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
![]()
![]()
![]()
Unless Donald J. Trump spontaneously morphs into a mousy blue-haired twentysomething woman with political views more in line with the Green Party sometime between now and the inaugration, that won't happen. "It's OK if you're a Republican" exists for a reason.
Reading tropes such as You Know What You Did
Since Trump won I thought this would be appropriate.
If you stay in power forever you never need to worry about that. Which is something we should seriously be concerned about. No matter how you may have felt about Obama, he had a real check on his power. The GOP, as of now, does not.
Literally, no checks. There is nothing to stop them from restructuring this country as they please. And with increased partisanship, they also have every reason to stick together.
edited 9th Nov '16 2:47:20 AM by Clarste
Trump re-enfranchising white nationalists and saying he's going to nuke the countries where ISIS is based goes a step beyond Obama's detractors saying he's going to turn the country into Communist Russia, because these are things Trump himself said, not outlandish claims that others made about him. They are outlandish as claims, and I hope they're just dangerous bluster, but even if that's all they are, this is still boosting the legitimacy of hate groups.
I can't believe Americans are still this afraid of terrorists. 9/11 was 15 years ago, people. The reason the terrorists haven't gone away is because terrorists never go away. People just didn't hear about them before, because the country had more important things to worry about— and still does, despite what sensationalist news reports of the past year have reported in service of the almighty ad revenue. And building a wall is insane. Even if illegal immigrants were stealing American jobs— which they're not, since it's not like they're sneaking into all the covert auto factories in the Rust Belt's Top Secret Area— the money spent on building or maintaining a giant wall would be so much greater than just hiring more immigration workers to go into businesses and check. Or you could just steer those immigrants onto the path to citizenship— they've already found work and are willing to travel to do it, which is more than you can say for people in dying Midwestern towns, waiting for the auto industry or asbestos mining or the Gold Rush or the Age of Sail or whatever to start up again. Ugh.
That this has all just been a huge prank on America, and Trump has been showing just how easy it is to manipulate the public, that is my fondest hope. But it's gotten harder and harder to believe. That would be one hell of a long con.
edited 9th Nov '16 3:03:29 AM by Unsung
A little extreme there, but there are very few checks left, yes. The Republicans are still limited by the Constitution and can't just ammend it willy-nilly. For example, if they want to end birthright citizenship, they'd have to actually ammend the Constitution, as birthright citizenship is provided by the 14th Amendment. If Trump wants to appoint his son, Erik to the Supreme Court, the Democrats in the Senate can still filibuster that.
re:Federal action on marijuana in California. True. But I have an advantage.
For now.
Also, I turned off avatars/signatures before Tvtropes reformatted, how do I turn them back on? I feel like I'm missing something obvious.
Breaking News: George Lucas not hack fraud after all.
![]()
If you don't know, he doesn't know.
edited 9th Nov '16 2:55:15 AM by Eschaton
So, I'm a little confused on Trump's stance towards international trade. On the one hand, I keep hearing he's an isolationist, on the other, I hear he wants to do lots and lots of trade with China and post-Brexit UK. What about the rest of Europe, or Canada?
Those sell-by-dates won't stop me because I can't read!edited 9th Nov '16 2:57:12 AM by Clarste
He's also said he'd scrap NAFTA which would be a big problem. The US/canadian system relies on free movement of goods.
The environment is the thing I'm most worried about. Even if the senate holds up most of his hair-brained BS he could pull out of the paris accords and then China/India could as well and we'd have a race towards a climate apocalypse. At least our cars will be american made.
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?Saying Trump was ever a liberal is a bit of a stretch. He however was at one point a registered Democrat and holds views largely inline with the "Dixiecrats". That is to say, broadly left-wing economic and social policy, but only for the "right people" (read: white people, especially white men) and incredibly regressive civil rights positions, especially where race is concerned, and definitely where sex is concerned in this case. As for where LGBTQ rights are concerned? Presumably against them, but out of the main focus (I'm not sure if Trump has any strong views on the issue, but his veep Mike Pence holds the most horrifyingly regressive views on LGBTQ rights outside of the Middle East, so regardless of Trump's own positions here, we can expect LGBTQ rights to be harshly curtailed).
@nervmeister: Liberals tend to hold that a lot of liberal principles, such as equal rights for all races and most sexual orientations, should not be up for democratic vote - if the people won't freely accept gay marriage, then we'll impose it on them. We all cheered when Obergefell v. Hodges went through, even though it was a direct contravention of the expressed will of the people of the (reliably-blue!) state of California. Most of us in the gay marriage debate were happy to see referenda and bills passed (like New York's) that legalized gay marriage, but we also weren't too fussed if a court did the same thing. Whatever works so long as we get the results we need.
If we're going to enforce "not up for discussion," then I'd say that suppression of people who don't adhere to these values is necessary - up until very recently, for example, Germany absolutely suppressed far-right parties from the political sphere. Otherwise, you'll eventually get a coalition of everyone whose views have been excluded from politics, and they're going to elect someone who will push these views back into the mainstream.
That candidate is Trump. The candidate of everyone who wants Jim Crow back, who wants immigrants to go back to Mexico (and have Mexico pay for it), who wants gays shocked back into a cure, and every man who wants the right to just go up to women and grab them by the pussy. He is the living incarnation of democracy striking back against our ideals of inalienable human rights.
edited 9th Nov '16 3:06:08 AM by Ramidel
In other disheartening news, the Mexican peso fell in value to an all-time low yesterday
edited 9th Nov '16 3:03:17 AM by Shippudentimes

It's not like gerrymandering is a secret or anything. Congress openly writes laws that serve no purpose other than to keep themselves in power. And we let them, as voters.
The solution we had available to us was "stop voting these fuckers in" but we failed at that just now.
edited 9th Nov '16 2:42:55 AM by Clarste