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
#265776: Jan 5th 2019 at 8:37:29 AM

Trump calling federal workers Democrats is just him signaling to his base that the shutdown is alright. Most Republican voters probably think its great that Democrats are suffering.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#265777: Jan 5th 2019 at 8:46:02 AM

@TerminusEst explaining Jade Helm

Thanks for that. Now that you explained it I do remember that operation, I just hadn't remembered/known it by name.

ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#265778: Jan 5th 2019 at 9:09:56 AM

I still say that if Trump goes through with the idea of invoking a National Emergency to get his wall funding, impeachment proceedings would be the only logical recourse to that level of overreach.

And for those saying "Even he isn't dumb enough" - need I remind you just who we're discussing here? He's always been dumb enough - it's just whether he listens to his advisers or his ego, and the latter has a much stronger track record of being heeded.

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#265779: Jan 5th 2019 at 9:17:05 AM

Currently the only thing which has to happen is that Cruz gives the Senate green light to vote on the damned budget.

wisewillow She/her Since: May, 2011
She/her
#265780: Jan 5th 2019 at 9:19:44 AM

Pretty sure you mean Mc Connell, worst of his name, breaker of democracy, perpetuator of racist misognynist homophobic transphobic xenophobic classist bullshit.

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#265781: Jan 5th 2019 at 9:25:14 AM

And wannabe destroyer of healthcare in country and abroad.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#265782: Jan 5th 2019 at 9:25:56 AM

[up][up] Yeah, sorry. Though the description fits more or less the whole of the Trump administration.

Btw, got a good laugh out of Pence having to swear in an open Transsexual - who really milked the situation.

Edited by Swanpride on Jan 5th 2019 at 9:26:06 AM

wisewillow She/her Since: May, 2011
She/her
#265783: Jan 5th 2019 at 9:27:38 AM

Sinema is bisexual. Unfortunately, we do not have a transgender member of Congress yet.

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#265784: Jan 5th 2019 at 9:29:01 AM

Isn't there someone at the state level?

Deadbeatloser22 from Disappeared by Space Magic (Great Old One) Relationship Status: Tsundere'ing
#265785: Jan 5th 2019 at 9:29:17 AM

I'm not sure what the conservatives were more likely to pitch a fit over with her - that she's openly bi, or that she was sworn in on something other than a Bible.

"Yup. That tasted purple."
Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#265786: Jan 5th 2019 at 9:44:37 AM

Most likely that she wore a provocative dress....

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#265787: Jan 5th 2019 at 9:46:51 AM

Did it show her ankles? *shudder*

Ultimatum Disasturbator from the Amiga Forest (Old as dirt) Relationship Status: Who needs love when you have waffles?
Disasturbator
#265788: Jan 5th 2019 at 9:47:34 AM

WASPS attack anything,horrible creatures

have a listen and have a link to my discord server
ITNW1989 a from Big Meat, USA Since: Nov, 2012 Relationship Status: GAR for Archer
a
#265789: Jan 5th 2019 at 9:50:36 AM

I can only imagine the bitching and moaning that's eventually to come over her hanging the transgender flag outside of her office.

[up]x5 Yes, VA State Delegate Danica Roem is the first elected transgender politician.

Hitokiri in the streets, daishouri in the sheets.
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#265790: Jan 5th 2019 at 10:07:08 AM

TRUMP and American Exceptionalism - Why we need to be Exceptional Again

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/american-exceptionalism-is-a-dangerous-myth.html

An interesting issue of Trump's politics misusing liberal talking points.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#265791: Jan 5th 2019 at 10:22:37 AM

So there is apparently a Federalist Society that is apparently aiming to take over federal courts with its conservative, crack brained ideology.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#265792: Jan 5th 2019 at 10:24:34 AM

Got to love people who say "as the constitution was intended when it was written" when they mean "what I think should be".

Since somehow what was intended always translates to being against the spirit of the thing except for business interests.

Edited by RainehDaze on Jan 5th 2019 at 6:25:37 PM

speedyboris Since: Feb, 2010
#265793: Jan 5th 2019 at 10:49:01 AM

[up]x2 Not just "aiming", succeeding. And this is even before Trump's term, although he's certainly accelerated it.

Edited by speedyboris on Jan 5th 2019 at 12:49:34 PM

TheRoguePenguin Since: Jul, 2009
#265794: Jan 5th 2019 at 10:51:22 AM

[up][up][up]That's arguably worse than anything Trump does. His personal actions are terrible, but can be fixed. The huge vacancies Mc Connell's engineered and is now focused on filling with hyper-conservative judges will last a generation.

Edited by TheRoguePenguin on Jan 5th 2019 at 10:51:37 AM

RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#265796: Jan 5th 2019 at 11:29:42 AM

Technically, none of those are a war authorised by Congress, therefore none of the powers available to a president in wartime are available.

Oruka Since: Dec, 2018
#265797: Jan 5th 2019 at 11:39:34 AM

The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Pub. L. 107-40, codified at 115 Stat. 224 and passed as S.J.Res. 23 by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizes the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001 and any "associated forces". The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001. As of December 2016, the Office of the President published a brief interpreting the AUMF as providing Congressional authorization for the use of force against al-Qaeda and other militant groups.[1][2]

The Iraq Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] Pub.L. 107–243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq.[2]

The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

Both conflicts remain open.

Also, how come those other ones are on without Congressional approval? How are they getting paid for? Is the CIA selling drugs and weapons on the side again?

Edited by Oruka on Jan 5th 2019 at 11:46:45 AM

TerminusEst from the Land of Winter and Stars Since: Feb, 2010
#265798: Jan 5th 2019 at 11:41:34 AM

There's a big difference in being at war, and being in a state of war. Was the last time Korea for the US or what?

Edited by TerminusEst on Jan 5th 2019 at 11:43:05 AM

Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele
Oruka Since: Dec, 2018
RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#265800: Jan 5th 2019 at 11:46:24 AM

The last formal declaration of war—rather than congress merely authorising military activity—was 1942, against the Axis-aligned states in eastern Europe. Neither the Korean nor Vietnam wars had any such declaration.

Therefore, the USA is not in a state of war and the president has none of the powers that results in.

Nitpicky, but that's legalese.

Edited by RainehDaze on Jan 5th 2019 at 7:46:43 PM


Total posts: 417,856
Top