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

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#273276: Mar 2nd 2019 at 3:47:21 PM

While people should be staying in unhealthy relationships just because they'll feel like failures if they end it, a lot of people like the idea of marriage being for the rest of their lives.

Clearly a lot of people can't live up to that, but that doesn't make the idea, in itself toxic. It just means people should know when it is or isn't for them.

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#273277: Mar 2nd 2019 at 3:50:10 PM

A general marriage discussion is perhaps offtopic? The discussion thread started about an Idaho vote to not restrict child marriages, after all.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Heatth (X-Troper) Relationship Status: In Spades with myself
#273278: Mar 2nd 2019 at 3:58:05 PM

People like a lot of toxic things, so that is not really an argument.

Regardless, though. Marriage is not just a personal choice. Is an important legal contract with a ton on implications and benefits. Sure, you can say that some people should "know it is not for them", but then you are barring them from these things, which sucks. And if they want in on those benefits, then they will be in some way buying into the whole concept of marriage, even though "it is not for them", which is toxic.

Like, let's go back to the original topic. Let's say a couple of 18 years old are already independent, working and living together. For them, it is good to be married as it gives them access to a lot benefits, taxes perks, simplified finances, etc. But they are also really young and might not actually want to be together forever. Hell, one might find out to be gay or something, pretty much invalidating their previous relationship. Still, they want v to marry and, thus, will go along with the whole "together e8ver after" even though it might end up being a real bad idea.

Edit: [up]Fair enough. I will drop it. I won't be replying to the subject anymore.

Edited by Heatth on Mar 2nd 2019 at 8:59:47 AM

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#273279: Mar 2nd 2019 at 4:13:20 PM

Well, if you want to discuss either marriage or the ages involved you can make a new thread. Either might make an interesting topic.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#273280: Mar 2nd 2019 at 4:19:20 PM

So going back to that Republican belief that safety nets are a bad thing, I had this particular video of Extra Credits pop up regarding the Irish Potato Famine.

The English PM that worsened it by reducing aid - Sir Charles Trevelyan - studied under economist Thomas Malthus, who theorized that starvation from population outstripping resources was a net positive (rather, a "natural and proper correction"). Trevelyan also believed fully in the Prosperity Gospel - that poverty was a sign of moral failure, rather than a societal one.

Edited by ironballs16 on Mar 2nd 2019 at 7:21:17 AM

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
Soban Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
#273281: Mar 2nd 2019 at 4:33:08 PM

A republican might argue that there is a difference between a safety net and a safety hammock.

PhysicalStamina i'm tired, my friend (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
i'm tired, my friend
#273282: Mar 2nd 2019 at 4:35:26 PM

One is mythical and the other isn't?

i'm tired, my friend
HailMuffins Since: May, 2016 Relationship Status: Shipping fictional characters
#273283: Mar 2nd 2019 at 4:36:22 PM

A Republican will argue that a safety net will turn into a safety hammock.

No, really, that's their whole argument: you can't give money to the poor because that'll make the poor lazy.

MorningStar1337 The Encounter that ended the Dogma from 🤔 Since: Nov, 2012
The Encounter that ended the Dogma
#273284: Mar 2nd 2019 at 4:38:44 PM

and considering Sloth is one of the Seven Deady Sins, it makes me wonder if that idea is rooted in Prosperity Gospel BS.

DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#273285: Mar 2nd 2019 at 4:39:08 PM

The idea that one must give more, in the form of taxes, and otherwise, the more one has to give, is the bedrock of a humanitarian society, and anathema to a significant number of those who, under that system, would be expected to give more than they are comfortable with.

Edited by DeMarquis on Mar 2nd 2019 at 7:39:38 AM

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
GoldenKaos Captain of the Dead City from Cirith Ungol Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
Captain of the Dead City
#273286: Mar 2nd 2019 at 5:26:17 PM

That's just the worst kind of slippery slope argument. They're so entrenched in their paranoia bunker that their reaction to anything vaguely progressive is IF YOU GIVE THEM AN INCH THEY'LL TAKE A MILE and so they furiously defend the status quo down to the last millimeter.

