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

CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#242301: May 14th 2018 at 8:03:26 PM

@Charles Phipps: Well, if you want to make the point that targeted assassination by executive order is a violation or progressive values, then I think you should spell out your case. Because not everyone agrees with you. I would be curious to know when you think the President has the authority to use lethal force overseas, if ever.

Back when I was a crazy fundamentalist looney toon, I strongly supported Bill Clinton's right and campaign to order targeted assassinations which had previously been a policy that George H.W. Bush had backed away from but had been re-instituted for someone named Osama Bin Ladin. We saw the unfortunate attempts to eliminate him did not do so and only ended up doing minimal damage to Al-Qaeda. Most Americans thought he was trying to distract from his domestic issues and had no idea what a real threat it was.

What we should have had was a Congress and Executive branch agreeing for a military campaign to destroy Al-Qaeda.

I am of the opinion, though, that the executive branch should not have the authority to order those kind of attacks but it should restricted to being used against countries we are engaged in hostile military action against. I'm also of the mind the President should not be able to pre-approve these sorts of attacks to begin with as the legacy of it is large amounts of civilian casualties and unilateral military action.

I'm inclined to think if we do need a wetworks branch we should have it be chosen from the Legislative Branch with a committee and the President as a veto. We're in way too many undeclared wars right now.

edited 14th May '18 8:04:08 PM by CharlesPhipps

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#242302: May 14th 2018 at 8:06:10 PM

[up]There's a lot of issues that hard AI faces, but Penrose's arguments are pretty iffy.

I am in the academic position of, "I am pretty sure he's right but I'm aware we're not there yet for proving or disproving it one way or the other."

Solving the riddle of consciousness is barely in "we have a coherent theory."

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
RedSavant Since: Jan, 2001
#242303: May 14th 2018 at 8:09:23 PM

@Marquis:

How does the expression of a belief, if not done in a harranging, overspeaking manner, constitute interfering with the class?

"A belief" is understating the point, and implying that all beliefs are equally non-disruptive if presented in a measured tone. Beliefs such as 'maybe Hitler wasn't so bad' or 'what if we tried genocide of X too?' are inherently disruptive by nature of the negative impact they have on the learning experience and environment, safety, and personhood of people who meet X criteria, for one.

The right of Jewish students not to have to entertain a Nazi's opinion supercedes the right of a Nazi student to opine on class time.

edited 14th May '18 8:11:22 PM by RedSavant

It's been fun.
archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#242304: May 14th 2018 at 8:09:35 PM

What we should have had was a Congress and Executive branch agreeing for a military campaign to destroy Al-Qaeda.

We have that. The problem is that AQ isn't an army or a country, can't be destroyed by conventional applications of force, doesn't stay in the country or region you're fighting in, and obeys zero of the rules we've established over the last century governing armed conflict. Congress and the executive agreed they needed to be destroyed, the question then becomes what does a military campaign to destroy a terrorist group even look like?

They should have sent a poet.
DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#242305: May 14th 2018 at 8:19:43 PM

@Kazuya: probabilities based on the category of person they belong to dont matter. You have to treat students based on their own actual behavior within that classroom. Otherwise you're engaging in collective punishment. Now, if a student discrimminates against another student somehow (for example, refusing to serve on a team with "that kind") then you have a basis for disciplinary action. But that student has to do something specific which violates the code (whatever code is in effect at that institution).

It should be obvious, but maybe I have to point it out, that intimidating behaviors are not acceptable in a classroom. But intimidating behavior is independent of the beliefs held by that student. Another way of saying this is that anyone can harrass or interfere or disrupt—even students espousing otherwise acceptable beliefs. It's not the belief expressed that disrupts, it's the behavior.

Regardless, my point is that if you aren't going to dismiss the student from the class, you cant just ignore them.

Do you disagree?

@ Ambar: Oh, then you can point to a code of conduct that explicitly forbids some form of political belief, in the absense of any other disruptive behavior? If so, I will concede the point, at least for Canada.

@Charles: Your post is a little confusing, as it starts out basing your objection on the lack of positive results, but then changes to arguments in favor of Congress, rather than the President, having the authority to order such attacks. This leads me to the following questions:

1) What is your opinion of the generally held conclusion that drone attacks greatly weakened the ability of Al Q and Daesh to conduct terrorist attacks overseas?

2) If Congress ordered the attack, would it then not matter whether it was effective or not? Would it also not matter if there were large numbers of civilian casualties?

edited 14th May '18 8:21:20 PM by DeMarquis

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
KazuyaProta Shin Megami Tensei IV from A Industrial Farm Since: Jan, 2015 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Shin Megami Tensei IV
#242306: May 14th 2018 at 8:20:44 PM

[up] That might be a decent argument (might is a big if) but I already pointed how the other points apply to fascism too.

You are breaking the very law that you mentioned. Ambar is following it.

