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

pwiegle Cape Malleum Majorem from Nowhere Special Since: Sep, 2015 Relationship Status: Singularity
Cape Malleum Majorem
#164651: Dec 29th 2016 at 1:38:56 PM

"If the majority of you voted to rape and murder my sister, that still wouldn't make it right." — paraphrasing Terry Goodkind, in one of the Sword of Truth novels.

This Space Intentionally Left Blank.
RBluefish Since: Nov, 2013
#164652: Dec 29th 2016 at 1:42:29 PM

I actually agree with Swanpride(!) in that I like the sentiment behind the statement, even if it gets a little muddy in terms of actual implementation. There are some morals in life that are non-negotiable and cannot be compromised on. There are times when you really do need to stare the world in the face and say "no, fuck you."

A recent real-life example of this sort of action would be the water protectors at Standing Rock. They stood there, unarmed, in tents, riding horses, in freezing weather, and faced down a literal army of heavily-armed jackbooted corporate thugs. And they said "no. You move."

I think that other Americans would do well to learn from their example over the next, oh I dunno, four years.

"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."
TerminusEst from the Land of Winter and Stars Since: Feb, 2010
#164653: Dec 29th 2016 at 1:42:51 PM

Obama orders Russia expulsions, sanctions for interference in 2016 election

President Barack Obama on Thursday ordered the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats and sanctioned Russian intelligence officials who Washington believes were involved in hacking U.S. political groups in the 2016 presidential election.

And the Kremlin responded shortly after.

Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele
ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#164654: Dec 29th 2016 at 1:47:01 PM

[up][up][up][up]

Unfortunately, the wording is ambiguous enough that it could apply in the reverse direction, such as "Most people might say gay marriage is alright, but that doesn't make it so".

edited 29th Dec '16 1:48:20 PM by ironballs16

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
Deadbeatloser22 from Disappeared by Space Magic (Great Old One) Relationship Status: Tsundere'ing
Draghinazzo (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I get a feeling so complicated...
#164656: Dec 29th 2016 at 1:51:20 PM

That's more or less the thing, yes. Everyone has something that they think is right and won't compromise on, the reason people fight is that their goals are mutually exclusive. If no understanding can be reached then you'll have to resort to other means, some better, some worse.

Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#164657: Dec 29th 2016 at 1:56:22 PM

[up][up][up] Well, the quote is about staying true to your conviction...it is not necessarily saying that your convictions are necessarily right. Though the implication is naturally that you can compromise on everything which doesn't really disturb other people's freedom.

Eschaton Since: Jul, 2010
#164658: Dec 29th 2016 at 3:03:48 PM

Speaking from personal experience, for the more evangelical/fundamentalist types any form of compromise is a literal sin.

Which is part of how you wind up with the "war on Christmas" and other Christian supremacist nonsense.

rfindlay from Boston Since: Dec, 2014
#164659: Dec 29th 2016 at 3:09:53 PM

Slightly off-topic from the current discussion at hand, but I just had a thought last night before bed and decided to wait til this evening to suggest it. While the issue of D's moving to R controlled states tends to get dismissed, I wonder about the inverse, incentivising D voters to move to lean or safe D states in order to shift the balance of those 435 house seats in time for the 2020 census. I'm sure there's probably a few catches I haven't thought of but it seems like that might have more chance to have an impact than the former idea. Anyone have any thoughts on that?

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#164660: Dec 29th 2016 at 3:14:00 PM

"Arizona sheriff Arpaio asks appeals court to void contempt finding" - http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN14I1YV

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#164661: Dec 29th 2016 at 3:14:40 PM

The biggest catch is that you are talking about a very large number of people. You can't simply move them around like chesspieces.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
CrimsonZephyr Would that it were so simple. from Massachusetts Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
Would that it were so simple.
#164662: Dec 29th 2016 at 3:16:38 PM

Well, the only way you could use population redistribution to affect Congressional politics is by moving Democrats not only to red states, but to red districts. Easier said than done. One, the culture shock — these places genuinely are flyover country, filled with empty wilderness and dying towns. An urban Californian or New Englander isn't going to be jumping at the chance to move there. Two, and building on the first, there isn't a whole lot of work outside the cities that someone newly moved in from Boston would be looking for. In both cases, you'd just end up having all of the Democrats clustered in a few districts.

Thinning out the local crop of Democrats will only make it so they lose everywhere, instead of having at least a few bastions of support.

"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
rfindlay from Boston Since: Dec, 2014
#164663: Dec 29th 2016 at 3:18:56 PM

[up][up] I realize that, but with the fact that a lot of social programs that the most vulnerable will depend on will end up being gutted (at the federal level at least) and that some blue states (such as MA, where I live) implement some of these on a state level as well, perhaps the incentives could be enough of a draw to pull a not insubstantial number of people from more solidly red states.

