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

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#174976: Feb 18th 2017 at 4:07:17 PM

And the Dems did try and fight those two. But they have to be careful with how they use a filibuster, because if the GOP goes full nuclear America is essentially a one party state until 2018 at the earliest.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
tclittle Professional Forum Ninja from Somewhere Down in Texas Since: Apr, 2010
Professional Forum Ninja
#174977: Feb 18th 2017 at 4:25:42 PM

Gave Fox News a click so y'all didn't have to: the silence from the Senate Intelligence Committee meeting with Comey over Flynn's Russian ties is deafening.

    Article 
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr, R-N.C., had two main objectives. First, hoof it to the Senate’s Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility as quickly as possible. Secondly, elude reporters.

The Senate was still taking its final vote Friday before a 10-day recess when Burr bounded out of the chamber. He traced a circuitous route, gliding past the Northeast Grand Staircase in the Capitol, making a hard right into the Ohio Clock Corridor, then jogging left again past the Mike Mansfield Room. Burr then strode down a carpeted hallway leading past the hideaway offices of other senators.

The senator boarded an obscure elevator at the end of that hallway that he obviously didn’t use often. He asked a U.S. Capitol Police officer carrying a salad if the elevator went to the SCIF. The elevator didn’t go as far down as Burr needed it to. So he disembarked, resuming his break-neck stride, spilling out into the upper level of the U.S. Capitol Visitor’s Center (CVC).

Burr cut past school children and tourists — nimbly avoiding the obvious thoroughfare to the SCIF. After all, reporters circled near the precise spot the Intelligence Committee chairman wanted to avoid — a spiral staircase beneath a skylight close to the Senate subway station that led to the obvious doorway concealing the SCIF.

Burr made his way to an escalator and coasted past the statues of King Kamehameha from Hawaii and Sakakawea from North Dakota. He disappeared behind a set of wooden doors by the CVC appointments desk.

Burr’s quarry was up ahead. A non-descript, double doorway at the end of the hall. All that sheathed the passageway was a six-panel, folding screen that looked like it belonged in the changing room of a high-end department store. Burr rapped his knuckles on the doorway three times to gain ingress. He then disappeared behind the ultimate backdoor on Capitol Hill.

There was a reason behind Burr’s cloak-and-dagger approach. He and other members of the Senate Intelligence Committee had a sub rosa meeting in the subterranean SCIF with FBI Director James Comey. The topic: Russian influence in last fall’s election, leaks and undoubtedly, how someone exposed a phone call between former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and Moscow’s Ambassador to Washington Sergey Kislyak.

Better yet, how did they intercept the call? Was it a mistake? Was Flynn under surveillance? Was there a super-secret warrant authorized by a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court?

Even so, why was the U.S. wiretapping one of its own citizens? FISA law expressly prohibits such eavesdropping. Were the participants on the call “unmasked” because spooks were listening for something else and stumbled upon Flynn on the line?

Flynn is now out of a job but really a bystander in the whole operation.

“I want to know what the Russians have on Donald Trump?” demanded House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Her fellow Democrats went further, invoking parlance from a malignant era not so long ago.

“Did the president know and when did he know it?” asked House Majority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md.

Whatever the reason, it was enough for Burr to keep the meeting on the Q.T. and slash his way through back hallways just to make the briefing. Congressional sources wouldn’t even confirm on the record that Comey was at the Capitol.

Reporters never would have known Comey was around had the director’s lanky, 6-foot-8-inch frame and robust security detail not betrayed him as he made his way to the conclave.

Soon, other senators came and went from the meeting, but no one would stop to talk or even generally elaborate on the subjects discussed.

“It was a classified briefing,” was all Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas, offered.

“We made our non-statement, statement,” declared Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Intelligence committee.

This was truly under the Cone of Silence.

What had overcome the usually loquacious senators? Were they silenced like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., last week?

The Senate determined Warren violated the body’s sacred “Rule XIX” when she bad-mouthed then-colleague and now Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The Senate then barred Warren from speaking on the floor for the remainder of the debate on Sessions’ nomination.

But after huddling with Comey for more than two hours, the senators didn’t say anything.

They didn’t have to. Their silence said everything.

There are classified briefings. And then there are classified briefings.

There is no issue as white hot in Washington about what’s going on now with Russia, Flynn and potential issues between President Trump and Moscow.

It may be poor form, but lawmakers on both sides of Capitol routinely walk out of classified sessions, stop at a bank of microphones and immediately spill things to the press.

It’s not that they openly cough up classified or sensitive information to reporters. Sometimes the lawmakers grouse that they didn’t learn anything in those briefings that they hadn’t already read in the paper.

One lawmaker privately told Fox several years ago that the worst possible optic is to walk out of a classified briefing, then immediately talk to a scrum of scribes.