Edited by GoldenKaos on Mar 2nd 2019 at 1:26:31 PM

"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#273287: Mar 2nd 2019 at 7:47:52 PM

It doesn't need to also be stated that the Famine crystalized a firm belief that the British were their enemies.

Who could possibly have seen that coming?

Oh right, the people who felt a reduced Irish population would be more managable.

The Irish Question

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
BlueNinja0 The Mod with the Migraine from Taking a left at Albuquerque Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
The Mod with the Migraine
#273288: Mar 2nd 2019 at 8:30:53 PM

What are the chances of Trump actually making it to being put on trial over Cohen's testimony?
The soonest we'd see Trump on trial is 2021. This assumes he's either lost the Presidency, or the Democrats control the Senate and the House to perform impeachment. The GOP has proven that absolutely nothing Trump does criminally will convince them to punish him.
by a literal and strict reading of the Constitution, you could indict a President for crimes, try him, convict him, and put him in prison, but he would still be President until his term expires or he is removed in one the of the two ways specified above.
I can see the GOP still supporting Trump from his cell in Leavenworth.
All things considered, Trump probably should have pardoned Cohen.
If Trump had issued a federal pardon, the state of New York would have been there in seconds and the news coverage would probably have been even more critical.
Roy Moore, a conservative lightning rod who cost the Republican Party a Senate seat in deep-red Alabama, is signaling fresh interest in mounting another campaign in 2020, sparking alarm on the right that Democratic Sen. Doug Jones could be gifted another unlikely victory
We should be so lucky!
So we've got extensive documentation and undeniable evidence and Republicans are still going to do everything they can to deny it.
And this surprised you?
Well we know where the navies {money} goes
Look, it's the 21st century now. Ale and whores is so 18th-century, these days you have to go for hookers and blow.
That's so childish I'm tempted to suggest those responsible need to sit in the time out corner to think about what they've done
They know ''exactly' what they've done, and they did it on purpose.
Isn't there a law against forced marriage?
When it comes to the US, there are very few things that parents cannot force their children into. Other threads have detailed how parents can subject their children to literal torture and it be 100% legal in their state.
The sad thing is, the only part of this Idaho story that surprises me is that a few Republicans voted in favor of the bill.
Actually, that part doesn't surprise me at all, not in today's GOP.
Frankly, I think setting marriagible age at 21 would be for the best.
But then I wouldn't have been able to get married (for one more week)!
I think that marriage is a dated concept to begin with, and that governments should just do away with it and leave the temples to figure it out if they want. But then the government would have no way to put a stop to exactly this kind of fuckery, so we can't do that yet.
There are good economic and social reasons for the government to support stable marriages, since statistically, children who grow up in stable two-parent households are less likely to be involved in criminal activity than children from single-parent or divorced-parent homes. But, that's also getting a little off-topic (do we have a marriage thread?)
The better thing would be to drop the stupid 21 exclusivity drinking laws have and bring it in line with everything else.
Drinking laws in the US used to, in many places, be 18 as well. They got raised as part of the whole MADD push to reduce drunk driving incidents, and AFAIK, it worked too.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw
RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#273289: Mar 2nd 2019 at 8:37:55 PM

It's just inconsistent. And once you start raising the marriage threshold, maybe deciding people shouldn't drive by that point, etc... you wind up giving people all the responsibilities of adulthood (taxation, jobs, full responsibility for criminal acts, etc.)... and none of the privileges reserved for adults. Which seems, to me, to be almost backwards to common sense.

And no, I don't think we have a marriage thread. Would someone like to make one?

