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

wisewillow She/her Since: May, 2011
She/her
#280126: May 9th 2019 at 9:57:40 AM

Not sure if this was posted already, but Warren just rolled out a bill to fight the opioid epidemic.

Highlights:

The CARE Act proposal is modeled on the Ryan White CARE Act, providing resources directly to first responders, public health departments, and communities on the front lines of this crisis — so that they have the resources to provide prevention, treatment, and recovery services for those who need it most.

Under the CARE Act, states and communities will receive $100 billion in federal funding over the next ten years — because that’s what’s needed to make sure every single person gets the treatment they need. Here’s how that breaks down each year:

$4 billion for states, territories, and tribal governments;

$2.7 billion for the hardest hit counties and cities, including $1.4 billion to counties and cities with the highest levels of overdoses;

$1.7 billion for public health surveillance, research, and improved training for health professionals;

$1.1 billion for public and nonprofit entities on the front lines, including those working with underserved populations and workers at high risk for addiction, and to support expanded and innovative service delivery of treatment, recovery, and harm reduction services;

$500 million to expand access to naloxone and provide this life-saving overdose reversal drug to first responders, public health departments, and the public.

Resources would be used to support the whole continuum of care, from early intervention for those at risk for addiction, to harm reduction for those struggling with addiction, to long-term support services for those in recovery. Along with addiction treatment, the CARE Act would ensure access to mental health services and help provide critical wraparound services like housing support and medical transportation for those who need them.

But the CARE Act doesn’t just provide resources to communities, it also works to strengthen our addiction treatment infrastructure — demanding states use Medicaid to its fullest to tackle the crisis, expanding access to medication-assisted treatment, and ensuring treatment programs and recovery residences meet high standards.

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#280127: May 9th 2019 at 10:09:25 AM

So what does CARE stand for? I assume it's an acronym like the Ryan White CARE Act it's modeled after — in that case CARE stood for Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency.

Disgusted, but not surprised
AlleyOop Since: Oct, 2010
#280128: May 9th 2019 at 10:15:42 AM

Nice to have outline, although I'd like to see more substantive policy proposal as well as a way forward for prevention, which would probably require taking on the pharmaceuticals.

speedyboris Since: Feb, 2010
#280129: May 9th 2019 at 10:17:24 AM

Someone mentioned Ken Starr earlier in this thread. Well, he's at it again: Ken Starr complains that the Mueller report has too many footnotes, saying "this is not a term paper." Yes, you heard right: He's complaining that Mueller's report was too thorough. 'Cause, you know, it's not like they were investigating something important or anything, and wouldn't need to be specific about what they uncovered, and wouldn't need to be airtight in case of lawsuits.

I'm sure Ken would've loved a two page report that would've said in giant letters "NO COLLUSION" on one page and "NO OBSTRUCTION" on the other. Sheesh.

Edited by speedyboris on May 9th 2019 at 12:21:13 PM

wisewillow She/her Since: May, 2011
She/her
#280130: May 9th 2019 at 10:25:13 AM

[up][up]More substantive proposal is available at the link and I think you can find more details by googling the proposal. I just didn’t want to post a wall of text.

DrunkenNordmann from Exile Since: May, 2015
#280131: May 9th 2019 at 10:29:18 AM

[up][up] He's probably angry the report contains too many big words.

Edited by DrunkenNordmann on May 9th 2019 at 7:29:26 PM

We learn from history that we do not learn from history
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#280132: May 9th 2019 at 10:32:08 AM

[up][up][up][up]Yes, it may be modeled after the Ryan White CARE Act, but that involved dealing with a virus. That's a somewhat different problem than confronting an addictive drug that is being peddled by a powerful industry.

HIV at least didn't have lawyers.

Edited by M84 on May 10th 2019 at 1:32:35 AM

Disgusted, but not surprised
wisewillow She/her Since: May, 2011
She/her
#280133: May 9th 2019 at 10:42:17 AM

HIV didn’t need lawyers, it had Reagan.

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#280134: May 9th 2019 at 11:00:51 AM

Reagan wasn't POTUS anymore by the time the Ryan White CARE Act was introduced and got signed in 1990.

Disgusted, but not surprised
wisewillow She/her Since: May, 2011
She/her
#280135: May 9th 2019 at 11:06:25 AM

Uh... yeah, I know? I’m referring to his contempt for those suffering HIV/AIDS and his administration’s vicious policies that helped the epidemic spread, killing thousands.