Reporters may not like it. But perhaps that’s how it should be following a classified session. Hold your tongue. Play the cards close to your vest. Don’t chatter.

The fact that none of that jawboning unfolded following Friday’s covert Comey confab reveals how vital the session truly was. The reticence revealed how sensitive the information may be.

This is always the challenge when reporting on intelligence matters.

Reporters never have the full story. They can’t. The information is classified. It’s illegal for those in the intelligence community, aides and lawmakers to publicly unveil top-secret material.

And there’s usually a reason when factions inside the intelligence community go rogue and reveal information to burn a rival. But that’s selective and never the entire story. Those on the outside lack access to additional, contextual material.

Perhaps there’s good justification why actor A did something. Why did actor B do that? Well, there may be a perfectly fine explanation, ensconced inside the classified documents. But the outside world will never know. The other information remains obscured.

More often than not, information deliberately leaked to the press may not even be true. Or at the very least, leakers slightly contour the information to influence public perception and shape the debate.

Those inside the intelligence community know it’s not true. But that’s the problem. They can’t volunteer additional information to countervail the claims without potentially breaking the law. They’re stuck.

These are the black arts of the intelligence world — performed not just in Washington but in Moscow, Vienna, London, Prague and other capitals.

The leaks about Flynn say a lot about him and his political adversaries.

There were no leaks or even vague comments following Comey’s session. This was a stark contrast to how things usually go down on Capitol Hill.

edited 18th Feb '17 4:26:17 PM by tclittle

"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."
Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#174978: Feb 18th 2017 at 4:40:31 PM

If it comes to having to pick battles, then the top of the list should be anything threatening human rights + freedom of information, any attempt to hijack the voting system, anything that would threaten lives if gutted (under which I'd put a lot of environmental stuff and some health stuff), anything that is an obvious ploy to consolidate power.

Any Dems that would vote for these things, even out of fear of their base, are probably likely to hurt more than help.

edited 18th Feb '17 4:41:44 PM by Elle

ViperMagnum357 Since: Mar, 2012
#174979: Feb 18th 2017 at 4:56:05 PM

[up]So, oppose literally everything the GOP is currently doing, besides rewriting our fiscal systems to line their pockets.

Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#174980: Feb 18th 2017 at 5:13:40 PM

Well just as an example, I don't particularly want public broadcasting to go away or be turned into for-profit ventures and I recognize the relatively miniscule amount the government spends on arts funding does no harm and a reasonable amount of good. But they're not more important than more general and direct threats to the Constitution, rule of law or human lives.

Gilphon (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#174981: Feb 18th 2017 at 5:24:27 PM

[up][up]Well, no, not literally everything. It's an important distinction. As an example- Trump nominated David Shulkin as Secretary of Veteran Affairs. The senate unanimously voted to confirm him because he was appointed to his previous position by Obama- so neither party had any reason to oppose him.

But, of course, this means that literally every Senator voted in favour of one Trump's nominees. So, under the 'try to primary every Democrat who ever voted with Trump' logic, this means we should try to primary literally every Democratic Senator. Because they went along with it the one time Trump nominated someone from the Obama administration.

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#174982: Feb 18th 2017 at 5:38:00 PM

The other problem with "vote out everyone who went with Trump" ignores his tendency to flipflop rapidly on any point he doesn't care about (which is most of them, to be fair) and the fact that he's not actually a traditional Republican and that aside from business concerns he really doesn't give a shit what the Senate and the House do.

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#174983: Feb 18th 2017 at 6:00:40 PM

I guess we could modify that into "vote out everyone who voted in favor of Trump and the GOP's bad ideas and nominees."

Granted, that's still nearly all of them.

Disgusted, but not surprised
Gilphon (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#174984: Feb 18th 2017 at 6:29:29 PM

I think it is all the senators- All but one of them voted to confirm Mattis.

The congress votes, meanwhile, have all been more or less along party lines, with a small number of people from both parties dissenting. Plenty of Democrats who've voted against Trump every time there- indeed I think it applies to the majority of them. I couldn't tell you how many of those votes were over potentially disastrous things, though- a good portion of it is legalise that goes over my head.

CenturyEye Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign? from I don't know where the Yith sent me this time... Since: Jan, 2017 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign?
#174985: Feb 18th 2017 at 6:30:05 PM

Actually considering how much nuance these decisions involve and the hard time the Dems will have justifying any decision any which way to a left that's mobile but fracturing they might do well to focus less on which decisions they make in the future than explaining each to their now and future constituents.
Considering how Republicans are fleeing town halls, it'll be a nice contrast to see Dems holding regular caucuses and making it a point to give a state of things/ defense of the republic message at frequent town hall meetings.