Edited by RainehDaze on Mar 2nd 2019 at 4:48:20 PM

Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#273290: Mar 2nd 2019 at 11:21:58 PM

@Heath Really? That is interesting...see, that's why I sometimes like mention random things, you never know what it will dig up. How long do you have to live together before it is legally a marriage? And I am right that this doesn't apply to same sex pairs?

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#273291: Mar 3rd 2019 at 3:30:52 AM

We currently have neither a marriage nor an "age of whatever" thread, for what it's worth.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#273292: Mar 3rd 2019 at 12:53:42 PM

Republican Sen. Rand Paul says he will vote for measure blocking Trump’s emergency declaration, paving way for passage – Paul becomes the fourth Senate Republican to announce support for the disapproval resolution.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republican-sen-rand-paul-says-he-will-vote-for-measure-blocking-trumps-emergency-declaration-paving-way-for-passage/2019/03/03/d5c8a2ba-3ddb-11e9-a0d3-1210e58a94cf_story.html


Lawmakers exploring possible pardon talks involving Michael Cohen The topic came up in closed-door testimony Thursday, though the details are unclear.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/lawmakers-exploring-possible-pardon-talks-involving-michael-cohen/2019/03/02/35dfd94e-3b88-11e9-aaae-69364b2ed137_story.html

Lawmakers are investigating whether President Trump’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen was involved in any discussions about possible pardons — which they view as a potentially ripe area of inquiry into whether anyone sought to obstruct justice, people familiar with the matter said.

Cohen has said publicly he never asked for — and would not accept — a pardon from Trump. But people familiar with the matter said his knowledge on the topic seems to extend beyond that statement.

Privately, lawmakers on the House and Senate intelligence committees pressed Cohen this week on whether he had had any discussions about a possible pardon, and if so, when and with whom those conversations took place, the people said. The people spoke on the condition of anonymity because the testimony was not public.

It was not immediately clear what, if anything, Cohen told lawmakers to pique their interest. Depending on the details, such pardon talks could be incendiary, suggesting an effort to dissuade Cohen from cooperating with law enforcement. Cohen is to return to the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday.

Edited by sgamer82 on Mar 3rd 2019 at 3:15:40 AM

Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#273293: Mar 3rd 2019 at 1:29:45 PM

Any chance other Republican senators will join in now that they don't have to worry about being the deciding vote?

Ultimatum Disasturbator from the Amiga Forest (Old as dirt) Relationship Status: Who needs love when you have waffles?
Disasturbator
#273294: Mar 3rd 2019 at 2:05:38 PM

I feel like there's little chance of the Republicans doing something good for once,but we can hope

have a listen and have a link to my discord server
RainingMetal (Handed A Sword) Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#273295: Mar 3rd 2019 at 2:19:20 PM

There's an existent chance for the less devoted Republicans like Corker and Flake to bail ship, but that's about it. And that's assuming the GOP secret police doesn't twist their arms again.

ASAB: All Sponsors Are Bad.
Draghinazzo (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I get a feeling so complicated...
#273296: Mar 3rd 2019 at 2:20:09 PM

Flake's name is very apropos, because that's exactly what he is.

Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#273297: Mar 3rd 2019 at 2:21:51 PM

Not that it really matters, since neither he nor Corker are senators anymore.

Ultimatum Disasturbator from the Amiga Forest (Old as dirt) Relationship Status: Who needs love when you have waffles?
Disasturbator
#273298: Mar 3rd 2019 at 4:59:18 PM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candy_Desk

It amuses me to no end that they have desk full of sweets in the senate,also the two parties have their own candy desks

have a listen and have a link to my discord server
TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#273299: Mar 3rd 2019 at 5:53:41 PM

The United States Congress is just like any other workplace, when you get down to it. We like to think that these people are on a level above us and are thus beyond such humanizing qualities as "Want to munch a piece of candy". But they're not.

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#273300: Mar 3rd 2019 at 6:18:55 PM

I am kind of amused that apparently some occupants used the candy desk to promote sweets from local businesses in their home states.


Total posts: 417,856
Top