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

Imca (Veteran)
#265726: Jan 4th 2019 at 8:57:26 PM

Considering I just delt with one today, and only like half of the TSA people were there, it is negitivly affecting wait times already.

....

But like, the TSA themselfs could compleatly go and the whole thing would be much better, and fix the wait time issue.

Steven (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
#265727: Jan 4th 2019 at 9:00:05 PM

Tax returns are gonna get affected if this goes on any longer. That's a bomb waiting to go off.

Remember, these idiots drive, fuck, and vote. Not always in that order.
Ingonyama Since: Jan, 2001
#265728: Jan 5th 2019 at 12:05:59 AM

@ archon: How is it nonsense? Are you saying the article is lying, and none of those powers exist or could do what they claim? I find it hard to believe they would do so, when a search of the relevant laws and statutes would prove whether they exist or not.

Also, the article didn't say any or all of those would happen, just that they could and we shouldn't be complacent. Plus it offered the solution of the House looking into these powers and doing what they can to curtail them. How is that bad?

archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#265729: Jan 5th 2019 at 1:03:35 AM

[up] Just to very quickly go down the list:

First off, though it’s touched on a tiny bit at the bottom of the article, the unfortunate heart of the matter is that the legal basis for Presidental emergency powers is a relative unknown. Any attempt by Trump (or any President, honestly) to invoke them would be met by resistance from large parts of the government from the state level on up. This would make whatever he was trying to do very difficult, to say the least. There’s also the fact that what he wants to do, get the wall built, would still be quite difficult even with a state of emergency. MILCON, the fund that’s been identified as a potential source of money for the wall, isn’t really super useful for a project like that.

Many of the powers they’re worrying about in that article aren’t emergency powers but rather wartime powers. You’ll note that the president, while he can deploy troops on his own, cannot declare war on his own. These powers are in essence locked behind congressional approval, and that’s approval that’s unlikely to be coming now that the Democrats control the house.

Some of the powers they’re worried about are borderline nonsensical to fear in this context. For example, they hit a scare chord with the Presidental ability to approve human testing of biological or chemical weapons during wartime. Aside from the how, why would Trump even bother with that? He’s fixated on immigration, which not only doesn’t involve the branch of the government that would carry out that testing but doesn’t even involve the potential use from any source of biological and chemical weapons. If he attempted to suddenly have weapons tested on people as some sort of bizarre punishment, well, not only would that most likely be a crime to begin with given the lack of any necessity but I doubt the relevant agencies would feel up to the task.

The interpretation they’re using of Section 706 (the internet kill switch) has really no legal basis whatsoever at this point. They offer a vague “some government officials” as a source of their reading, but two or three far-right senators isn’t exactly a legal consensus. At this point there isn’t a legal foundation under that section for an internet kill switch, and though they gloss over it it’s pointed out in the article that the government likely doesn’t even have the capabilities to produce the effects they warn are possible. That feels a little dishonest to me.

The less said about the section where they’re panicking about Trump deploying the military at home the better.

When they lay out their ultimate nightmare scenario at the end they even seem to realize it’s not really feasible, and far from likely. The article lays out a lot of good information on emergency powers, but the conclusions they draw about their use are questionable at best.

Edited by archonspeaks on Jan 5th 2019 at 1:04:51 AM

They should have sent a poet.
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#265730: Jan 5th 2019 at 2:01:25 AM

The Rashida Tlaib story is just ick. Why is a single expletive such a big deal when other people (cough cough) get little or no criticism for the same? Just some more "tall poppy woman" syndrome?

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Eschaton Since: Jul, 2010
#265731: Jan 5th 2019 at 2:10:56 AM

The only viable criticism I've seen is that calling him a motherfucker is inappropriate because he is clearly an aspiring daughterfucker.

Edited by Eschaton on Jan 5th 2019 at 2:11:29 AM

Oruka Since: Dec, 2018
Ingonyama Since: Jan, 2001
#265733: Jan 5th 2019 at 4:35:16 AM

@ archon: First, thank you for explaining (and in such great detail) your specific stances and/or conclusions you were drawing from the available information. That's a lot more fair, though I would still say calling it all nonsense (when it seems to me you mostly meant that for the biological testing bit and the nightmare scenario from the article's end) is a bit disingenuous yourself.

