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

RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#271401: Feb 14th 2019 at 1:16:24 PM

It's not national security, he's been trying to paint it as a humanitarian crisis when illegal border entry is at its lowest point in decades. That doesn't take much judgement.

Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#271402: Feb 14th 2019 at 1:17:55 PM

Even without the Evil Turtle's efforts at court packing, judges in Common Law systems typically give lots of discretion to presidents on national security matters as a) judges are not typically qualified to judge a national security matter and b( separation of power concerns. So I think people are way overoptimistic at expecting them to stop Trump.

I firmly disagree.

Republican judges aren't going to stop Trump because they care about legality or legal precedent, they're going to stop him most likely because they intimately understand that what one party uses the other will inevitably have access to.

If the Supreme Court rubberstamps his decision to fund the wall via emergency then they are directly establishing that Democrats will be able to use a state of emergency to fight climate change. Which is not in-fact something they want.

So that with the other reasons I've mentioned clearly establish that Trump is going to fail and I see no reason to panic over it.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#271403: Feb 14th 2019 at 1:19:31 PM

Also the time element is at play.

wisewillow She/her Since: May, 2011
She/her
#271404: Feb 14th 2019 at 1:43:54 PM

[up][up]

If the Supreme Court rubberstamps his decision to fund the wall via emergency then they are directly establishing that Democrats will be able to use a state of emergency to fight climate change. Which is not in-fact something they want.

Reminder: I’m in my final year of law school. That’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works. SCOTUS can and has used minor excuses and exact wording to expand or limit executive overreach depending on the court composition and the politics of the president. So pardon me for not being blasé about blatantly unlawful action that expands existing violations of our laws and increases the authoritarian power Trump has been consolidating.

And court packing is neither as easy nor routine as you keep claiming. We can’t pack filled seats. And the Senate is by its very nature stacked against us.

Edited by wisewillow on Feb 14th 2019 at 4:44:56 AM

RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Ultimatum Disasturbator from the Amiga Forest (Old as dirt) Relationship Status: Who needs love when you have waffles?
wisewillow She/her Since: May, 2011
She/her
#271407: Feb 14th 2019 at 1:47:38 PM

[up][up]FDR, who was massively, massively popular and expanded presidential power substantially, tried that.

It did not go well for him.

Larkmarn Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Hello, I love you
#271408: Feb 14th 2019 at 1:48:18 PM

Court packing isn't a magical panacea. You can make all the seats you want. Until there's a Democratic Senate, they're not getting filled by Democratic judges. The Republicans will happily block anyone indefinitely, especially with the veneer of "well, we're just trying to do the right thing" that opposing court-packing has.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
fruitpork Since: Oct, 2010
#271409: Feb 14th 2019 at 1:48:20 PM

That again sets a precedent republicans could use. If we court pack, they will too.

Soban Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
#271410: Feb 14th 2019 at 1:51:34 PM

The Democrat party wherever possible should reinstall the various measures (such as the filibuster) which have been weakened even if it's a temporary disadvantage to them. The fantasy of permanent hegemony in a democratic system is a pipe dream.

wisewillow She/her Since: May, 2011
She/her
#271411: Feb 14th 2019 at 1:54:02 PM

The filibuster has allowed single jerks (Strom Thurmond, Ted Cruz) to wield disproportionate, anti democratic power, and it needs to go away.

I do think SCOTUS and cabinet appointments should require a 2/3 vote to limit extreme nominees. However, we’d need to add other provisions to prevent a Garland situation and Mc Connell keeping federal court seats open for years from ever, ever happening again.

Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#271412: Feb 14th 2019 at 2:01:35 PM

Reminder: I’m in my final year of law school. That’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works. SCOTUS can and has used minor excuses and exact wording to expand or limit executive overreach depending on the court composition and the politics of the president. So pardon me for not being blasé about blatantly unlawful action that expands existing violations of our laws and increases the authoritarian power Trump has been consolidating.

And court packing is neither as easy nor routine as you keep claiming. We can’t pack filled seats. And the Senate is by its very nature stacked against us.

Ok, now you're being explicitly counterfactual.

Trump has not been consolidating power, his administration has been one of constant failure and incompetence where his political capital has drained away accomplishing very little. It's just naked hysteria to claim otherwise.

Furthermore, I am highly skeptical of the idea that this isn't how it's worked. Members of the Freedom caucus have already told Trump to back off from the emergency threat because of the precedent it sets. The idea that they could justify the President bypassing Congress without including Democrat Presidents just defies reason.

It's not blasé to acknowledge reality, your fears are groundless.

