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

HailMuffins Since: May, 2016 Relationship Status: Shipping fictional characters
#327026: Sep 13th 2020 at 5:31:48 PM

Can't expect to keep burning bridges without getting burned.

Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#327027: Sep 13th 2020 at 5:33:12 PM

You still haven't said what the actual requirements for martial law are, though, and the legality of declaring it.

Hope shines brightest in the darkest times
archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#327028: Sep 13th 2020 at 5:34:51 PM

Only congress can declare martial law. However, the president does have broad authority to deploy the military and national guard to assist (but not replace) law enforcement.

Do we really have to have this whole conversation again?

Edited by archonspeaks on Sep 13th 2020 at 5:35:33 AM

They should have sent a poet.
Imca (Veteran)
#327029: Sep 13th 2020 at 5:35:51 PM

The military which is commanded by generals who broadly hate him.

So this is an accurate summary.

So even if Trump could declare martial law he couldn’t order the military to do anything, it’d just end up going “I declare martial law”, “ very good sir”, “now sent a unit to seize the ballot boxes in Arizona”, “no sir, that’s illegal, we’re not going to do that sir”, and then he’d pout.

Edited by Imca on Sep 13th 2020 at 5:36:28 AM

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
#327030: Sep 13th 2020 at 5:36:45 PM

Because there isn’t a single concept of “martial law” in the US legal system, it’s an ad-hoc status applied when legislation is passed that enables the military to act in a law enforcement capability. It’s not as simple as an on/off switch.

The US military is forbidden by law from enforcing US laws internally, do you need me to cite the law?

Trump can maybe federalise state national guard units (I think he needs congressional permission, but I’m not sure), but he can’t legally order them to do a anything to interfere with the election, because election interference is a crime.

Edited by Silasw on Sep 13th 2020 at 12:37:46 PM

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#327031: Sep 13th 2020 at 5:47:14 PM

[up][up][up] I'm just interested in what the mechanism would be. And since congress is backing Trump, it is possible he could order congress to declare martial law.

And even if he couldn't legally use the military, just declaring martial law would forment a lot of unrest, which is exactly what he wants.

Edited by Redmess on Sep 13th 2020 at 2:48:33 PM

Hope shines brightest in the darkest times
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
#327032: Sep 13th 2020 at 5:52:37 PM

Congress is not backing Trump, the Senate backs Trump (and thus he can’t be removed), but that’s not the same thing as Congress backing him.

just declaring martial law would forment a lot of unrest, which is exactly what he wants.

Sure Trump could Tweet that he’s declaring martial law, it wouldn’t do anything legally, but that’s never stopped him in the past, I suspect that Twitter would flag the tweet as misleading.

Edited by Silasw on Sep 13th 2020 at 1:09:27 PM

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#327033: Sep 13th 2020 at 5:54:17 PM

Oh, you're right, I confuse the terms sometimes. So it would need to be approved by both the senate and house? That seems a bit more robust.

And are you sure there is no specific legislation around martial laws? I thought most countries have provisions on that sort of thing.

Hope shines brightest in the darkest times
Shaoken (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Dating Catwoman
#327034: Sep 13th 2020 at 6:00:02 PM

Trump would get no support from the house, but would probably get some from the Senate. So he didn't gain anything from Congress but wouldn't immediately find himself impeached and removed.

So his sole hope to pull off martial law would be if the military/national guard/police forces decided they want to break the law to support the losing candidate and join him on a sinking ship. You might get a few die hard Trump supporters to die on that hill, but most are opportunists who would be busy throwing him under the bus.

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
#327035: Sep 13th 2020 at 6:04:14 PM

There’s the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids the US military from doing domestic law enforcement without congressional approval (which is stated to come int eh form of Congress passing a law okaying it), otherwise martial law is declared at a state (and possibly city) level and involves national guard regiments instead of the military proper.

Edited by Silasw on Sep 13th 2020 at 1:09:09 PM

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#327036: Sep 13th 2020 at 6:10:13 PM

Meanwhile, in some other news:

Trump and Twitter are on likely showdown path with expanded misinfo rules: Social media firms are trying to stop making things even worse before it's too late.

Well, better late than never, I guess.

Basically, Twitter is tightening its rules on misinformation, specifically about information on elections.

1. False or misleading information that causes confusion about the laws and regulations of a civic process, or officials and institutions executing those civic processes.

2. Disputed claims that could undermine faith in the process itself, e.g. unverified information about election rigging, ballot tampering, vote tallying, or certification of election results.

3. Misleading claims about the results or outcome of a civic process which calls for or could lead to interference with the implementation of the results of the process, e.g. claiming victory before election results have been certified, inciting unlawful conduct to prevent a peaceful transfer of power or orderly succession.

Note that that last rule seems to be a direct answer on fears that Trump will try to call the election in his favour before votes are completely counted.

Also, Google is improving its search engine to prevent users from accidentally stumbling across misleading or fake news stories.

Defying crackdowns, QAnon continues its relentless global spread: Persistent online conspiracy theory repurposes itself for new audiences around the world.

“It’s a meta-conspiracy—it just has so much in it you can pick and choose from, which explains its rapid spread,” said Chine Labbe, European managing editor at News Guard, a counter-misinformation organization. “It seduces people in a lot of different circles and across ideologies.”

Part of the surge of Q Anon seems to be the fault of Facebook's slow response to its initial appearance on the platform. The group has now grown so much that the crackdown just led to its members moving to other groups.

The movement is also spreading around the world now, for example to France:

In France, Q Anon ideas have merged with the similarly nebulous Yellow Vest movement, which began two years ago as a protest against fuel prices and the cost of living. Three of the Facebook Q Anon groups with more than 10,000 members are Francophone.

