren't running against Hillary; if he's not atheist, he's close enough to it for propaganda purposes. That's on top of being enough-of-an-actual-socialist and openly so for that to be used against him)

edited 10th Dec '15 8:05:52 PM by Elle

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#106481: Dec 10th 2015 at 8:08:37 PM

The funny thing is that Trump is as close to an atheist, or at least irreligious, as you're going to find in the GOP candidates' pool. I privately suspect that both Rand Paul and Paul Ryan (who has aspirations to run in the future) are pretty secular, too. Remember that Ryan was infamously vocal about his worship of Ayn Rand, before someone pointed out publicly that she was a staunch atheist

Rand Paul has also made no point of his religion that I can remember. He's running as a capital-L Libertarian, meaning that, if he's being intellectually honest with his politics, he should want religion out of government.

Ted Cruz aside, this election is not one where the evangelical wing of the GOP is in control. Trump is galvanizing all the angry white people who wear their Christianity in much the same way that they might display a childhood bowling trophy.

edited 10th Dec '15 8:11:36 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#106482: Dec 10th 2015 at 8:28:14 PM

though officially, their crime was not bowing to the Church of England

Not bowing in this case meaning not lightening when told to stop burning Catholics at the stake.

the religious freedom and non-establishment clauses of the 1st Amendment were both a recognition of America's diverse faiths and an awareness of the problems of state religion that England had

Key word there is "had", we've still got a state Church and bishops can vote on laws, but we actually have less religion in politics then you guys do (not counting Northern Ireland, which is a separate problem).

The US Founders seem to have been really good at identifying key problems and bottling them up for another day instead of realising that they will have to be aired and dealt with at some point. The religious wars of Europe weren't fun but we learned from them and moved on from that shit in the end.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#106483: Dec 10th 2015 at 8:33:11 PM

Too many people forget that part about Rand's athiesim as well as all the parts about objective reality being primary, although even Rand was pretty shaky about the process of actually arriving at that picture of reality. I am not an Objectivist, but I read Rand extensively at a very formative time in my teenage years and was later forced to confront the differences between those, i.e. not accepting things "just" on faith or emotion and my faith as a Catholic. Faith lost.

To avoid another long wall of text, I generally believe there is a lot that is positive in Rand's writings, but you have to read them critically and be wary of the traps that are there, as well as be aware of the fact that most of her followers fail at the first hurdle of questioning assumptions. Also, RL's been grinding me down lately in a way that makes it harder to be enthusiastic about debating the points of Objectivisim without my personal issues being dragged in as detractions.

Edit: [up] Source on the "stop burning catholics" thing?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not actualy trying to downplay that they did a lot of things that were really shitty and they were in no way tolerant of other religions but I can't find a reference to that...unless you mean Oliver Cromwell who was bad news all around.

edited 10th Dec '15 8:56:13 PM by Elle

FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#106484: Dec 10th 2015 at 8:52:19 PM

We have a religion thread, yes?

Can we get back to politics please, for those of us who avoid the theological debates here for a reason?

Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#106485: Dec 10th 2015 at 8:58:08 PM

One, this is history and not theology and two, you can't really separate religion from American politics entirely. The question asked was "why are Americans so big on religion when it's not as much a thing in the rest of the West?"

edited 10th Dec '15 9:09:36 PM by Elle

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#106486: Dec 10th 2015 at 9:56:00 PM

Frankly, I find it troubling that people seem to think that we can't get over this because we didn't have religion meddling in politics in a particular way and it somehow means we're not "getting over it" fast enough. The "getting over it" involved hundreds of years of struggle in other countries.

DrunkenNordmann from Exile Since: May, 2015
#106487: Dec 10th 2015 at 9:58:15 PM

[up] I still think not having a massive decades-spanning war over religion that ravaged a large area may have something to do with that.

We learn from history that we do not learn from history
Know-age Since: May, 2010
#106488: Dec 10th 2015 at 10:03:01 PM

Did religion in Europe actually fall off after any particular religious war? I have trouble believing it.

rikalous World's Cutest Direwolf from Upscale Mordor (Before Recorded History) Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
World's Cutest Direwolf
#106489: Dec 10th 2015 at 10:03:12 PM

[up][up]You know, that's a tradeoff I'm perfectly willing to accept. I'm rather fond of not having religious wars.

edited 10th Dec '15 10:03:41 PM by rikalous

Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#106490: Dec 10th 2015 at 10:15:37 PM

Relevant reading, BTW. The history of religious tolerance and persecution in early America. The founding fathers set the ideal in motion here, it's living up to it that's been hard.

We did, at least, mostly get over fear of Catholics after JFK and after the reforms within Catholicism that started with Pope John Paul II. There are exceptions, but it's not a widely held belief anymore that the Pope would want to take over the country (something that seemed much less far-fetched in the 1600s, admittedly).