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#280136: May 9th 2019 at 11:11:06 AM

[up]The point is that dealing with the opioid epidemic, as others pointed out, is going to involve taking on Big Pharma and their lawyers.

And unlike Reagan at the time the Ryan White CARE Act got signed, they are still an active obstacle.

Disgusted, but not surprised
ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#280137: May 9th 2019 at 11:46:05 AM

And holy fuck, Trump just got more blatant with the obstruction - he's now saying that William Barr will decide whether or not Mueller can testify before the House committee next week. No points for guessing what Barr's decision will be, because fuck me Trump just doesn't give two shits about checks & balances, nor do the people he hires.

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#280138: May 9th 2019 at 11:48:08 AM

Mueller is only a Justice Department employee for a few more weeks. Trump and Barr can scream whatever they want, he's not obligated to listen to them after that.

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#280139: May 9th 2019 at 11:49:25 AM

Congress can hold lower level employees in Contempt, regardless of what Barr tells them to do. And I doubt Mueller is willing to take a legal hit for Trump, or anyone else.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#280140: May 9th 2019 at 11:53:19 AM

Trump has also stated that he wants John Kerry arrested.

https://twitter.com/TwitterMoments/status/1126547140241608704

Now he's trying to distract and threaten people into compliance.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#280141: May 9th 2019 at 12:09:36 PM

And in more Rage Breaking Point news, the Alabama Senate caused an uproar by taking the proposed abortion ban legislation and making it worse by stripping out the exceptions for incest and rape victims. They didn't even allow a roll call to vote on this happening, either. And this with a supermajority in the Senate, meaning they didn't even have to resort to that chicanery - the Democratic minority just wanted everyone on-record for their position. As a silver lining, the uproar has prompted that particular motion to be tabled for debate next week, so at least they'll get that voice vote like they wanted.

Oh, and unlike the fetal heartbeat bill, this one is a full ban on abortions, where doctors would be jailed but mothers, surprisingly, would face no consequences. Guess they got sick of being called the party that hates women.

Edited by ironballs16 on May 9th 2019 at 3:41:21 PM

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#280142: May 9th 2019 at 12:48:07 PM

Could they be aiming for something that absolutely will end up reaching the Supreme Court?

tclittle Professional Forum Ninja from Somewhere Down in Texas Since: Apr, 2010
Professional Forum Ninja
#280143: May 9th 2019 at 12:51:24 PM

That's pretty much the stated intention of Alabama's abortion bill, and likely the intention of Georgia's and Ohio's.

"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."
KamonTheSkunk The Little Stinker Since: Jul, 2016 Relationship Status: Is that a kind of food?
The Little Stinker
#280144: May 9th 2019 at 1:05:29 PM

Once again, I'm definitely not an expert on this, but with William Barr committing contempt of congress, doesn't that mean that

A) He can officially be arrested for refusing to release the Mueller report?

and

B) Since he's in contempt of congress and can technically be arrested, any decisions he makes are null and void?

Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#280145: May 9th 2019 at 1:15:10 PM

The House hasn't voted to hold him in contempt yet, just the Judiciary Committee. That's next on the to do list though.

And Trump is claiming executive privilege on the Report. So Barr is just claiming he's following the law and can't be held in contempt for that.

Which means we still have to go to court to get that sorted out.

Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#280146: May 9th 2019 at 1:21:53 PM

So 538 just released a new metric, the Popularity Above Replacement Senator ranking,[1] basically it takes the senator’s net approval rating and compares it to the state’s partisan lean, the difference between the two is the score and it basically shows how they compare to a generic senatorial candidate for their party in that state.

So Doug Jones does very well, having an approve rating on +6 in a state that is +27 Republican, Susan Collins also does well, having an approval rating of +13 in a state that is +5 Democrat.

What we can draw from this basically is that Collins and Jones will both do better in their states than their party’s presidential candidate will. If we split the difference between their approval rating and state’s partisan lean Jones comes out at -10.5 and Collins comes out at +4. That’s for a neutral environment, at their current approval ratings and with the post-2016 partisan lean of states.