[up] I was actually speaking strictly of the inverse of what you were suggesting. Although now that I think about it since the apportionment was limited by congress I suppose they would probably have enough time to lessen the blowback as a result of such a move.

I realize all this sounds more akin to an evacuation rather than typical political strategy, but those red states won't get any bluer if the people without the tattered remains of a safety net beneath them die or are disillusioned or disenfranchised (because lets be honest, the Republicans aren't going to sacrifice their core voter base if they can just cut it for everyone else).

edited 29th Dec '16 3:33:12 PM by rfindlay

AngelusNox Warder of the damned from The guard of the gates of oblivion Since: Dec, 2014 Relationship Status: Married to the job
Warder of the damned
#164664: Dec 29th 2016 at 3:20:47 PM

I was stuck on the ass crack of the buttfucking nowhere for a few days.

Anything important that I missed?

Inter arma enim silent leges
Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#164665: Dec 29th 2016 at 3:23:00 PM

Well, more New California laws are going into affect at the beginning of the year.

Some were already covered here, a few a newly mentioned.

TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor
#164666: Dec 29th 2016 at 4:00:17 PM

If only Californias generally assembly controlled the Federal government

New Survey coming this weekend!
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
#164667: Dec 29th 2016 at 4:16:00 PM

[up]X3 Just sanctions on Russia and the expulsion of Russian diplomats. Oh and some more beloved celebrities died.

edited 29th Dec '16 4:16:43 PM by Silasw

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#164668: Dec 29th 2016 at 4:18:38 PM

So, I hear that Republicans in the Senate are interested in sanctioning Russia, Trump be damned.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
carbon-mantis Collector Of Fine Oddities from Trumpland Since: Mar, 2010 Relationship Status: Married to my murderer
Collector Of Fine Oddities
#164669: Dec 29th 2016 at 4:20:18 PM

Only Mc Cain and Graham, and they're already on Trump's shitlist.

BearyScary Since: Sep, 2010 Relationship Status: You spin me right round, baby
#164670: Dec 29th 2016 at 4:25:20 PM

I wonder if the dems would have more appeal among young people if they were more liberal.

I actually like how not all Republicans are in lockstep with Trump...

edited 29th Dec '16 4:27:06 PM by BearyScary

Do not obey in advance.
Gilphon (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#164671: Dec 29th 2016 at 4:28:13 PM

Hmm. Imagine a world where the GOP does become the party of Trump in every meaningful way, but McCain remain an out spoken voice against him. It's not hard to imagine, in that scenario, that McCain could end giving up on his party and crossing the aisle.

And wouldn't that be a thing, if a guy who ran for President against Obama ended up joining his party. Imagine if that's how they end up taking back control of the senate!

edited 29th Dec '16 4:29:29 PM by Gilphon

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#164672: Dec 29th 2016 at 4:28:56 PM

[up][up]They have been trending liberal. Young people don't trust them though.

edit: I'm torn between whether or not I want Mc Cain and the others to switch to Democrat. On the one hand it would send a powerful message and bolster their numbers. On the other hand it makes it impossible for them to try and influence the party.

edited 29th Dec '16 4:30:23 PM by Kostya

DingoWalley1 Asgore Adopts Noelle Since: Feb, 2014 Relationship Status: Can't buy me love
Asgore Adopts Noelle
#164673: Dec 29th 2016 at 4:29:50 PM

Paul Ryan welcomes Obama's "overdue" Russian Retaliation, although he condemns Obama for not doing so earlier.

So make that 3 Republicans that verbally oppose Russia, including the Speaker of the House.

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#164674: Dec 29th 2016 at 4:32:02 PM

Graham and Mc Cain seem to think that they can get a veto proof anti-Russia majority in the Senate, and considering that Democrats hate Moscow right now and that there are plenty of Republicans with vested interests in the security status quo, I'm inclined to believe them.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Draghinazzo (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I get a feeling so complicated...
#164675: Dec 29th 2016 at 4:54:00 PM

The way Ryan said it made it seem like his motivation is twofold.

It allows him to criticize Obama and the democrats for being weak, while helping the GOP save face and make it look like they have some degree of integrity and aren't simply going to let Trump and Russia do whatever they want.

If Trump sinks later and they keep taking these sorts of measures in the meantime (without compromising their other horrible plans), they can just say Trump was a freak who hijacked their party, that he doesn't represent them and that they did everything in their power to stop him while he was in office, meanwhile accusing the democrats for not bringing out a stronger candidate, not being hard enough on him, creating the situation that led to Trump, etc.

edited 29th Dec '16 4:56:56 PM by Draghinazzo


Total posts: 417,856
Top