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

LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#130576: Jul 15th 2016 at 5:37:09 PM

Police are trained to shoot until the target is dead. If it comes to the point where they have to open fire they're not actually supposed to take anyone in alive.

Oh really when?
TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#130577: Jul 15th 2016 at 5:44:39 PM

For the initial two shots, I'd be inclined to agree.

However, the last two shots were both delivered when he was laying prone on his back, the officers not really making any moves to get closer, and simply shouting out warnings to get his hands up... right after he'd been shot and was quite obviously holding his newly-acquired wound when the shotgun was fired, and likely was when the third pistol was fired.

The third shot was fired because he grabbed the object suspected to be a gun while he was prone on his back. Then they shouted at him to stop reaching for the object or he will be fired on again, whereupon he reached for it again and the fourth shot was fired.

The object was a small box, but he was treating it like a gun because he was trying to kill himself.

[up] Only against black targets. We talked about this in the Law Enforcement thread. When they shoot at white people, they tend to stop after the first or second bullet. Even in cases where the suspect got back up after taking the bullets. This case is the exception because even on his back, the suspect kept going for the suspected gun.

edited 15th Jul '16 5:46:09 PM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#130578: Jul 15th 2016 at 6:36:15 PM

Today in bad polling. Because the populace of Yik Yak are apparently predictors of the presidential race.

Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#130579: Jul 15th 2016 at 6:47:58 PM

Anyone want to bet that Trump is going to find a way to spin the Muslim/Terror angle on Turkey? (Clinton's official statement is in support of the "democratically elected government" too.)

edited 15th Jul '16 6:49:07 PM by Elle

ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#130580: Jul 15th 2016 at 6:49:02 PM

@Garcon

Again, the part that bugs me (aside from the recurring "Why didn't they try a taser first?" question) is that none of them made even a token effort to get closer and, say, try disarming him after he dropped from the first two shots. Instead, they held position and kept shouting orders - which someone who's just been shot is likely to ignore in favor of "oh god, the pain". You say he was reaching for his waistband with the third shot - I'd argue that he was gripping the newly-inflicted wound. I'll also add that the third and fourth shots were distinctly separate from the initial two - it wasn't a "hail of gunfire" situation, which would, ironically, be a bit more excusable to me (if still considered overboard).

And complicating this is the details from the original call - while they were on alert due to a call about a truck with a rifle, the occupant was also described as wearing camouflage, which is a rather stark difference from the black t-shirt/khakis combo that Noble was wearing when he was stopped.

edited 15th Jul '16 6:52:58 PM by ironballs16

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#130581: Jul 15th 2016 at 7:00:14 PM

One thing that's always confused me about the American police system is how fractured it is. Like, it looks like every municipality has its own mostly independent police force with little to no oversight above it.

That just sounds like a terrible idea. I mean, our police here in Canada aren't perfect (the treatment of the First Nations in several places was just appalling) but in Ontario, all the police forces are ultimately under the authority of the Ontario Provincial Police, and they have the authority to sack officers who are failing to do their jobs correctly. (Which has happened. There was a small town in the north of Ontario, whose name escapes me, where the local police force tried circling the wagons and it backfired so hard the whole police force was replaced.) Also, we don't elect any of our police officers, because doing that opens up another huge can of worms.

edited 15th Jul '16 7:01:49 PM by Zendervai

ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#130582: Jul 15th 2016 at 7:02:19 PM

[up]

Oh, we do one better than electing police Chiefs - we elect Judges. No points for guessing how that tends to pan out.

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#130583: Jul 15th 2016 at 7:07:14 PM

We do have local police -> state police but it's more about jurisdiction than oversight. I honestly have no idea why it is the way it is.

Demonic_Braeburn Yankee Doodle Dandy from Defective California Since: Jan, 2016
Yankee Doodle Dandy
#130584: Jul 15th 2016 at 8:06:47 PM

Congress released a long-awaited section of a 2002 probe dealing with the alleged role of Saudi Arabia in the 9/11 attacks.

5 fascinating items in new 9/11 documents.

White House says '28 pages' shed no new light on 9/11.

edited 15th Jul '16 8:21:24 PM by Demonic_Braeburn

Any group who acts like morons ironically will eventually find itself swamped by morons who think themselves to be in good company.
Clarste One Winged Egret Since: Jun, 2009 Relationship Status: Non-Canon
One Winged Egret
#130585: Jul 16th 2016 at 12:45:53 AM

I wonder if we can call any 1945 Japanese a "civilian." Those guys were freaking nuts.

Not to pick on you, but this is exactly the sort of "othering" that Trump and his kind rely on. "The Japanese aren't people they're all crazy cultists who worship their emperor." "Muslims aren't people, they're all crazy cultists who want to enact religious law to oppress women." It should be obvious that you could also apply this to other, slightly more popular religions: "Catholics aren't people, they're all crazy cultists who worship the pope" or "Christian fundamentalists aren't people, they're all crazy cultists who want to enact religious law to oppress gays."

Ultimately, Japanese religion had very little to do with Japanese imperialism. I mean, they'd considered the emperor a living god for thousands of years, and that hardly even affected their own politics. If you look at it's cultural context, Japanese imperialism was pretty clearly inspired by Western imperialism, particularly the British. They saw what the British were doing in India and China (Opium Wars, etc) and decided that before that happened to them they'd need to modernize and become an imperial power of their own. That they'd need to prove themselves better than the other Asians, who they saw as mere victims, and become a colonizer themselves. Better to be a predator than the prey. Unfortunately this sort of ultra-nationalist attitude towards foreign policy naturally led to dehumanizing everyone else and the resultant atrocities.

