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

Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#116726: Mar 19th 2016 at 1:59:06 AM

[up]There's a difference between a state choosing its own ideology and a different group persuading people to elect leaders with similar viewpoints. This goes as much for secular ideologies as it does for religious ones.

edited 19th Mar '16 1:59:43 AM by Protagonist506

Leviticus 19:34
smokeycut Since: Mar, 2013
#116727: Mar 19th 2016 at 2:05:38 AM

The mixing of Church and State is something I'm very much opposed to. If a country is meant to be for people of all religions (and lack of religion), one religion's beliefs should never be held as law. Whether that's no working on the Sabbath, no gay marriage, no eating shellfish, etc.

You can't force someone to follow the rules of a religion they don't believe in.

Iaculus Pronounced YAK-you-luss from England Since: May, 2010
Luminosity Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Lovey-Dovey
#116729: Mar 19th 2016 at 2:12:52 AM

Integration of church and state is nothing but a thin-veiled excuse for oppression and greed. It's a backwards, regressive notion that has no reason to exist.

[up]

"I don't understand the pursuit of "apologies" in circumstances like this.

CONDEMN Cruz for his associations, don't pretty-please beg him to pretend to be more moderate than he is."

One comment says. I agree.

edited 19th Mar '16 2:20:58 AM by Luminosity

Eschaton Since: Jul, 2010
#116730: Mar 19th 2016 at 2:20:23 AM

[up][up][up]Yes. Unless you assert that the legal laws of a nation must be derived from the moral laws of a (our) religion.

Hence all the talk of "Judeo-Christian values." They don't necessarily want everyone to be Christian, they just want everybody to do the right things. Which happen to be Christian. Therefore anything else happens to be wrong. And people going around doing "objectively wrong" things is no basis for a system of government.

This is tied into the idea that only religion begets morality, which is a very prevalent viewpoint in America (and around the world, for that matter) as far as I'm aware. Scalia, for example, seemed to be of that persuasion from the few pieces I've seen.

edited 19th Mar '16 2:25:12 AM by Eschaton

Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#116731: Mar 19th 2016 at 2:27:23 AM

[up]Regardless of whether only religion is the only thing that begets morality (and I'll give you a hint: it isn't), religious ideologies tend to have ethical codes involved. These ethical systems should be looked at and considered by society-it makes no sense to exclude one simply because it's religious in origin.

edited 19th Mar '16 2:31:48 AM by Protagonist506

Leviticus 19:34
flameboy21th The would-be novelist from California Since: Jan, 2013 Relationship Status: I <3 love!
The would-be novelist
#116732: Mar 19th 2016 at 2:32:27 AM

I'm not sure any ethical code is religious by origin. Religion is used as a tool to enforce ethical code.

edited 19th Mar '16 2:39:17 AM by flameboy21th

Non Indicative Username
Luminosity Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Lovey-Dovey
#116733: Mar 19th 2016 at 2:35:41 AM

[up][up] Ethical codes that are actually ethical stand up just fine on their own without needing religious enforcement. Murder is criminalized just fine without commandments. If an "ethical" code absolutely needs religious enforcement to function - it's not that ethical to begin with.

Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#116734: Mar 19th 2016 at 2:36:01 AM

[up][up]There are ethical codes that are non-religious and irreligious in nature, but most religions have an ethical code of some sort.

edited 19th Mar '16 2:38:30 AM by Protagonist506

Leviticus 19:34
flameboy21th The would-be novelist from California Since: Jan, 2013 Relationship Status: I <3 love!
The would-be novelist
#116735: Mar 19th 2016 at 2:38:02 AM

All religions have ethical codes, but those codes predate them.

Non Indicative Username
Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#116736: Mar 19th 2016 at 2:39:18 AM

[up]In that case, I'd argue that it really doesn't matter that a religion is spreading them.

Leviticus 19:34
Luminosity Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Lovey-Dovey
#116737: Mar 19th 2016 at 2:43:35 AM

[up] Religion? No. State religion? Yes. State religions are oppresive, dogmatic, and unchanging by nature, which isn't a good thing for any ethical code, even disregarding the "ethical" codes that always string along because some pastor really can't stop fantasizing about other people's bedrooms.