What you really meant, if I am reading you right, is not that all these powers don't exist or couldn't be used in very dangerous ways, but that you considered it so unlikely (either due to Trump's mindset/desires, the departments involved, or all those from Congress to the courts who might or certainly would intervene) that it would seem to be unreasonable or silly to worry about them. To that I would say that while that may be true in general, there's nothing wrong with contemplating even unlikely (but not impossible) scenarios and then figuring out what to do to prevent them, or mitigate them if they do occur.

Because after all, the one thing you and the article's author (and me as well) seem to agree on is that very little is known about these powers in terms of either how/to what extent they could be employed or what would happen if they were, because they have been used so seldom. But with as unpredictable as 45 has been and continues to be, and all the norms he's already broken, I don't think we can afford to ignore this particular possibility—especially if he continues to bring it up/use it as a talking point as the shutdown continues (or even later on).

Which brings me back to my initial point that, as unlikely as it may be that he'll try anything or be successful at it, there's no harm in the House Dems looking into limiting these powers, or the various legal groups that would bring suit against him should he attempt it preparing strategies. There's already so many ways the House will be providing oversight and the resistance has been standing up to his actions, one more won't make much difference. And even if he never tries it or doesn't succeed at it, looking into these powers is still a good idea for the reason already brought up: in case a future president does so due to the Cheeto's precedent.

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#265734: Jan 5th 2019 at 4:56:41 AM

[up]Honestly, one should worry more about the damage Trump is doing right now without worrying too much about somewhat far-fetched and very unlikely doomsday scenarios.

That article seems like blatant click-bait.

Edited by M84 on Jan 5th 2019 at 8:57:10 PM

Disgusted, but not surprised
Ultimatum Disasturbator from the Amiga Forest (Old as dirt) Relationship Status: Who needs love when you have waffles?
Disasturbator
#265735: Jan 5th 2019 at 5:05:57 AM

Honest question,does anyone else think in light of Trump's Government shut down that future legalisation will make it harder to shut down the government?The question is,how do you do that?

Other then obviously firing the cause of the shutdown

have a listen and have a link to my discord server
archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#265736: Jan 5th 2019 at 5:19:26 AM

[up][up][up] Not really a fully accurate read of what I was saying.

The article is very clickbaity, and while the information it presents may be individually valid, the conclusions it draws with that information are erroneous in the extreme. It’s absolutely fair to call it nonsense.

Worrying about these powers being used is kind of like worrying about a meteor strike. I mean yeah, sure, it could happen, but don’t we all have better things to do?

Edited by archonspeaks on Jan 5th 2019 at 5:33:39 AM

They should have sent a poet.
Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#265737: Jan 5th 2019 at 5:37:48 AM

[up][up] You are aware that the whole thing with the government shutdown is pretty unique to the US?

Ultimatum Disasturbator from the Amiga Forest (Old as dirt) Relationship Status: Who needs love when you have waffles?
Disasturbator
#265738: Jan 5th 2019 at 5:40:33 AM

yes and your point is?

have a listen and have a link to my discord server
CrimsonZephyr Would that it were so simple. from Massachusetts Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
Would that it were so simple.
#265739: Jan 5th 2019 at 5:51:39 AM

[up][up][up][up]Simply make the budget of the previous year carry over to the next if another spending bill isn't passed.

"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."
Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#265740: Jan 5th 2019 at 5:54:14 AM

That you can have a functioning government without the option of someone shutting down the budget on a regular basis. Ie by following this [up] suggestion.

Edited by Swanpride on Jan 5th 2019 at 5:54:51 AM

Ultimatum Disasturbator from the Amiga Forest (Old as dirt) Relationship Status: Who needs love when you have waffles?
Disasturbator
#265741: Jan 5th 2019 at 5:58:48 AM

I was thinking of more active measures to act as a deterrent against a shutdown,carrying over the budget sounds like something you'd do anyway

have a listen and have a link to my discord server
Ingonyama Since: Jan, 2001
#265742: Jan 5th 2019 at 6:10:51 AM

@ archon: How is it erroneous to conclude "these powers could be dangerous because they've never been fully adjudicated and we don't know what the consequences of their use could be"? Because that really seemed like the only main conclusion to be gotten from the article once you set aside doomsday scenarios and what-ifs. And I seem to recall that a number of people in this forum have said repeatedly that the powers of the executive branch have become too great and unchecked...in which case finding a way to curtail them would seem the course of wisdom. The fact that the emergency powers statutes might need to be added to the many aspects of the presidency which Congress should review and overhaul doesn't seem like a wrong or unnecessary conclusion to me.