Again, you can see the parallels with Trump. Make America Great Again is a pretty terrifying slogan when "Great" seems to imply that we base our entire national identity on being inherently better than our neighbors.

edited 16th Jul '16 12:48:28 AM by Clarste

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
#130586: Jul 16th 2016 at 3:55:39 AM

[up] I agree that others is bad but where exactly was religon mentioned in the quoted post?

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#130587: Jul 16th 2016 at 4:12:02 AM

[up] Shinto, I presume. Well, at least the Imperial Court version of it.

edited 16th Jul '16 4:13:21 AM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On
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
#130588: Jul 16th 2016 at 4:40:55 AM

I know what the poster above me was referencing but the idea that Shinto was being attacked or used to declare Japanease people crazy came out of nowhere, nothing in the quoted post indicates any dislike of Shinto and it being bought up feels like projection.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#130589: Jul 16th 2016 at 4:43:28 AM

I have heard that a ground invasion would have been impractical and even more bloody because the entire population was being trained to fight back. That was on this site though so I have no idea how true it is.

Clarste One Winged Egret Since: Jun, 2009 Relationship Status: Non-Canon
One Winged Egret
#130590: Jul 16th 2016 at 5:05:30 AM

[up][up]Well maybe I was mistaken, but when talk about WW 2 Japanese culture, particularly their fanaticism, they're usually thinking of the country as a grand cult of personality unified around Emperor Hirohito. Which is, well, literally State Shinto.

If my interpretation was mistaken, then that's that, but my general point about "othering" still stands, regardless of whether it's for religion or nationality.

[up]That's like saying no one in the US is a civilian because we could spontaneously form a Second Amendment militia at any moment.

edited 16th Jul '16 5:27:22 AM by Clarste

HallowHawk Since: Feb, 2013
#130591: Jul 16th 2016 at 5:16:53 AM

If the elections are in November, and that I was told conflicting answers, would the same apply for day of oath taking for whoever wins in November in January?

Galadriel Since: Feb, 2015
#130592: Jul 16th 2016 at 5:25:29 AM

Did Gingrich actually just say that the US should deport any Muslims who refuse to renounce sharia? I can barely even process that. If I'm reading it right, that's going far, far beyond even Trump's level of bigotry; he's talking about throwing the First Amendment out the window and literally exiling US citizens based on their religious beliefs. Is that really what he's saying?

Every time I think the Republican Party can't get any crazier or more evil, they prove me wrong.

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#130593: Jul 16th 2016 at 5:29:29 AM

Both sides are totally the same you guys! We have to give equal treatment to all ideas! Cult of centrism!

Medinoc from France (Before Recorded History)
#130594: Jul 16th 2016 at 5:44:45 AM

[up][up]I think the argument here is that "refusing to renounce sharia" equals "plegding to obey sharia over US law whenever the two conflict", and by extension, "pledging that US law doesn't apply to you". Which would make you not a US citizen.

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#130595: Jul 16th 2016 at 5:52:54 AM

By that logic refusing to renounce the Bible means you're more loyal to it than the US government. Granted that's true in many cases but they'd never admit it's a problem.

Deadbeatloser22 from Disappeared by Space Magic (Great Old One) Relationship Status: Tsundere'ing
#130596: Jul 16th 2016 at 5:53:36 AM

But that's different because it's Christianity, and Christianity is special.

I genuinely get the feeling many of these people hate the First Amendment because it means they can't rewrite the law to enforce their interpretation of Biblical morals.

edited 16th Jul '16 5:54:29 AM by Deadbeatloser22

"Yup. That tasted purple."
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#130597: Jul 16th 2016 at 5:56:57 AM

They hate the first amendment until someone tries to tell them their speech is offensive.

Medinoc from France (Before Recorded History)
#130598: Jul 16th 2016 at 5:58:07 AM

True, if you threw out everyone who doesn't renounce the Bible, you wouldn't have lots of people left. Plus, logistically speaking, you'll be better off simply seceding the southern states away.

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."
Galadriel Since: Feb, 2015
#130599: Jul 16th 2016 at 6:02:04 AM

In the first place, sharia is a wide range of laws with varying interpretations, so there's no one meaning assigned to "believing in sharia". Someone can very easily believe in religious laws without disregarding all the laws of the country the live in.

In the second place, someone believing their religious convictions are more binding than the law of the land does not make them inherently disloyal, or even morally wrong. Christian disobeyed the Fugitive Slave Act in the 1850s and aided escaped slaves because their religious convictions told them slavery was wrong. Christians disobeyed laws upholding segregation in the 1960s for the same reason. Many people, of many religions, would consider themselves obligated to disobey a law if obeying it was contrary to their religious beliefs. If they disobeyed it, they would be subject to legal penalties until or unless their defiance convinced the country to repeal the law - but they would not cease to be citizens.

In the third place, thinking or believing something is not a violation of US law or the constitution. If people break a specific law, they are subject to the legal penalties for doing so. But there is no constitutional way to influct penalties on people for thinking a law is invalid.

edited 16th Jul '16 6:08:38 AM by Galadriel

pwiegle Cape Malleum Majorem from Nowhere Special Since: Sep, 2015 Relationship Status: Singularity
Cape Malleum Majorem
#130600: Jul 16th 2016 at 6:32:39 AM

I don't think they mean it in the context of disobeying a questionable law, they mean it in the context of disobeying laws that are pretty much universal, like ones prohibiting murder. So-called "honor killings" and other whacked-out shit like that.

Still, it's way too nebulous to define in legal terms, so lotsa luck getting that one through Congress, Bubba.

This Space Intentionally Left Blank.

Total posts: 417,856
Top