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
#178451: Mar 18th 2017 at 11:00:21 AM

But cutting the Coast Guard and Airport Security will.

And the local construction industry is going to make a killing, hopefully your auditors are still there so Trump doesn't blatantly use this to launder billions from the US budget.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
kkhohoho (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#178452: Mar 18th 2017 at 11:11:22 AM

[up][up]Exactly. All building the biggest wall America's ever seen will accomplish is leading someone or another in Mexico to build the biggest ladder America's ever seen. What's Trump gonna' do, threaten Mexico to outlaw all ladders or else?tongue

PhysicalStamina i'm tired, my friend (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
i'm tired, my friend
#178453: Mar 18th 2017 at 11:12:14 AM

[up]Probably, yeah.

i'm tired, my friend
Wyldchyld (Old as dirt)
#178454: Mar 18th 2017 at 11:34:07 AM

Okay, construction isn't my strongest point, but I do have a very tiny amount of boundary construction experience... I notice the video linked to suggests a foundation depth of 5' for a 20' wall to prevent digging, but that's a blanket statement, and doesn't even sound like a good foundation for the wall itself, never mind anyone trying to tunnel under (there's a video on that news website talking about smuggling tunnels going as deep as 70' underground; while 70' is rare, the 5' explored in the first video's scenario really isn't much of a barrier unless the terrain is basically undiggable).

Even short walls need knowledge of what type of ground is being covered because so much is dependent on that - foundation depth, foundation type, wall height, wall type, etc. Given the length of this wall, there's no way a single type of wall is going to work - the terrain will be too variable. I remember a 5' wall still needed a 1' foundation and that was on good, solid ground.

My point is that even with my incredibly limited knowledge of construction, the project submission time frame doesn't sound feasible. It sounds more like Trump already knows who he wants to give the contract to, and is setting up such a short time frame to stack the deck against competition.

edited 18th Mar '17 11:46:05 AM by Wyldchyld

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#178455: Mar 18th 2017 at 11:39:02 AM

[up] That's frequently how things work in Trump's native business sector, so I'm hardly surprised.

Wyldchyld (Old as dirt)
#178456: Mar 18th 2017 at 11:46:48 AM

Well, that might be normal, but this isn't exactly a normal project.

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#178457: Mar 18th 2017 at 12:00:45 PM

Granted, the US currently has some of the strictest procurement laws in the world (its hard to sole source, you need to hold a competition) so Trump doesn't have total control to choose the prime developer(s), let alone all the subcontractors. And if Trump is trying to rig the competition, he's about to get the US government sued.

Granted, the pool of companies capable of leading such a project is rather small.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#178458: Mar 18th 2017 at 12:10:49 PM

They'll also need good lawyers. Lots of the land isn't government owned. Some landowners would end up on the other side of the wall. Constructing a wall inside of the Rio Grande - also the Colorado, but that river doesn't reach the border anymore, mostly - is hard. In California the wall has to cross several dormant faults.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Boston Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: Can't buy me love
#178459: Mar 18th 2017 at 12:41:19 PM

The moment after the wall is built, someone's liable to sound the Horn of Winter (obligatory Game Of Thrones reference), and we'll end up with a billion-dollar pile of rubble.

Which is pretty indicative of the entire infrastructure scheme. Boston (among other cities) got offered a billion dollars to complete a construction project extending one portion of our subway line. That's great for the short-term, but it doesn't provide any long-term groth, and avoids the many other areas where improvement is much more critical.

And construction is, for better or worse, often seen as a hotspot for corruption, which means most of that billion dollars won't actually be given to the Commonwealth.

Oddly enough, the political reaction I've seen is mostly to take the money, since you don't come across $1B every day, and refusing it would be taken as a slight (and cause to turn down other Federal funding.) But of course, other requests might get refused anyway, if we take the money. Damned if you do, damned if you don't....

kkhohoho (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#178460: Mar 18th 2017 at 12:56:18 PM

[up]So what happens if they take the money, but don't actually do anything with it? (Like making a fucking wall?) Because I could see that happening.

Boston Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: Can't buy me love
#178461: Mar 18th 2017 at 1:05:28 PM

Like a lot of municipal, state and Federal expenditures, money tends to get ear-marked for projects, meaning it can't be transferred to other uses (including, sometimes, being used to pay off debt, or being allowed to collect interest, which wouldn't be as encumbered.) Depends how the allocations are worded.

Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#178462: Mar 18th 2017 at 1:48:53 PM

And this is the Trump government. They're probably going to word it badly.

DingoWalley1 Asgore Adopts Noelle Since: Feb, 2014 Relationship Status: Can't buy me love
Asgore Adopts Noelle
#178463: Mar 18th 2017 at 2:03:12 PM

A New GenForward Poll has most 18-30 Groups claiming Trump as illegitimate, all 18-30 Groups claiming Trump sucks as a President.

That's good in my opinion; it shows hope for the Future of America. These people just need to vote in 2018 and 2020.

MarkVonLewis Since: Jun, 2010
#178464: Mar 18th 2017 at 2:08:57 PM

I'll vote in 2018 and 2020 provided the Dems don't pull the same shady, rigging bullshit they pulled on Sanders.

KarkatTheDalek Not as angry as the name would suggest. from Somwhere in Time/Space Since: Mar, 2012 Relationship Status: You're a beautiful woman, probably
Not as angry as the name would suggest.
#178465: Mar 18th 2017 at 2:10:12 PM

Regardless of whether they did that or not...

Are you really willing to risk another 4 years of Trump?

Oh God! Natural light!
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#178466: Mar 18th 2017 at 2:12:05 PM

They probably did, but it was completely unnecessary.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
TheAirman Brightness from The vicinity of an area adjacent to a location Since: Feb, 2011 Relationship Status: Historians will say we were good friends.
Brightness
#178467: Mar 18th 2017 at 2:23:59 PM

[up][up][up]Not getting what you wanted, for whatever reason, never excuses stepping aside for the greatest evil.

PSN ID: FateSeraph | Switch friendcode: SW-0145-8835-0610 Congratulations! She/They
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
MorningStar1337 The Encounter that ended the Dogma from 🤔 Since: Nov, 2012
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#178470: Mar 18th 2017 at 2:33:30 PM

The DNC might have pulled some underhanded moves on Sanders (and its not like his campaign was totally clean either), and they certainly thought about it.

But that didn't make a difference, he was never in a position to defeat Clinton, which is probably why her campaign told the DNC to knock it off.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
kkhohoho (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#178471: Mar 18th 2017 at 2:33:43 PM

[up]x6 THIS. This right here. This is the kind of crap that gave the paranoid old man the election. It shouldn't have mattered whatever crap the Dems may or may not have pulled on Bernie; what mattered was making sure the paranoid old man didn't get into the White House. This was the time to put aside your political leanings and preferences and just vote for whoever was opposing the paranoid old man, and because half of the country didn't realize or refused to acknowledge this, we now have a legit paranoid old man running rampant in the White House, with the only ones to oppose him being We the People (TM) and his own incompetence. But if weren't for such sh— ...ahem, objectionable statements as presented here, we might have been celebrating Hilary's latest tax increase for the rich instead of dreading a looming tax cut for the rich, among many other myriad things.

edited 18th Mar '17 2:36:41 PM by kkhohoho

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#178472: Mar 18th 2017 at 2:38:58 PM

Trump browbeat the G20 into dropping its pledge to fight Protectionism.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/18/news/economy/g20-trade-protectionism-trump-germany/index.html

The only solace the world can take it is that at least the US will go down with them.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#178473: Mar 18th 2017 at 2:39:15 PM

I'll vote in 2018 and 2020 provided the Dems don't pull the same shady, rigging bullshit they pulled on Sanders.
Even if the alternative is another four years of Trump or someone like him? I said it before and I'll say it again, the moment that the election came down to Trump and Clinton, any corruption on Clinton's part (real or imagined) became irrelevant.

Falrinn Since: Dec, 2014
#178474: Mar 18th 2017 at 2:44:02 PM

[up]

Agreed. I very much believe in voting based on relative merits (which is often called voting for the lesser evil, but this principle applies even if neither of the candidates could be described as "evil"note ).

So unless the Democrats somehow manage to nominate a candidate who is worse then Trump (which would be impressive), I'm voting for the Democratic Party candidate in 2020. Excepting of course the off-chance of a major political realignment that makes the candidate best suited to actually unseating Trump someone other then the Democratic Party nominee.

BearyScary Since: Sep, 2010 Relationship Status: You spin me right round, baby
#178475: Mar 18th 2017 at 3:01:23 PM

Why does the call for a "physically imposing" border wall from the government make me laugh? [lol]

It's just those two words specifically. Could this administration invoke false machismo any more?

Do not obey in advance.

Total posts: 417,856
Top