I was not aware the Yellow Vests movement was shadowy. Guess they go on the shit list too.

One commenter noted:

Q Anon has adopted almost the exact same propaganda as the Nazi party and it is disturbing to see it continue to spread.

Hope shines brightest in the darkest times
PhysicalStamina i'm tired, my friend (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
i'm tired, my friend
#327037: Sep 13th 2020 at 6:26:37 PM
Thumped: Please see The Rules . This is a warning that this post is the sort of thing that will get you suspended.
i'm tired, my friend
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#327038: Sep 13th 2020 at 7:27:13 PM

It's interesting that some pastors have called Qanon a "cult" and that it is actually anti-Christian in nature.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/26/1007611/how-qanon-is-targeting-evangelicals/

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2020/august-web-only/qanon-is-wolf-in-wolfs-clothing.html

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#327039: Sep 13th 2020 at 7:49:05 PM

@Silasw, Redmess: What Trump can do, in principle, is invoke the Insurrection Act...

  • when requested by a state's legislature, or governor if the legislature cannot be convened, to address an insurrection against that state (§ 251),
  • to address an insurrection, in any state, which makes it impracticable to enforce the law (§ 252), or
  • to address an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy, in any state, which results in the deprivation of Constitutionally-secured rights, and where the state is unable, fails, or refuses to protect said rights (§ 253).

He might claim that, for example, "antifa states" are trying to allow illegal voters to rig the election against the "obvious winner," and thus try to send in troops to "protect the voters' constitutional rights."

However, the military will not obey such an order because it'd be a transparent lie and Trump has no credibility with the armed forces.

Edited by Ramidel on Sep 13th 2020 at 6:49:33 AM

Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#327040: Sep 13th 2020 at 7:52:35 PM

Can the military refuse orders just because they think the order is based on a lie?

Hope shines brightest in the darkest times
AzurePaladin She/Her Pronouns from Forest of Magic Since: Apr, 2018 Relationship Status: Mu
She/Her Pronouns
#327041: Sep 13th 2020 at 7:55:33 PM

Technically, yes, if they think it would be an illegal order. But then we get into a very murky legal area. It depends on the general and how everyone reacts, to be honest...

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
HailMuffins Since: May, 2016 Relationship Status: Shipping fictional characters
#327042: Sep 13th 2020 at 8:06:20 PM

With Trump, the chances of the army sticking with him are pretty damn low either way.

Edited by HailMuffins on Sep 13th 2020 at 12:06:33 PM

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#327043: Sep 13th 2020 at 8:07:39 PM

Well, the one who would be in charge of refusing the order would probably be the current Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper (who's against using the Insurrection Act). He's not active-duty military, so the worst Trump can do is fire him - which would make any attempt at using said Act by appointing an acting SecDef even less tenable.

RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#327044: Sep 13th 2020 at 8:27:37 PM

Last time I checked, as a reaction to the Nuremberg Trials and the most common defence, most first world militaries have specifically implemented a requirement to not follow illegal orders from top to bottom. For Trump to successfully turn the military on anything, he needs to somehow get a clear path through every single level of the hierarchy.

And the military brass have no reason to agree with him.

minseok42 A Self-inflicted Disaster from A Six-Tatami Room (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
A Self-inflicted Disaster
#327045: Sep 13th 2020 at 8:34:39 PM

I agree that a lot of the military would not want to follow Trump's orders to carry out what is essentially a coup, should Trump declare martial law. But then, would Trump need the whole US military to follow his orders? Could he not seize power with a handful of high ranking officers in command of useful units, such as intelligence, special forces, maybe a few battalions near DC?

There was a similar scenario in South Korea, when the former president was impeached and removed from office. Documents surfaced that there were plans to declare martial law, use the military to put down the protests, and arrest lawmakers that object. They didn't need the whole military, just some generals in command of a few mechanized infantry divisions and the special forces.

"Enshittification truly is how platforms die"-Cory Doctorow
RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#327046: Sep 13th 2020 at 8:37:43 PM

Given that he's pissed off basically everyone highly ranked enough to have any sway like that, no.

nova92 Since: Apr, 2020
#327047: Sep 13th 2020 at 8:42:51 PM

Also the US is much much much less decentralized than S. Korea. You'll also notice the coup never did happen.

Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#327048: Sep 13th 2020 at 8:44:01 PM

It's not about agreement though, it is about legality. You cannot simply refuse an order because you disagree or don't like your leader. That would be insubordination.

When you refuse an order, you had better be sure it is illegal.

In that sense, it doesn't really matter if Trump pisses off the military. If he gives a legal order, or he can pressure someone else into declaring it legal, the military would basically be stuck between following orders or risk a court martial offence.

Edited by Redmess on Sep 13th 2020 at 5:46:35 PM

Hope shines brightest in the darkest times
RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#327049: Sep 13th 2020 at 8:52:03 PM

But he can't declare something legal because he doesn't have the full backing of Congress, and as Silas has pointed out, making the military do anything within the United States is illegal.

He's not going to get the people who make these decisions to adopt a favourable interpretation.

AzurePaladin She/Her Pronouns from Forest of Magic Since: Apr, 2018 Relationship Status: Mu
She/Her Pronouns
#327050: Sep 13th 2020 at 8:56:08 PM

I think being a bit cautious is advisable, but going "well this check exists, ergo no one would ever just break that" is unhelpful and does not hold up to precedent. Presidents have been known throughout history to just claim more powers for themselves.

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

Total posts: 417,856
Top