A fascist dont deserve keep speaking in class, no more than a Stalinist or a criminal apologist (which they are, by definition)

edited 14th May '18 8:21:47 PM by KazuyaProta

Watch me destroying my country
RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#242307: May 14th 2018 at 8:22:09 PM

@Charles Phipps

... excuse me, but why are you trying to bring consciousness into the argument of whether artificial intelligence is possible or not? It's irrelevant for all practical purposes. Artificial intelligence is possible. Artificial intelligence exists. That we could create something that can learn, and from that learning process—controlled, almost certainly—proceed to decide whether to fire or not isn't in question. It can be done; it's in many regards largely the inverse of the self-driving car problems.

Also, whether artificial intelligence is possible has 0 impact on anything if it's still a human making the decision. Be it drones, missiles, bombs, assassins, or military force, if a person is making the decision the robotics is just a tool.

DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#242308: May 14th 2018 at 8:23:32 PM

This is the post I was responding to:

"Disruption: Maybe not necessarily but the rest?

Discrimmination (easy trait of any neo fascist)

Dissemination of Malicious Material (fascist views count as dangerous per se)

Retaliation (high chances that it will happens against a minority)

Unfounded allegations (racist love doing this)

Violations of safety or dignity (I need to explain this?)"

I am expressing the opinion that none of this is obvious. Yes, you have to explain it. Again, if a student does something disruptive, you have to remove them from the classroom or teach them. Do you disagree?

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
DingoWalley1 Asgore Adopts Noelle Since: Feb, 2014 Relationship Status: Can't buy me love
Asgore Adopts Noelle
#242309: May 14th 2018 at 8:25:12 PM

Because this was buried last page:

The Criminal Charges against Gov. Eric Greitens (R-MO) have been dropped, due to Greiten's request to call Kim Gardner (the Prosecutor) as a witness were accepted by the Circuit Court Judge. The Prosecution plans to immediately refile the charges, with the hope of getting a Special Prosecutor to replace Gardner.

What a terrible move, especially on the Judges part. Who the hell would accept the demand that the Prosecuting Attorney be put as a witness? And of course, the fact that the case was dropped at all (not just because of what appears to be an incredibly corrupt move) will just fuel speculation that the whole case is bogus (which it absolutely isn't). Hope Greitens' gets the maximum penalty (although considering this judge apparently sides with him already, I doubt he will).

RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#242310: May 14th 2018 at 8:26:21 PM

It's not the belief expressed that disrupts, it's the behavior.

... are we not literally seeing right here how easily even talking about talking about fascism and whether it can be talked about totally derails things? Let alone advocating for fascism, or expressing its views in any form. tongue

KazuyaProta Shin Megami Tensei IV from A Industrial Farm Since: Jan, 2015 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Shin Megami Tensei IV
#242311: May 14th 2018 at 8:26:47 PM

[up][up][up] Disruption was only one of the reason that your own post mentioned, a facist -by definition- meet other critieria per se.

Stop trying to argue why Ambar had to stand neo nazis. Is annoying.

[up] There can be discussions where a neo nazi can appear and not necessarily disrupt the talk per-se. They might be bad but they stay on-topic.

Albeit...all talks about fascism are about how bad they were, a fascist trying to "correct" them is disrupting the class for it.

edited 14th May '18 8:28:13 PM by KazuyaProta

Watch me destroying my country
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#242312: May 14th 2018 at 8:27:06 PM

[up][up][up]I'm not sure what's worse, that the governor had the gall to do that, or that the judge agreed.

edited 14th May '18 8:27:25 PM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#242313: May 14th 2018 at 8:29:12 PM

"By definition". By what definition? Can you spell it out for me? And can you answer my question for me?

Sorry if this comes across as annoying, but I am being sincere. And this is on topic for this thread, so far as I understand it.

I'm sure that Ambar can defend his statements if he cares to try.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#242314: May 14th 2018 at 8:32:02 PM

[up]Also, whether artificial intelligence is possible has 0 impact on anything if it's still a human making the decision. Be it drones, missiles, bombs, assassins, or military force, if a person is making the decision the robotics is just a tool.

Your tone is awfully weird for someone who agrees with me. I don't think the use of A.I. soldiers (which doesn't exist and never will) would in any way shape or form be any worse than conventional soldiers.

Or dummy soldiers programmed to kill.

edited 14th May '18 8:33:02 PM by CharlesPhipps

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#242315: May 14th 2018 at 8:32:18 PM

Fascism is inherently a call to nationalistic violence and racial supremacy. Maintaining and expressing those beliefs is inherently a threat towards anyone that doesn't fit those views.

Seeing as said views, in the west, manage to exclude everyone that isn't straight, white, healthy, natively born, and of the correct religion from the right to exist, kind of problematic in any situation which contains exceptions to those rules. Including, in most situations, being female.