That again sets a precedent republicans could use. If we court pack, they will too.

The Supreme Court has been on the side of the reactionaries for decades, they have far more to lose then us if both sides start court packing.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Feb 14th 2019 at 5:03:40 AM

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
tclittle Professional Forum Ninja from Somewhere Down in Texas Since: Apr, 2010
Professional Forum Ninja
#271413: Feb 14th 2019 at 2:08:33 PM

Houston mayor: The company hired to hold immigrant minors has revised their city permit to no longer hold children under the age of 16.

"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#271414: Feb 14th 2019 at 2:09:39 PM

Note that the spending bill puts a few brakes on immigration enforcement.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
tclittle Professional Forum Ninja from Somewhere Down in Texas Since: Apr, 2010
Professional Forum Ninja
#271415: Feb 14th 2019 at 2:11:57 PM

I'm going to wild mass guess that Mc Connell saw Trump wavering on the budget deal and convinced him to use the lesser evil of a national emergency to keep the government open.

It's likely why Mc Connell is stressing out based on reports.

Edited by tclittle on Feb 14th 2019 at 4:12:08 AM

"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."
Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#271416: Feb 14th 2019 at 2:15:24 PM

There actually is a way to revoke a national emergency declaration if both houses of Congress say so.

And apparently there's a rule that if one house votes to do so, the other is forced to hold a vote of its own, so the Evil Turtle can't just refuse to take it up.

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#271417: Feb 14th 2019 at 2:16:01 PM

I wonder if it's the reverse: Evil Turtle is afraid of the precedent made and is more paying lip support than actual endorsement. I am also not entirely convinced that such partisan considerations will be important in federal court.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#271418: Feb 14th 2019 at 2:16:13 PM

Mitch, again, demonstrates that he sold his power as the guy who could reign Trump in and once more Trump shows that he is uncontrollable.

It's a bit like electing the Joker.

Mind you, I suspect the Clown Prince of Crime would object to that comparison.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
wisewillow She/her Since: May, 2011
She/her
#271419: Feb 14th 2019 at 2:29:54 PM

Trump has not been consolidating power, his administration has been one of constant failure and incompetence where his political capital has drained away accomplishing very little. It's just naked hysteria to claim otherwise.

...

It's not blasé to acknowledge reality, your fears are groundless.

Yes, remember when SCOTUS struck down his Muslim ban?

Wait, no, they allowed that, once he tweaked it to look a tiny, tiny bit less racist.

Remember when Mc Connell refused to support extremist judge nominees?

No, almost all of them are now seated.

Oh, the children in camps! We stopped that immediately, right? And reunited everyone?

... no, not so much, that’s still happening.

Oh! How about giving security clearance and power to his children and Kushner? That got shut down, right?

No...

How about stopping Trump from pulling out of the Paris Agreement?

No, he did that...

We didn’t let him fill his cabinet with cronies who will cover up illegal action right?

No, that happened...

Oh, what about when he rejected a bill to keep the government open that had broad bipartisan support?

No, we had our longest ever government shutdown, and thousands of people massively suffered...

Why should I be blasé again?

Edited by wisewillow on Feb 14th 2019 at 5:30:24 AM

AzurePaladin She/Her Pronouns from Forest of Magic Since: Apr, 2018 Relationship Status: Mu
She/Her Pronouns
#271420: Feb 14th 2019 at 2:35:21 PM

Popping in to remind everyone that Trump may have had a list of failures, but that doesn't mean he hasn't done real, lasting damage to the country. And I don't just mean by him being elected in the first place.

To say that he has only failed is to erase the evils he has already accomplished.

Or, [up].

Edited by AzurePaladin on Feb 14th 2019 at 5:35:39 AM

The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -Fighteer
nombretomado (Season 1) Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#271421: Feb 14th 2019 at 2:35:45 PM

Getting fairly snarky in here, ~wisewillow and Fourthspartan56.

Please refrain from escalating.

Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#271422: Feb 14th 2019 at 2:40:26 PM

Getting fairly snarky in here, ~wisewillow and Fourthspartan 56.

Please refrain from escalating.

Will do, I'll be mindful.

Popping in to remind everyone that Trump may have had a list of failures, but that doesn't mean he hasn't done real, lasting damage to the country. And I don't just mean by him being elected in the first place.

To say that he has only failed is to erase the evils he has already accomplished.

I did not say he has not done damage, I said he has mostly failed to consolidate power.

Which is correct.

Trump has alienated the civil service, the intelligence services, the military, and his party lost the House.