I’ve done some number crunching and basically split the difference for all the 2020 senate races, then I’ve categorised them based on a Neutral Environment Score. I’ve listed every seat up in 2020 by this score, so it’s the rough outcome of the senate race if the popular vote goes exactly 50-50. The party of the seat’s incumbent is in brackets.

  • Safe Democrat: Above +15 D
Delaware D+18.5 (D), Rhone Island D+24 (D), Massachusetts D+29 (D)
  • Solid Democrat: Above +10 D
Minnesota D+10 (D), New Jersey D+13 (D), Oregon D+13.5 (D),
  • Lean Democrat: Above +5 D
Michigan D+5.5 (D), Illinois D+8 (D), New Hampshire D+9.5 (D), Virginia D+9.5 (D),
  • Tilt Democrat: Above +0.1 D
Colorado D+0.5 (R)
  • Tilt Republican: Above +0.1 R
North Carolina R+3.5 (R), Maine R+4 (R), Iowa R+4.5 (R), Arizona R+4.5 (R)
  • Lean Republican: Above +5 R
Kentucky R+5 (R), Mississippi R+8 (R)
  • Solid Republican: Above +10 R
Alabama R+10.5 (D), Alaska R+10.5 (R)
  • Safe Republican: Above +15 R
Montana R+15.5 (R), Georgia R+17 (R), Texas R+17 (R), South Carolina R+19 (R), Louisiana R+20 (R), Arkansas R+21.5 (R), Oklahoma R+23 (R), Nebraska R+23.5 (R), West Virginia R+24 (R), Idaho R+27.5 (R), South Dakota R+29.5 (R)

So in a neutral environment the senate stays the same (with Democrats gaining Colorado but loosing Alabama), if Democrats with the popular vote by 5 points they’d pick up a net 3.5 seats (counting Kentucky for half), if Republicans win the popular vote by 5 points they’d pick up a single seat, if Dems win by the same margin as the mid terms (8.6) they’d get a net 6 seats and thus a senate majority of 53-47.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
ShinyCottonCandy Everyone's friend Malamar from Lumiose City (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Who needs love when you have waffles?
Everyone's friend Malamar
#280147: May 9th 2019 at 1:29:00 PM

That's about the best thing I've heard since I started following this thread. smile Given that the worst case scenario is only slightly worse than where we are now, and there'd be no effective difference than our current situation, come 2022, we may be able to actually see some things get improved.

Edited by ShinyCottonCandy on May 9th 2019 at 4:31:06 AM

My musician page
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#280148: May 9th 2019 at 1:37:28 PM

Other potentially good news:

Americans' support for impeaching Trump rises: Reuters/Ipsos poll

https://reut.rs/2HaAyoa

The number of Americans who said President Donald Trump should be impeached rose 5 percentage points to 45 percent since mid-April, while more than half said multiple congressional probes of Trump interfered with important government business, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Thursday.

The opinion poll, conducted on Monday, did not make clear whether investigation-fatigued Americans wanted House of Representatives Democrats to pull back on their probes or press forward aggressively and just get impeachment over with.

The question is an urgent one for senior Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives, who are wrestling with whether to launch impeachment proceedings, despite likely insurmountable opposition to it in the Republican-controlled Senate.

On Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi re-emphasized that the leaders of the investigative committees in the Democratic-controlled House were taking a step-by-step approach.

“This is very methodical, it’s very Constitution-based,” Pelosi said. “We won’t go any faster than the facts take us, or any slower than the facts take us.”

In addition to the 45 percent pro-impeachment figure, the Monday poll found that 42 percent of Americans said Trump should not be impeached. The rest said they had no opinion.

In comparison, an April 18-19 survey found that 40 percent of all Americans wanted to impeach Trump.

The latest poll showed stronger support for impeachment among Democrats and independents.

It also showed that 57 percent of adults agreed that continued investigations into Trump would interfere with important government business. That included about half of all Democrats and three-quarters of all Republicans.

ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#280149: May 9th 2019 at 1:50:30 PM

[up]

Any chance there was some survey done about impeaching Obama to help cast that in a starker contrast? I've got one forum I post in where there are die-hards on the Conservative side (read: "Trump won - GET OVER IT!"), and it'd be nice to shut them up preemptively.

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#280150: May 9th 2019 at 1:58:32 PM

According to Wikipedia, the highest poll numbers about impeaching Obama was 35%.


Total posts: 417,856
Top