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

NoName999 Since: May, 2011
#409626: Jun 9th 2023 at 7:10:44 PM

So does anyone else think that classified documents are also in Ivana's casket now?

At first it was silly. But now.....

Imca (Veteran)
#409627: Jun 9th 2023 at 7:16:02 PM

I had heard he tried to flush them.

Florien The They who said it from statistically, slightly right behind you. Since: Aug, 2019
The They who said it
#409628: Jun 9th 2023 at 7:27:39 PM

By such a prancing, incoherent, utter dumbass…you can’t live this down, given 50 years or 50 centuries. It’s so bloody pitiful and disappointing.

To be fair (okay probably not remotely the right word for it but I used it anyway), hitler too was also a completely incoherent dumbass who couldn't even get the majority of the vote, and only managed to get the top spot because of a quirk of the system he was in (a parliamentary coalition.)

Mein Kampf is an incoherent mess, much like trump's speeches.

This holds true for many authoritarians. Most of them seem ridiculous in any context other than "oh shit they're in charge how did they get there"

Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#409629: Jun 9th 2023 at 7:38:13 PM

I want to note, if he gets convicted and put in prison, even if it's a swanky prison, he basically can't campaign. He can still run, sure, but he can't show up for debates, have social media access and can't talk directly to the public.

Resileafs I actually wanted to be Resileaf Since: Jan, 2019
I actually wanted to be Resileaf
#409630: Jun 9th 2023 at 7:53:52 PM

Agian we take it as a fact that he is guilty. 51% of moderates belive this stuff is political persecution, at least as of the poll last month.

Well, hopefully we can stuff all those smoking guns that were revealed with the indictment in those moderate dumbasses' faces.

Shaoken (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Dating Catwoman
#409631: Jun 9th 2023 at 8:25:57 PM

He's admitted on tape to breaking the law, on top of the numerous smoking guns he left lying around for the DOJ to find. At this point he could probably bill the Prosecution for all the work he's done to secure them a conviction on himself.

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#409632: Jun 9th 2023 at 8:50:04 PM

I'm curious how this will affect elections next year, should he actually be convicted.

Like, people have short attention spans, and nothing more than six months before elections matter, etc. but this all seems kinda out of the ordinary so those "rules" might not apply. But then, like, would they not apply in a good or bad way?

Riverstyx197 Since: May, 2012
#409633: Jun 9th 2023 at 8:50:55 PM

[up][up] I hope you're right, but with Cannon assigned to this case I'm still worried after all the bullshit she tried to pull last time.

Edited by Riverstyx197 on Jun 9th 2023 at 11:51:05 AM

Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#409634: Jun 9th 2023 at 8:52:03 PM

@LSBK Hypothetically, if Trump goes to jail, it'd be pretty bad for him.

The big problem is that he can't really campaign from prison. He would likely not have social media access, the ability to give speeches, or participate in debates.

Leviticus 19:34
Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#409635: Jun 9th 2023 at 9:07:31 PM

[up][up] If she gets it assigned permanently and refuses to recuse herself, the DOJ will file to get her forcibly recused and they'll get it. Like, 100%. She's literally the one judge who should have nothing to do with this case because she's already involved.

It seems like this temporary assignment is just a random roulette thing just in case something comes up in the next couple weeks and the DOJ is almost certainly trying to get that changed.

Brandon Deadly Vu! from Between Thanksgiving and Christmas (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
Deadly Vu!
#409636: Jun 9th 2023 at 9:34:25 PM

So does anyone else think that classified documents are also in Ivana's casket now?

At first it was silly. But now.....

Welp, if they're more documents showing our nation's weaknesses, at least nobody's reading them. tongue

As for Trump even being in a prison meant for rich people, I wonder what are the odds of him starting a fight.

Like creepy stories? Check out my book!
Blueace Surrounded by weirdoes from The End Of the World Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Surrounded by weirdoes
#409637: Jun 9th 2023 at 9:36:44 PM

Too much of a wimp. He'd try to run like a coward the second someone looks at him funny. Has he ever been without someone guarding him?

Edited by Blueace on Jun 9th 2023 at 12:49:21 PM

Wake me up at your own risk.
RedSavant Since: Jan, 2001
#409638: Jun 9th 2023 at 9:49:10 PM

California's Governor Newsom proposes a 28th Amendment to enshrine gun control into the Constitution.

  • Raising the federal minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21;
  • Mandating universal background checks to prevent truly dangerous people from purchasing a gun that could be used in a crime;
  • Instituting a reasonable waiting period for all gun purchases; and
  • Barring civilian purchase of assault weapons that serve no other purpose than to kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time – weapons of war our nation’s founders never foresaw.