Very few things are always right and very few things are always wrong. State religion is a social gridlock trying its best to make that untrue. I would not accept even a state religion that somehow perfectly 100% matched my values for exactly this reason. I'm pretty sure no such religion exists(they're all damn prudes, for one...), just hypothetically.

edited 19th Mar '16 2:48:23 AM by Luminosity

flameboy21th The would-be novelist from California Since: Jan, 2013 Relationship Status: I <3 love!
The would-be novelist
#116738: Mar 19th 2016 at 2:44:35 AM

The thing is, not all of these codes age well. Science Marches On, Society Marches On, but religions still keep them around because God's word is eternal or something.

edited 19th Mar '16 2:45:25 AM by flameboy21th

Non Indicative Username
Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#116739: Mar 19th 2016 at 2:52:17 AM

[up][up]I never said anything about state religion, simply that religious ethics should not be excluded on principle (and by extension, that religious organizations should make their values popular, and that the state should consider these values).

Leviticus 19:34
Luminosity Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Lovey-Dovey
#116740: Mar 19th 2016 at 2:53:08 AM

[up]Then it's up to the values themselves to "sell" themselves, and only the really bad ones can't survive without religious enforcement.

edited 19th Mar '16 2:53:27 AM by Luminosity

optimusjamie Since: Jun, 2010
#116741: Mar 19th 2016 at 4:04:32 AM

Question: What can the President do/not do with executive orders?

Direct all enquiries to Jamie B Good
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#116742: Mar 19th 2016 at 4:07:56 AM

Everything he's authorized by law, basically.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#116743: Mar 19th 2016 at 5:33:29 AM

That's a Mathematician's Answer, man.

edited 19th Mar '16 5:34:38 AM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
TerminusEst from the Land of Winter and Stars Since: Feb, 2010
#116744: Mar 19th 2016 at 5:37:08 AM

[up][up][up]

Anything as long as it's kept classified for national security reasonstongue

I mean, who knows what a creative use of a state of emergency and Directive 51 can do?

EDIT: Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

Ooh, devious.

edited 19th Mar '16 6:51:35 AM by TerminusEst

Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#116745: Mar 19th 2016 at 7:04:49 AM

I'm not sure how well I'll explain this, so here goes:

I don't have issues with a religious person in office per se. Or, to put it another way, I've no issue with someone who learned their values from religion and goes to church regularly.

My issue comes from people whose religion actively dictates everything they do. This is the impression I get from men like Cruz, who use their faith as the primary basis of their ideas.

It's kind of the difference between being a Christian in the White House and wanting to make the White House Christian.

The separation of Church and State on a country as diverse as the US has always struck me as painfully obvious necessity. Trying to combine them carries an obvious problem that can be expressed in one simple question: Which religion?

edited 19th Mar '16 7:05:49 AM by sgamer82

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#116746: Mar 19th 2016 at 7:34:55 AM

[up]I have basically the same opinion. I don't think being religious should be an automatic disqualifier. Let's be honest, if it was no candidate would ever get elected. However, if a person's religion is the driving force behind beliefs and actions I wouldn't feel comfortable voting for them.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#116747: Mar 19th 2016 at 7:45:34 AM

Agreed. You can have a religion, just don't make that the point.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
pwiegle Cape Malleum Majorem from Nowhere Special Since: Sep, 2015 Relationship Status: Singularity
Cape Malleum Majorem
#116748: Mar 19th 2016 at 7:54:17 AM

If your religion defines you as a person, to the point where it crowds out all other influences (like family, schoolteachers, etc.) and its doctrine dictates your beliefs and actions — guess what: you're a fanatic.

And as someone once said, there's nothing more dangerous than a zealot with a cause.

This Space Intentionally Left Blank.
TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#116749: Mar 19th 2016 at 7:57:29 AM

The UK's Church is a strange case in that it constitutes the Trope Namer for "the Establishment". Antidisestablishmentarianism is the longest English word, and basically means being against separation of Church and State. It is the most boring, bland Church to have ever bored, and deliberately so. Truly a fascinating phenomenon.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
TerminusEst from the Land of Winter and Stars Since: Feb, 2010
#116750: Mar 19th 2016 at 8:48:26 AM

The Evangelic-Lutheran Chruch is the official state church of Finland. Yet, this is only reflected in that the Church has a right to collect taxes, which mostly funds its charities. They literally have no other function.

Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele

Total posts: 417,856
Top