[up] You were bringing up the possibility of AI and consciousness as arguments when they are completely irrelevant. I don't think you understand what AI is in either the research or practical senses.

edited 14th May '18 8:33:15 PM by RainehDaze

CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#242316: May 14th 2018 at 8:34:08 PM

I pointed out I didn't believe AI was possible.

And explained why.

Also, someone quibbled over the definition of drones as robots when I pointed out it was completely irrelevant to my point—which is what you agreed with.

So thank you.

I think the damage done to US credibility by taking the war into any country we believe houses Al Qaeda regardless of their status as war with America was a big mistake.

edited 14th May '18 8:34:59 PM by CharlesPhipps

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#242317: May 14th 2018 at 8:36:44 PM

[up] You said earlier that you believed we needed a military campaign authorized by congress to destroy AQ. How would you suggest conducting that campaign without following them to the countries they're in?

Don't forget that AQ can come and go from countries as it pleases, it isn't a national army. Just because there's an AQ presence in a country doesn't mean they're at war with us, and vice versa.

edited 14th May '18 8:38:01 PM by archonspeaks

They should have sent a poet.
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#242318: May 14th 2018 at 8:38:07 PM

[up][up]"Quibbled"?

So now you're dissing me for daring to point out that you're using a word wrongly? A drone is not a robot. If you want people to take anything you have to say about drone warfare seriously, don't make that kind of mistake.

edited 14th May '18 8:38:36 PM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#242319: May 14th 2018 at 8:38:29 PM

It's hard to tell, because you went back and edited your posts—but I agree with M84. Talking about robots is incredibly misleading, and calling things robots when they're human-controlled is actually incorrect (the point of robots is automation). Trying to have a serious discussion about any form of warfare whilst misusing simple terms is an immediate step towards coming across as having no idea what you're talking about.

Also, you're wrong about AI being impossible. AI exists. AI does not mean "sapient human-like intelligence", except as a technical challenge: why the hell would we want to make something like that? We can make AI's better than people at tasks and far more specialised.

edited 14th May '18 8:39:21 PM by RainehDaze

DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#242320: May 14th 2018 at 8:40:17 PM

@Raineh: This is how I would handle that situation as an instructor: explain carefully that advocating nationalistic violence or racial supremacy is considered unacceptable in a democratic society, that the university and my classroom are based on preparation of the student for participation in democracy, and therefore expression of those views, except as part of an historical analysis, is considered off topic for this class. You will therefore not express them anymore."

Either the student complies or they dont. If not, out they go. If so, they get to participate like any other student.

As for the AI debate: the term for sapient self aware artificial intelligence is General Artificial Intelligence or GAI. The term for artificial intelligence that is not sapient or self-aware but is extremely good at solving particular types of problems is Expert System. I think CP believes that GAI is impossible.

edited 14th May '18 8:42:43 PM by DeMarquis

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#242321: May 14th 2018 at 8:40:22 PM

[up] I’m not sure how this argument started exactly, but one issue I’m seeing it’s not clear to me what identifiable criteria (ie things that can be gleaned externally) are being used to determine a given individual’s adherence to a given political ideology.

RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#242322: May 14th 2018 at 8:41:22 PM

From memory, this included blatantly racist essay submissions receiving a null grade.

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#242323: May 14th 2018 at 8:42:07 PM

There is no argument that is going to convince me that I should prioritize the privileges of fascist students over the rights of minority students. And since I have my supervisors and employers, and oh yes, the government of Canada behind me, I have no need to change that opinion.

The notion that a fascist can express their views in a non-disruptive manner is white privilege in action. Fascists, like a select number of other fringe groups (Stalinists, incels), are constitutionally incapable of expressing their opinions in a non-disruptive way, because their opinions are inherently disruptive.

I’m not sure how this argument started exactly, but one issue I’m seeing it’s not clear to me what identifiable criteria (ie things that can be gleaned externally) are being used to determine a given individual’s adherence to a given political ideology.

Crimson Zephyr commented on how disruptive it was when fascists tried to participate in classes at his university. I stated more profs should do what my dad did as a high school teacher and, once a student has made their fascist opinions clear, not call on them.

edited 14th May '18 8:44:21 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#242324: May 14th 2018 at 8:44:56 PM

I agree, students have a right to their opinions but a university should have the right to shut them down. At least when they're hate speech.

As for dealing with Al-Qaeda, we should either have to back off, get the cooperation of the country, or pressure them/go to war. Basically, I'm a believer our right to fight terrorists has a limitation in terms of military operations.

It's not a perfect solution but I think it's exaggerated the war rather tahn weakened it.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#242325: May 14th 2018 at 8:46:23 PM

[up][up] exactly.

I am a firm believer that your Rights end when they start to step on the Rights of another person.

edited 14th May '18 8:49:35 PM by megaeliz


Total posts: 417,856
Top