To claim that he is successfully consolidating power is an utterly baffling sentiment, beyond posting from an alternate reality in which he has a smidgen of competence I don't understand why anyone would think that.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
wisewillow She/her Since: May, 2011
She/her
#271423: Feb 14th 2019 at 2:42:57 PM

Getting fairly snarky in here, ~wisewillow and Fourthspartan 56.

Please refrain from escalating.

Yes ma’am.

To claim that he is successfully consolidating power is an utterly baffling sentiment, beyond posting from an alternate reality in which he has a smidgen of competence I don't understand why anyone would think that.

... please see [up][up]

Kamiccolo Since: May, 2018
#271424: Feb 14th 2019 at 2:43:02 PM

Of the current crop of candidates, who are you guys supporting for the Democratic primary next year?
Some milquetoast moderate with a standard Democratic party platform (bar the occasional compromise) from a red/purple state (Clinton-style) who hasn't announced their candidacy yet would be ideal. Perhaps Beto, Castro, or Bullock. Each of them could do imo, and are the best chance at victory on top of having sane policy.

Cory Booker is probably the most visible candidate that I have any measure of support for currently. I agree with a lot of his policies (e.g. lowering corporate taxes but closing income tax loopholes, middle ground between isolationism and intervention abroad, tough on crime but also focusing on treatment for drug addicts instead of longer sentences, carbon tax, supports integrating ideas from single payer healthcare systems but not rapidly implementing it, etc.) and feel that he could have the presence and energy to actually run in this environment. But he also approves of populist policies that would be disastrous (e.g. opposing raising the retirement age, nominally approving of the GND). The main issue is figuring out what he actually means and what he's just backing for now only to walk back on later. Obama also promised a lot of pie-in-the-sky crap that he then threw in the trash when he got to office, and most likely, so would Clinton had democracy been done properly in 2016.

It's the wall.
Nah, now it's "the handful of bollards." [lol]
So IMO (and I think I'm speaking for a lot of liberal/left wing Jews here), they did come across as at least somewhat anti-Semitic. I mean I can't speak to what's in her heart, but whether deliberately or not, she was using anti-Semitic tropes of Jews being greedy and controlling things with money. And it doesn't help that the person she flippantly replied about AIPAC (Batya Ungar-Sargon) is herself left-wing, and it does strike me that Omar must have come into the conversation with some kind of false preconception of American Jews as politically conservative/ making bad faith assertions of anti-Semitism.
Unfortunately she almost certainly is anti-Semitic. Non-racist people don't make that many "good-faith mistakes" so consistently, or side with movements whose founders are explicitly racist. It's most likely due to the culture her father came from; Muslims in the third world near-universally despise Jews (and even in the first world, you have statistics such as more British Muslims believing the Jews did 9/11 than believe that Al-Qaeda was responsible).

It's worth noting that AIPAC itself, which Omar credited as the sole reason for "pro-Israel" positions in the U.S., is a bit contributor when it comes to lobbying. They spent less than $3M last year on lobbying. They don't even come close to touching the top 20. The focus on them has obvious motivations behind it, and it's the same motivations that drove Israel to be condemned more by the UNHRC than Sudan, Mynamar, Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Pakistan, and Syria combined. Even though more people died in any given single month of the Syrian Civil War at its height than died in the last 10 years of the Arab-Israeli conflicts.

I don't think people should call Omar an anti-semite, her reaction shows that she isn't. Actual anti-semites double down and deflect, she accepted responsibility and showed that she was willing to listen.
Smart anti-Semites apologize and then do the same thing later when no one's looking.

Edited by Kamiccolo on Feb 14th 2019 at 3:08:45 AM

Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#271425: Feb 14th 2019 at 2:45:24 PM

I think this is relevant.

Nancy Pelosi warns GOP that a Democratic president could declare gun violence a national emergency

To quote her statement:

"If the president can declare an emergency on something he has created as an emergency, an illusion that he wants to convey, just think about what a president with different values can present to the American people," Pelosi said.

"You want to talk about a national emergency? Let's talk about today," Pelosi said, referring to the first anniversary of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, that left 17 dead on Feb. 14, 2018.

She said the shooting was "another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America."

"That's a national emergency. Why don't you declare that an emergency, Mr. President? I wish you would," she said. "But a Democratic president can do that. A Democratic president can declare emergencies as well."

So both Republicans and Democrats believe that Trump declaring an emergency would create the precedent for a Democratic President to do the same.

So yeah, I am entirely unconvinced that declaring an emergency would be anything other than a serious blunder on Trump's part.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang

Total posts: 417,856
Top