And to both you and M84: we can walk and chew gum at the same time, as has also been noted repeatedly. The issue here isn't so much whether these scenarios will happen, but that the idea has been planted in the Cheeto's head as something he can try to get his stupid wall. Is he going to, or will he succeed if he tries? Who knows, and hopefully not. But as long as it's something he might be considering (or people around him who actually do know what they're doing and have influence over him), it's something we should at least stick a pin in and keep an eye on.

I would think you'd approve of the conclusion "this could be bad if it happens, let's consider ways to counteract it just in case" rather than assuming it's absolutely going to and panicking about it.

TLDR: All I'm suggesting is that if this is something 45 or his people keep bringing up as an option, and/or his base picks up on it and starts demanding it, don't you think the House Dems should at least have some sort of game plan in mind for how to defuse it?

Edited by Ingonyama on Jan 5th 2019 at 6:17:31 AM

archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#265743: Jan 5th 2019 at 6:15:41 AM

[up] We can walk and chew gum, but there’s no need to. To continue the metaphor from above, worrying about these powers rather than dealing with literally any other more pressing concern is like planning for that meteor strike but never wearing a seatbelt.

Quite frankly, worrying about Trump exercising these emergency powers is more or less the left wing equivalent of the jade helm nonsense. It’s a possibility so remote and implausible that it may as well be a non-issue, and it’s been hyped into existence with misleading articles like the one linked.

And since it was missed in my post above, there already are ways to “defuse it”. Basically everything listed in that article is either borderline impossible to begin with or could he swatted down by the courts or congress.

Now, I’ll point out that there are some genuinely worrying facets of Presidental war power that have been abused for several administrations in a row now. They’re not mentioned in that article or in this current discussion though.

Edited by archonspeaks on Jan 5th 2019 at 6:18:12 AM

They should have sent a poet.
Ingonyama Since: Jan, 2001
#265744: Jan 5th 2019 at 6:23:01 AM

And where in the world did I say "worry about this rather than everything he has actually done or is doing right now"? I was merely suggesting this is an additional something to keep an eye on if it starts getting talked about seriously by the media, or he tweets about it repeatedly, and so on.

Because it is certainly true that the things he tried already (like sending the troops to the border or threatening to revoke birthright citizenship) are worrisome. While we can't and shouldn't worry about every possibility, or every crazy idea he comes up with, we should at least pay attention if something gets talked up a great deal, or starts becoming more than just talk. And we can do that while still working against the damage already done or that is currently happening.

EDIT: And no I didn't miss that, but it was something I myself had stated in the post where I linked to the article—that Congress and the courts would be the ones who could do something about this. But since Congress and groups like the ACLU won't unless someone brings it to their attention, and the courts may or may not rule in our favor (since only that one SC case ruled a power invocation as unconstitutional), that's why I said this is something people should be aware of so as to nudge the right people should it become necessary.

Edited by Ingonyama on Jan 5th 2019 at 6:29:48 AM

archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#265745: Jan 5th 2019 at 6:34:01 AM

While we can't and shouldn't worry about every possibility

There we go.

Worrying about the stuff in that article isn’t a productive use of anyone’s time. Trump shutting down the internet or sending tanks down Main Street isn’t a realistic possibility, any more than Obama directing drone strikes on right-wingers was. It’s just silly. There are very real issues with Presidental power and its limits, but these aren’t them.

I’ll also point out that the two examples you’re giving of why we should worry (Trump’s rhetoric and troops on the border) aren’t very good ones. Trump will say any damn thing that pops into his head, the stuff that comes out of his mouth is worth less than nothing. The military has been deployed along the Southern border for decades now, and Trump’s reinforcement of the deployment was so half-assed and ineffectual that if his invasion (or whatever you’d like to call it) of the rest of the country went the same way it’d be almost laughable.

