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
#327651: Sep 18th 2020 at 5:04:28 PM

If the Republican Senators at risk of losing their seats in November vote to confirm this candidate, the GOP Senate majority might well be cooked. Can't pull this stunt and pretend to be a moderate anymore.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Wyldchyld (Old as dirt)
#327652: Sep 18th 2020 at 5:04:48 PM

I feel that released statement is an indication of the sheer scale of pressure that must have been weighing on her shoulders in recent years.

My condolences to her family and friends.

Edited by Wyldchyld on Sep 19th 2020 at 9:09:15 AM

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.
AlleyOop Since: Oct, 2010
#327653: Sep 18th 2020 at 5:04:57 PM

[up]x6 Not really. I've always believed that our democracy was in a precarious state ever since Trump's election. And I don't actually think we're at or near revolutionary conditions, I'm more pointing this out for those who believe we have literally zero recourse, to illustrate why I still think they're being ridiculous.

Edited by AlleyOop on Sep 18th 2020 at 8:06:12 AM

AzurePaladin She/Her Pronouns from Forest of Magic Since: Apr, 2018 Relationship Status: Mu
She/Her Pronouns
#327654: Sep 18th 2020 at 5:05:14 PM

>LSBK, depends on what the Senate Democrats could try to cook up to obstruct.

Edited by AzurePaladin on Sep 18th 2020 at 8:06:02 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
nova92 Since: Apr, 2020
#327655: Sep 18th 2020 at 5:06:08 PM

Do Republicans have the votes? A lot of their most vulnerable Senators are up in November. Is Collins willing to say bye to her career for a judge? Murkowski was a no as recently as August.

Not saying I trust any of them, but was wondering if anyone knew what the breakdown would be.

astrokitty Happiness is a cup of tea from Somewhere Out There Since: May, 2014 Relationship Status: Yes, I'm alone, but I'm alone and free
Happiness is a cup of tea
#327656: Sep 18th 2020 at 5:06:28 PM

So, how quickly can Trump shove some pos into the Supreme Court, and how quickly can that "Justice" try to roll back civil rights?

Somebody once told me the world was macaroni, I took a bite out of a tree
LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#327657: Sep 18th 2020 at 5:06:50 PM

Still, RIP and condolences to her family. I'd agree with the sentiment that she should have retired during one of Obama's terms, but there's no changing the past.

AlleyOop Since: Oct, 2010
#327658: Sep 18th 2020 at 5:07:52 PM

To be fair I don't think she or anyone else would've predicted Trump would win back when Obama was president.

CrimsonZephyr Would that it were so simple. from Massachusetts Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
Would that it were so simple.
#327659: Sep 18th 2020 at 5:08:10 PM
Thumped: Please see The Rules . This is a warning that this post is the sort of thing that will get you suspended.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
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
#327660: Sep 18th 2020 at 5:08:51 PM

@astrokitty: Trump has until January, which is plenty of time to get someone seated. IDK how much damage they can do by the time Biden’s seated and putting some counter measure into action.

My musician page
Draedi Since: Mar, 2019
#327661: Sep 18th 2020 at 5:08:52 PM

One thing for sure.

The 117th Congress, assuming it's a DDD trifecta, will be the most important Congress since the 88th, and 89th.

Maybe considering the context, even more important than those.

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#327662: Sep 18th 2020 at 5:09:03 PM

@nova92: Collins' career is already circling the drain. Murkowski and Romney are bulletproof - there's nothing the national party can do to them.

The question is who, if anyone, is willing to take a stand. (And whether Manchin will fuck things up.)

Edited by Ramidel on Sep 18th 2020 at 4:09:25 AM

AlleyOop Since: Oct, 2010
#327663: Sep 18th 2020 at 5:09:29 PM

I don't expect people to prevent Trump from ramming his nominee down the court's throat, but that doesn't mean we can't still come up with options after the fact. People have been preparing for the worst case scenario for a while now.

There is a difference between "it's going to get even worse" and "it is irrevocably fucked".

Edited by AlleyOop on Sep 18th 2020 at 8:10:39 AM

CrimsonZephyr Would that it were so simple. from Massachusetts Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
Would that it were so simple.
#327664: Sep 18th 2020 at 5:10:12 PM
Thumped: Please see The Rules . This is a warning that this post is the sort of thing that will get you suspended.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#327665: Sep 18th 2020 at 5:10:37 PM

I doubt Manchin is the problem here. In the miracle situation that enough Republicans remember that morality matters, he won't be the deciding vote. He hardly ever is.

He's a DINO, but a Democrat when it matters.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
WillKeaton from Alberta, Canada Since: Jun, 2010
#327666: Sep 18th 2020 at 5:11:30 PM

What does "Packing the Court" mean in this context? Because I was under the impression that Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life, so I don't see how you'd remove them to "Pack" the court.

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#327667: Sep 18th 2020 at 5:12:28 PM

[up]There Ain't No Rule that there can only be nine judges.

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#327668: Sep 18th 2020 at 5:12:36 PM

You appoint more than the 9 standard Justices.

Incredibly contentious, but since the GOP has decided that the rule of law isn't really a thing anymore, it has to be considered.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
CrimsonZephyr Would that it were so simple. from Massachusetts Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
Would that it were so simple.
#327669: Sep 18th 2020 at 5:12:49 PM

You expand the Court and appoint new justices to new seats.

A blatant attempt failed during FDR's administration, but expanding the Court beyond nine seats has happened before, in the 19th Century.

"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
Draedi Since: Mar, 2019
#327670: Sep 18th 2020 at 5:13:00 PM

Packing the court means expanding the number of justices. The current number, 9, is set by statute, NOT the constitution. Theoretically, we could have a 1000 SCOTUS justices if we wanted.

Practically is another matter.

nova92 Since: Apr, 2020
#327671: Sep 18th 2020 at 5:13:04 PM

Will Romney vote no on a judge though? He's still conservative and has the excuse of not being around during Garland.

Murkowski said she wouldn't in August but could do the same thing she did during Kavanaugh.

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
#327672: Sep 18th 2020 at 5:13:14 PM

@Willkeaton: There’s no upper limit to the number of Supreme Court justices, so theoretically liberals can just be added until they outnumber the conservatives.

My musician page
RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#327673: Sep 18th 2020 at 5:13:17 PM

Oh, you just add more. The number of seats isn't fixed, it's just never been a politically good idea to add more most of the time.

I think the last time it was threatened was FDR.

Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#327674: Sep 18th 2020 at 5:13:53 PM

Can't the Democrats employ delaying tactics?

Hope shines brightest in the darkest times
Reflextion from a post-sanity world (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: What's love got to do with it?
#327675: Sep 18th 2020 at 5:14:26 PM

Incredibly contentious, but since the GOP has decided that the rule of law isn't really a thing anymore, it has to be considered.

"Considered", nothing. It's the only goddamned way that pretty much every civil rights advance of the past century survives what's coming, and even THAT might not be enough.

Someone did tell me life was going to be this way.

Total posts: 417,856
Top