[up][up]I know the French Revolution tried to enforce secularism even more than the American founders did (the Catholic Church, the "second estate", held a big share of the country's wealth and IIRC they tried to seize a lot of it). It didn't end well but I'm not sure off the top of my head what happened from Napoleon onward in that regard.

edited 10th Dec '15 10:35:22 PM by Elle

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#106491: Dec 10th 2015 at 10:40:24 PM

There's nothing I know of in European history that suggest wars had any role in actually increasing religious tolerance in ANY country over there, or anywhere in the world at all. Just the slowly spreading idea that persecuting people over the issue is majorly fucking uncool.

Also which, you know, the Founding Fathers were kind of able to figure out possibly from looking at all the different denominations and such in this country they were trying to build and sayiworkedng "hey maybe we should try and eliminate at least one cause of political" and so far it's worked in the sense that we haven't had a war over it. The suggestion that we can't learn a particular lesson without SEVERAL wars is quite frankly insulting to the entire human race. And also kinda seems like wishing this country would collapse into some kind of armed conflict with ourselves.

edited 10th Dec '15 10:42:10 PM by AceofSpades

Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#106492: Dec 10th 2015 at 10:49:25 PM

I do worry, rightly or wrongly, that if the Evangelical side of the GOP got enough power we'd see some serious backpedaling on what progress we've made. In some states it's already the case with regard to things like teaching evolution; it's a huge violation of the establishment clause but it's loophole-y enough that getting a federal court case to contest it is hard.

If anything at all positive could come out of Trump's candidacy, I would want the current GOP-Evangelical-Tea Party alliance to crash and burn.

edited 10th Dec '15 10:55:59 PM by Elle

Mopman43 Since: Nov, 2013
#106493: Dec 10th 2015 at 11:04:07 PM

To be honest, I really can't see outright Evangelicals getting the majority of the power. We might be one of the most religious western countries around, but I think the majority of us are fairly secular about it, with a sizable minority of evangelicals.

FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#106494: Dec 10th 2015 at 11:38:54 PM

Can we move on now, or is more shitting on the religious needed?

Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#106495: Dec 11th 2015 at 12:10:17 AM

Your choice of words suggests the possibility that you might be taking the subject too personally.

It's part of our political history. It's a factor in our political present. Not all of it is pretty. Pretending it isn't does no one any favors.

I won't deny that my dislike of religion is showing but personally, if they aren't evangelizing to me or trying to force others to act according to your beliefs, I don't care about a person's religion.

edited 11th Dec '15 12:10:55 AM by Elle

FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#106496: Dec 11th 2015 at 12:20:07 AM

Yeah it's showing and its turning the topic from mere history to a treatise on how religion is something to overcome rather than a part of culture like anything else.

Move On. Better yet, move the discussion to the religion thread. This is the US politics thread, not the US history thread, so telling me this is for historical purposes is still off topic and a nonsense excuse.

EDIT-

As for supposedly pretending something, I'm not commenting on this topic. So do not put words in my mouth. And stop attempting to make your point with such broad strokes. There are those of us who are religious and perfectly normal and thus reject the false secular/fundamentalist bullshit both extremes tend to push on people.

edited 11th Dec '15 12:26:37 AM by FFShinra

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#106497: Dec 11th 2015 at 12:20:41 AM

I was more upset by the thought that we're somehow immature as a country because we've managed, largely, to avoid outright political strife and general persecution in the style of Britain and Europe by specifically disallowing religion and politics to be involved in that way. I mean, obviously there's a lot of voters out there that wouldn't vote for a professed Christian, but it's illegal to create a state religion, it's illegal to deny anything on a religious basis. Certain other factors are still being put through court cases (frustrating as that may be) but it's still more civilized than armed conflict.

"Oh you haven't had a war to purge that out of you" is kind of a bullshit reason to explain the current religious fervor that we're dealing with these days. I don't even really buy the whole Puritan thing on account of a lot of the issue stemming from areas the Puritans didn't even settle in.

Hell, I consider myself to be at least a bit religious. I just think there's better ways to explain the shit that's going on.

Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#106498: Dec 11th 2015 at 12:34:22 AM

History and politics aren't things you can neatly separate. Each informs and shapes the other. Learn from history or be doomed to repeat it, etc. Likewise, religion and politics both have a lot to do with the question "what is right to do?" and are at various times either informing or in conflict with the other.

(I am probably soon to go quiet but more for the fact that I should be falling asleep soon than anything else and the conversation will probably move of its own accord.)

(Edit reply to edit: I was trying to phrase that in the least confrontational or accusatory way possible. All I meant was that whatever I think about religion shouldn't be taken in any way to mean I think anything about you or whatever your faith is because I don't know anything about you.)

edited 11th Dec '15 12:39:26 AM by Elle

FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#106499: Dec 11th 2015 at 12:39:54 AM

There. Is. A. Dedicated. Thread. For. This. Topic.


Total posts: 417,856
Top