They should have sent a poet.
ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#265746: Jan 5th 2019 at 6:48:31 AM

Rashid Tlaib is also getting called an anti-Semite by the likes of Breitbart because a map in her office has a post-it note reading "Palestine" pointing to Israel-held territory.

As for the idea of a TSA strike, Federal employees are barred from striking by the 1947 Taft-Hartley act, which was invoked in a major way by Saint Reagan when he broke the back of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization in 1981, blacklisting 11,345 employees from civil service - which was only lifted in 1993 when Bill Clinton got into office.

Edit: As for the Trump "National Emergency" - if he actually goes through with that, I'd consider it the fucking duty of every elected official in Congress to impeach him over it. That's the kind of overreach that would establish horrible precedent for future Presidents to use.

Edited by ironballs16 on Jan 5th 2019 at 9:50:08 AM

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
Ingonyama Since: Jan, 2001
#265747: Jan 5th 2019 at 6:50:10 AM

[up][up]I myself said originally, and then reiterated I agreed with you, that the courts and Congress are the ones who could prevent such a thing from happening...and you then focus only on the specific very unlikely and silly scenarios from that article instead of the overall point that emergency powers which have never been adjudicated do exist, and the means of dealing with them should it become necessary requires alerting our representatives to the problem. That seems like Moving the Goalposts to me.

To put it another way, you acknowledge there are issues about Presidential power...so even if these specific scenarios are unlikely or impossible, what's wrong with making sure our representatives and legal groups are willing to examine or curtail all of the executive powers that need limiting?

As for why I mentioned those two examples, because the fact he tried them and they didn't work (specifically, that he was clearly hoping sending the troops and drumming up fear about the caravan would drive Republican turnout in the midterms) means he might try something more drastic.

[up]This. Basically, even if he tries it and fails, or if all it amounts to is blathering about it in his rants, the idea is still out there and a future President who isn't incompetent might try it. If we prepare for it just in case and he tries it, he can be stopped. If he doesn't, great, but at least it means the groundwork has been laid for the executive branch to receive proper limits again and we can nip any future attempts in the bud.

Edited by Ingonyama on Jan 5th 2019 at 6:57:44 AM

archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#265748: Jan 5th 2019 at 6:55:54 AM

[up] Those very specific scenarios are centerpieces of that article. The threat of Trump shutting down the internet was apparently considered serious enough to merit almost a quarter of the article by The Atlantic’s editors. If it’s so unlikely and silly, perhaps they shouldn’t have discussed it at all.

Again, you’re worrying about a meteor strike and not wearing your seatbelt. There are a thousand more pressing issues with the Trump administration we could be focusing on, they just aren’t as eye-catching in a headline.

You’re also asking for something that already exists. The legal framework to challenge the powers in question is already there, as the authors of that article so reluctantly admit towards the end.

“Jade Helm for liberals” is starting to feel like a scarily accurate assessment of the panic around all this.

Edited by archonspeaks on Jan 5th 2019 at 7:00:31 AM

They should have sent a poet.
Ingonyama Since: Jan, 2001
#265749: Jan 5th 2019 at 6:59:06 AM

Please stop condescending to me. I have repeatedly stated that I am not trying to distract from anything he has already done or is doing now. The seat belt is firmly on. That doesn't mean I shouldn't also look out the window to see where the car is going so I can steer it in a different direction. Walk and chew gum.

EDIT: Yes, the framework exists, but is it being used, is the issue. And they also specifically pointed out that the easiest and safest way to handle all this is by changing the emergency powers statutes...but no one in the House has even hinted they intend to examine them, let alone change them. This may be because like you they don't take the possibility seriously...but if he starts saying or doing things that make it more likely he'll try, then wouldn't it behoove the House Dems to at least get the relevant committees examining those statutes?

Edited by Ingonyama on Jan 5th 2019 at 7:05:35 AM

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#265750: Jan 5th 2019 at 7:05:03 AM

We really shouldn't be taking a clickbait article centered around Trump unleashing soldiers on US citizens or biological weapons or shutting down the internet or whatever seriously.

The Atlantic's article quality covers a somewhat wide range, and this article is definitely near the bottom.

Edited by M84 on Jan 5th 2019 at 11:06:05 PM

Disgusted, but not surprised

Total posts: 417,856
Top