It's been fun.
Florien The They who said it from statistically, slightly right behind you. Since: Aug, 2019
The They who said it
#409639: Jun 9th 2023 at 9:56:39 PM

I like gun control, but I do wish Newsom's 2028 grandstanding involved actually writing the proposed text of the amendment rather than just saying "yeah these things would all be pretty great"

which yeah they'd be good and all but also make the text work. The problem with the second amendment is a typo that allows it to be interpreted really weirdly, show us your proposed text!

Perseus Since: Nov, 2009
#409640: Jun 9th 2023 at 9:57:15 PM

As much as I'm pro-gun control, and all for most of this, the minimum age part just feels kinda silly to me.

Though that may be influenced by my being an Aussie who also thinks the US drinking age being 21 is just kinda silly. I feel like if you're a legal adult you should be allowed to do adult things.

Edited by Perseus on Jun 10th 2023 at 2:59:08 AM

Imca (Veteran)
#409641: Jun 9th 2023 at 10:06:53 PM

First 3 sound reasonable, the last one is only ever used to mean "scary black stick" and never focuses on any thing that actually makes for a more dangerous weapon.

[up]I am used to 20, 21 isn't that unreasonable by comparision.

But I do find amercia weird in that its 18 for somethings, 21 for some other things, and 25 for some last few things.

Like pick a damn number and stick to it.

minseok42 A Self-inflicted Disaster from A Six-Tatami Room (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
A Self-inflicted Disaster
#409642: Jun 9th 2023 at 10:17:50 PM

If the US Constitution can be amended to add those regulations, can't they just add a line in the 27th amendment clarifying what 'well-regulated militia' means? Or can SCOTUS rule constitutional amendments unconstitutional?

"Enshittification truly is how platforms die"-Cory Doctorow
Karxrida from Eureka, the Forbidden Land Since: May, 2012 Relationship Status: I LOVE THIS DOCTOR!
#409643: Jun 9th 2023 at 10:21:01 PM

So I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure they can't just overrule an Amendment when Amendments are allowed to alter previous ones. Their entire job is to ensure things match up with the Constitution.

Edited by Karxrida on Jun 9th 2023 at 10:26:17 AM

Imca (Veteran)
#409644: Jun 9th 2023 at 10:24:28 PM

[up][up] You need 2/3rds of states to agree to an amendment.

Meaning this would need a couple republician states to agree, your not going to get that once you throw that much in.

megarockman from The Sixth Borough (Experienced Trainee)
#409645: Jun 9th 2023 at 10:27:50 PM

Harder than that — you need 3/4 of states to ratify, so 38 out of 50.

The damned queen and the relentless knight.
Shaoken (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Dating Catwoman
#409646: Jun 9th 2023 at 10:31:10 PM

How do states ratify? Through their congresses or through a vote? Gun control is fairly popular even among Republicans and NRA members.

Florien The They who said it from statistically, slightly right behind you. Since: Aug, 2019
The They who said it
#409647: Jun 9th 2023 at 10:31:47 PM

If the US Constitution can be amended to add those regulations, can't they just add a line in the 27th amendment clarifying what 'well-regulated militia' means? Or can SCOTUS rule constitutional amendments unconstitutional?

The problem isn't that well-regulated militia is undefined. The argument is that because the sentence it's in in the second amendment is comma-spliced, the entire first part of the sentence doesn't actually have anything to do with the last part of the sentence, so "the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is actually a standalone clause.

This is obviously not what is intended, but if you read purely grammatically, it is technically correct. Further, this interpretation of the second amendment is only about 30 years old. Previous interpretations were much narrower and actually interpreted it as it was clearly intended, rather than "well the grammar rules say that only the last part matters."

RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#409648: Jun 9th 2023 at 10:33:09 PM

And this is why nobody else, ever, has approached constitution drafting with "Well, this is a common-sense reading" with any success.

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
#409649: Jun 10th 2023 at 12:38:14 AM

The easier fix would be to amend “the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” to “ the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed for members of well regulated militias”. It’d be the dumbest amendment ever if it was done for a literal grammar fix.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Florien The They who said it from statistically, slightly right behind you. Since: Aug, 2019
The They who said it
#409650: Jun 10th 2023 at 12:51:01 AM

The full text of the amendment is as follows.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As you can see, it was written before there were rules for commas, but survived into a time when commas suddenly had rules that meant the first half of the sentence is completely disconnected from the second half.

Unfortunately, a grammar fix requires a constitutional amendment. Which I suppose is fair, otherwise someone could say "I'm fixing the grammar of the 16th amendment to say slavery is legal again" or something, but nonetheless, the argument that "because this thing written before comma rules doesn't follow comma rules, it means whatever I want to be true about it is true" is certainly one that has been made (and it's not very good and I wish I could get away with arguments like that.)


EDIT: Incidentally, I just looked it up, its current meaning wasn't codified until 2000 and fucking 8 apparently

I thought it was a 90s thing but no it's not even twenty years ago that US v. Cruikshanks was overturned.

Edited by Florien on Jun 10th 2023 at 12:55:04 PM


Total posts: 417,856
Top