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

BonsaiForest Since: Jan, 2001
#128976: Jul 6th 2016 at 7:33:18 AM

I've been thinking about something.

How much do you think the digital divide is responsible for a lot of our current mess?

Urban and suburban people are much more likely have access to decent internet - or internet at all - which means more job opportunities, more access to information, access to a diverse range of people from all over the world, and access to a bigger potential audience/customers for any product you're selling.

The divide will only get deeper before the people wise up and demand our government close it.

If someone's hiring and they're looking for the best artist, musician, animator, writer, programmer, etc., they won't bother to look locally at some job fair. They'll go online where they can get anyone. If you don't have your work out there, they don't know you exist.

When a company's looking for customers, they can find way more customers online than locally. Amazon ships things just about anywhere in the countries they operate in. It saves me the trouble of having to worry that something I want or need (I have some medical issues) is unavailable locally because it's too unpopular or obscure. Why drive to a local store and look for stuff when I can order it online? Why pay money for gas when I can get something for possibly a lower price plus free shipping (provided I pay for Amazon Prime) and have a massive selection? Why go to a mom-and-pop store when I can get any song online?

Rural people are blaming foreigners for the disappearance of their jobs. And globalization - there is a lot of truth to that at least. But they should be blaming the digital divide, which took their opportunities away and gave them to people with good internet access. And they don't seem to be aware of that, to my knowledge. They don't seem to be aware of how important internet access is.

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#128977: Jul 6th 2016 at 7:53:48 AM

Video in this kind of case is a double-edged sword. It's obviously a useful piece of evidence for any investigation, but it's still only a piece, and a single point of view can be misleading while still convincing the public that it's an open-and-shut case.

And shooting a suspect that a fellow officer is struggling with may be the less dangerous option if the suspect is armed, especially at close range and with a clear field of fire. If it comes down to "if I shoot and miss I may hit the officer, but if I don't shoot than the suspect will shoot the officer, and missing is unlikely in this situation" then taking the shot is a reasonable decision.

There was never any risk of shooting the other officer. The one who pulls his firearm is one of the two pinning him. He's basically kneeling on the guy's face. In the video, it's not clear whether the guy even pulled out the gun or if they just found it on his person.

Not that it really matters. The officer who shoots him doesn't really act with any sense of urgency. After the cry of, "He's got a gun," goes out, the officer pinning his head lethargically draws his own weapon. A few seconds pass, then the officer shoots him at point-blank range.

Notably, it would have been difficult with two officers pinning him for the suspect to draw a weapon. According to the owner of the store this took place at, he didn't. The officers simply found a weapon on him and that prompted them to put 4-5 bullets in his chest. The firearm was in his pocket the entire time.

I see nothing defensible about this one. The suspect was already incapacitated, the officers discovered that he had a weapon on his person, and they snapped into that Black Rage Terror we talk about from time to time in which black men are treated as if they are three seconds away from turning into the Hulk; an unstoppable force of destruction that will level cities and slaughter thousands if not stopped now. They shot him multiple times for being a black man with a gun in his pocket.

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
AdricDePsycho Rock on, Gold Dust Woman from Never Going Back Again Since: Oct, 2014 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Rock on, Gold Dust Woman
#128978: Jul 6th 2016 at 8:04:38 AM

And yet numerous white people get to carry guns on them all the time.

Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?
Xopher001 Since: Jul, 2012
#128979: Jul 6th 2016 at 8:15:29 AM

I've read that, when compared to other countries, the US has by far the highest rate of Police brutality, but has it, statistically, been increasing, or does it only seem that way because of the modern nature of media ?

Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#128980: Jul 6th 2016 at 8:21:55 AM

[up]I find that rather unlikely. I've heard that the police in Brazil, for example, are occasionally more lethal than entire police departments in the US. Also, more authoritarian states like China or North Korea can have rather corrupt and brutal law enforcement agencies. I mean, if you're comparing the US to Canada and Europe I'd find that more plausible, but to the entire world I find that hard to believe.

edited 6th Jul '16 8:23:02 AM by Protagonist506

Leviticus 19:34
Xopher001 Since: Jul, 2012
#128981: Jul 6th 2016 at 8:27:30 AM

Well what about my second question. Has US police brutality (and/or gun violence I guess) actually increased, or is it some sort of confirmation bias?

NoName999 Since: May, 2011
#128982: Jul 6th 2016 at 8:34:36 AM

It's probably the same as it always been (i.e. fairly rampant for minorities) but since people can now record it with their phones, it gives the illusion that it's increasing.

Edit: Actually google searching says that police brutality has increased since 9/11

edited 6th Jul '16 8:38:40 AM by NoName999

Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#128983: Jul 6th 2016 at 8:38:44 AM

Violent crime in general has been going down in the US according to various things I've read. This would probably include police brutality, but it's hard to say (I'm having trouble finding any sources).

The media has incentives to always make it look like it's the end of the world (I would argue that we're facing a "Pessimism Crisis" in the US). As pointed out by others, the internet and such are also useful for bringing national attention to problems that would normally be unheard if not outright covered up.

Leviticus 19:34
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#128984: Jul 6th 2016 at 8:40:13 AM

As another example, sexual assaults are probably declining, but our awareness of them is increasing because more victims are reporting them.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#128985: Jul 6th 2016 at 8:40:28 AM

Protagonist: The US already has a higher prison population than China, and civilians cannot carry firearms there.

Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#128986: Jul 6th 2016 at 8:43:40 AM

[up]Yeah, but that's probably owed primarily to China's draconian legal system. China doesn't jail its criminals, it executes them.

Leviticus 19:34
carbon-mantis Collector Of Fine Oddities from Trumpland Since: Mar, 2010 Relationship Status: Married to my murderer
Collector Of Fine Oddities
#128987: Jul 6th 2016 at 8:47:33 AM

Or labels them as something else and puts them to slave labor.

I think increased media coverage is a big part of it. I mean, a decade ago someone shot by a cop would be barely worth a newspaper clipping, and now even in local-small-town sort of stuff it makes the headlines.

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#128988: Jul 6th 2016 at 8:55:17 AM

@Tobias: You're making a lot of assumptions there, which is basically my point. Number one is the first sentence of your post: that there was never any danger to the officers. Everything else you say follows from that assumption. Just because the suspect was on the ground doesn't mean he was under control. Just because there were two officers trying to control him doesn't mean he was under control. Just because the incident took several seconds instead of happening all at once doesn't mean it was unjustified. Just because it looks bad on video doesn't mean it was bad in reality.

Obviously, any police shooting — or any shooting in general — should be thoroughly investigated and appropriate action taken depending on the results of that investigation. But the investigation should happen first, and the court of public opinion is not the appropriate venue for criminal investigations. Even stuff that looks clear-cut can be incredibly misleading without context. It doesn't even happen deliberately, it's just that different points of view have access to different information and see events differently. That's why we do investigations in the first place.

If it turns out that the officers were never in any danger and never had any reason to think they were and they decided to shoot the guy for funsies anyway, then that's murder and should be prosecuted as such. But we have an entire justice system for answering those kinds of questions. Let it work instead of calling for heads on spikes based on a single piece of evidence.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Medinoc from France (Before Recorded History)
#128989: Jul 6th 2016 at 9:46:05 AM

But did they store their guns on a private server? That's the real question.

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#128990: Jul 6th 2016 at 9:50:56 AM

Hey, remember when Sanders said nobody cared about Clinton's emails? He's not saying that anymore.

"I think you’ve heard me say from Day One that there is a process in terms of the investigation regarding Secretary Clinton and the emails," Sanders said. "Yesterday was an important part of that process. Now we wait to hear from the Justice Department."

RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#128991: Jul 6th 2016 at 10:00:38 AM

Even if the Justice Department did decide to indict Clinton, theoretically Obama could simply pardon her.

ILoveDogs Since: May, 2010
#128992: Jul 6th 2016 at 10:04:46 AM

It would destroy both of their reputations, of course, but theoretically, yes.

Lynch said she would just rubberstamp the FBI's recommendation, so it's moot.

tclittle Professional Forum Ninja from Somewhere Down in Texas Since: Apr, 2010
Professional Forum Ninja
#128993: Jul 6th 2016 at 10:06:33 AM

Trump praised Saddam Hussein for being good at killing terrorists.

"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."
desdendelle Hooded Crow from Land of Milk and Honey (Sergeant) Relationship Status: Hiding
Hooded Crow
#128994: Jul 6th 2016 at 10:07:53 AM

... Saddam was generally good at killing. Remember how he gassed the Kurds? I'd be surprised, but it's Trump, so I'm just exasperated.

On empty crossroads, seek the eclipse -- for when Sol and Lua align, the lost shall find their way home.
ILoveDogs Since: May, 2010
#128995: Jul 6th 2016 at 10:07:58 AM

I know we ought to be frightened at the possibility of him becoming President, but you just gotta laugh.

Holy shit, Donald Trump is so fucking bad at this.

Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#128996: Jul 6th 2016 at 10:08:05 AM

[up][up][up]Someone posted that before. It's very Poe's Law enducing.

edited 6th Jul '16 10:08:20 AM by Protagonist506

Leviticus 19:34
TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#128997: Jul 6th 2016 at 10:08:38 AM

@Sanders: dude, that's about as neutral and basic as it gets.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Xopher001 Since: Jul, 2012
#128998: Jul 6th 2016 at 10:20:44 AM

Everyone here keeps saying this emails mess is not a big deal; meanwhile everyone at my workplace is upset because Clinton seemingly got away with something that would have cost most of them their jobs. Could someone explain this to me? I think you guys have said before that because of the state of the governments software and computer systems, it was impossible for Clinton to do her job without using a personal email?

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#128999: Jul 6th 2016 at 10:35:01 AM

[up] Every SecState for the past few decades has used a combination of personal/private email and their official State email when doing government business, in part because the government system is so antiquated and so cumbersome as to make it all but useless. They're supposed to abide by classification rules in doing so: not sending or receiving any confidential or secret information via their private accounts.

Indeed, Clinton did not send or receive any documents that were classified at the time. However, the rules apply retroactively, and there is a presumption that she or her correspondents should have known they contained classified information. The FBI's report acknowledged the strong appearance of careless disregard for the rules, but could not establish any specific intent to transmit classified information in violation of any laws, a factor (mens rea) required for prosecution.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#129000: Jul 6th 2016 at 10:37:22 AM

I think part of it is also that it wasn't worth the trouble. Since Clinton isn't unique in doing this indicting her would potentially require indicting any of her predecessors who did the same.


Total posts: 417,856
Top