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
It's right in the goddamn constitution.
They've been exploiting that loophole since 1865
edited 9th Mar '17 6:16:18 PM by TacticalFox88
New Survey coming this weekend!I mean, I can sort of understand the logic. If we're going to keep these people locked up and provide them with food and such we should at least get some kind of return on our investment.
However, it gets horribly twisted when you promote policies that lock up nonviolent people and use them for forced labor.
House Judiciary Committee passes Anti-Class Action Lawsuit Bill without Debate or even a hearing
. The House will vote on it on Tuesday.
This is scarier then Ryancare. It'll basically kill off Class-Action Lawsuits entirely.
Personally, I do not believe that territorial regions have an inherent right to self-determination. Individual human beings do, that's why civil rights exist. But territorial regions are just convenient administrative areas. Claims to cultural and historical uniqueness almost never stand up to close scrutiny, because no region on Earth is culturally homogenous enough to claim they have a right to independence. The South (the Confederacy) is the perfect example- they were fighting for white self-determination, but the fact was several million other people lived there who did not share white southern culture. By the same logic, any region, however small, has an inherent right to independence, and that way lies anarchy. The default assumption should be unity, unless it can be shown that nearly everyone in both regions will be better off with separation.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
x4 If that bill somehow gets through Congress and Trump doesn't veto it, will his supporters finally realize that he doesn't actually give a shit about "draining the swamp"?
![]()
Poor minorities slaving away in fields. "Working" implies they're being paid.
I wouldn't be surprised if Trump starts using prisoners to build his damn wall.
edited 9th Mar '17 6:34:43 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedThe law abolishing class action suits—if it does that—can survive a court challenge. Currently, access to the courts is not necessarily a fundamental right. (Though equal access to the courts is).
That doesn't mean its inevitable though. It's one of those err maybe things. (The lower courts will probably take a dim view of the law, especially the ninth circuit).
And more practically, the court usually doesn't like being undercut, but there's a Trumpist-GOP majority on SCOTUS and anything can happen.
Edit: Good news though. You can always start up your own ponzi scheme if you're short on cash...not like you're going to get sued for it. And the bill to abolish the SEC is probably down the line if you're worried about prison. Or better, don't wait and just set up an asbestos stand. It's fireproof!
edited 9th Mar '17 6:48:15 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![]()
The Mafia will also be able to run rampant in the US again, too, as the courts are ultimately what took away most of their power. It'll be the 1920's all over again, where you have to try not to piss off Big Sal or you'll get whacked, and try to stay out of the crossfire.
edited 9th Mar '17 6:57:00 PM by Bat178
Which of course isn't ominous at all.
edited 9th Mar '17 6:53:14 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedThat thing about cutting the Coast Guard in order to pay for the wall...it is ridiculously stupid. The Coast Guard saves a ton of lives every year and, yes, they cut down on smuggling and people sneaking their way in on boats.
Seriously, they're going to end up leaving every other border wide open just to block land access from Mexico at this rate.
But, they are getting increasingly random with their cuts. Usually you can see an (idiotic) ideological reason for it, but the Coast Guard? Who hates the Coast Guard? Why are they a target?
Honestly, it's probably because they shot themselves in the foot with paying for the wall and paying for that increase in the military budget at the same time while trying to slash taxes. They're going to have to constantly keep cutting because the tax revenue is going to drop every single year and the cost of the wall is going to go up every single year.
edited 9th Mar '17 7:27:41 PM by Zendervai
...what? What the hell!? Are they really that insanely stupid?
Well it does make it really obvious that they aren't actually scared of terrorists.
Oh, I just realized that they might want a terrorist attack. It would make an excuse for taking more control...except that they've really hurt themselves with the budget.
edited 9th Mar '17 7:32:33 PM by Zendervai
![]()
Which is ridiculously awful and stupid in so many ways. Do they honestly think that if a terrorist attack does happen, that there is absolutely no way they or their loved ones won't be casualties?
edited 9th Mar '17 7:32:42 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedIt was actually pointed out in the Military Thread that severely cutting the budgets of the agencies responsible for enforcing immigration policies could actually be a nefarious scheme planned by the likes of Bannon; by making the borders actually more porous, the Trump Administration could then make the case for demanding greater power in a Vetenari Job Security gambit.
edited 9th Mar '17 7:33:21 PM by FluffyMcChicken

edited 9th Mar '17 6:11:48 PM by Kostya