Similar things do happen now, but they're low-key, party events (at least in GA). There's not even food! And the first thing I learned about public office was bring food.

edited 18th Feb '17 6:32:09 PM by CenturyEye

Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our lives
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#174986: Feb 18th 2017 at 6:39:38 PM

[up] It's amazing how much goodwill one can earn with free sandwiches, doughnuts, and coffee. smile

edited 18th Feb '17 6:41:19 PM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
JBC31187 Since: Jan, 2015
#174987: Feb 18th 2017 at 6:42:01 PM

As far as the filibuster goes: the GOP will just nuke it when they find it convenient. Therefore, the Democrats shouldn't hold back on it. Either the Republicans will end the filibuster, forcing themselves to own shit like killing social security, or the Republicans will hold back so the Democrats can stop the even-more-crazy Republican proposals from going through (as has happened before).

As far as Democrats voting in favor of Trump picks: I don't like Manchin, but I think he's more reliable than someone like Lieberman. He votes depending on the situation. His vote helped pass Obamacare. When De Vos was up, and two Republicans were voting against her, Manchin voted with the Democrats. When Pruitt was up, and the whole of the Republican party was behind him, Manchin voted for Pruitt because there was no way to prevent it. So, he's useful enough. I think the real loyalty test comes when Trump starts doing shit like ordering the National Guard to round up innocent people.

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#174988: Feb 18th 2017 at 7:24:25 PM

As I'm in Texas, I'm pretty goddamned sure I can't insist on ideological purity in my democratic representatives, because getting a foothold in anything here is climbing uphill during an avalanche.

In any case, showing up at townhalls held by Democratic officials is just as important as showing up at the Republicans. That is one lesson we can for sure learn from the Tea Party; the officials on your side need to know what concerns you just as much as the officials not on your side.

TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#174989: Feb 18th 2017 at 7:28:45 PM

The thing is, the big cities in Texas are Democratic, right?

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#174990: Feb 18th 2017 at 7:35:21 PM

Well, the group I belong to has visited both friendly dems and hostile reps.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
JBC31187 Since: Jan, 2015
#174991: Feb 18th 2017 at 7:50:23 PM

The Democratic reps were hostile?

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#174992: Feb 18th 2017 at 7:59:14 PM

Jb:I... wasn't saying that at all??

@Handle: Even so, not a guarantee. Also, again, I've never been one to insist on ideological purity.

BearyScary Since: Sep, 2010 Relationship Status: You spin me right round, baby
#174993: Feb 18th 2017 at 8:05:57 PM

Is it unusual for a president to begin their re-election campaign this early?

Do not obey in advance.
LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#174994: Feb 18th 2017 at 8:09:09 PM

Very

Oh really when?
DingoWalley1 Asgore Adopts Noelle Since: Feb, 2014 Relationship Status: Can't buy me love
Asgore Adopts Noelle
#174995: Feb 18th 2017 at 8:13:18 PM

[up][up] It is very odd for a President to campaign 28 days into their first term, but it's not odd for a President to hold a Political Rally for their more questionable policies that early.

Considering how Trump basically repeated all his Campaign Promises, and how the people that actually went there acted like it was still the middle of 2016, I'm definitely going with the "this is weird and not normal" side. Considering how bad Trump's approval ratings are, though, he might need to start Campaigning only 28 days in if he even wants a prayer of being competitive in 2020...

Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#174996: Feb 18th 2017 at 8:40:58 PM

Trump loved campaigning. It's clear that he hates being President. So he's obviously trying to recapture the thing he actually liked doing so that he can stand being in a position that he hates. Especially since no one can ask questions in a rally unless he wants them to.

HallowHawk Since: Feb, 2013
#174997: Feb 18th 2017 at 8:43:46 PM

From what we've so far about how the Republicans are seeing the results of their victory last year and what had happened so far, is the country in the middle of "Dystopia Is Hard?"

BearyScary Since: Sep, 2010 Relationship Status: You spin me right round, baby
#174998: Feb 18th 2017 at 8:57:49 PM

[up][up]My thoughts exactly.

Do not obey in advance.
JBC31187 Since: Jan, 2015
#174999: Feb 18th 2017 at 9:13:09 PM

No, I was asking De Marquis.

Edit: Nevermind, I thought you were talking about hostile representatives in general, not Republicans.

edited 18th Feb '17 9:15:36 PM by JBC31187

FluffyMcChicken My Hair Provides Affordable Healthcare from where the floating lights gleam Since: Jun, 2014 Relationship Status: In another castle
My Hair Provides Affordable Healthcare
#175000: Feb 18th 2017 at 11:06:40 PM

BBC: 'Enemies of the people': Trump remark echoes history's worst tyrants

Alright America, the gloves have to come off now.

We've officially elected our first self-proclaimed despot.


Total posts: 417,856
Top