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

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
#327901: Sep 19th 2020 at 1:00:32 PM

Except they aren’t being unlawful a lot of the time, they’re just being dirty. And again, they love that the Dems won’t “stoop to their level” - it means they get to keep winning. And keeping some notion of fair play alive when your opponent clearly doesn’t, and is winning, and is extremely dangerous to democracy and numerous vulnerable groups of your citizenry, is just insane. You’re losing the fight because you don’t want to knee your assailant in the balls while he’s stabbing you.

"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."
Forenperser Foreign Troper from Germany Since: Mar, 2012
Foreign Troper
#327902: Sep 19th 2020 at 1:01:15 PM

[up][up]I know, I was just adding that as an afterthought for us not to get carried away.

Edited by Forenperser on Sep 19th 2020 at 10:01:39 AM

Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% Scandinavian
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
#327903: Sep 19th 2020 at 1:01:57 PM

Yeah, we should be careful lest we restore democracy TOO MUCH.

"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#327904: Sep 19th 2020 at 1:10:41 PM

Ginsberg's death is disastrous, thankfully we're starting to see Dems pushing the necessary response.

Kennedy and Markey have explicitly come out in favor of court packing. And Schumer has transparently signaled that it's not unacceptable ("nothing is off the table").

There's hope for our democracy and progress in the United States yet.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Sep 19th 2020 at 1:11:17 AM

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#327905: Sep 19th 2020 at 1:12:42 PM

[up][up]Dude, if you can guarantee that just going hog wild with adding more justices won't cost us Congress in the very next election, by all means let us know and we will write a letter to Chuck Schumer.

While we're at it, can you guarantee us that we will retake the Senate right now? Because that's still a thing we need to do.

This isn't a fight that stops at the Supreme Court. If it comes to it, I am all in for adding more justices. I'm more for adding more justices, doing a massive PR campaign to keep the public on our side, ensuring voting rights are protected, and mobilizing Democrats to keep showing up in elections to make sure all this work isn't for nothing the moment moderates and young voters sit out midterms.

Edited by Parable on Sep 19th 2020 at 1:13:16 AM

Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#327906: Sep 19th 2020 at 1:15:24 PM

[up]That's not a reasonable expectation of evidence. Failing to pack the courts is the difference between fighting Climate Change, expanding democracy, and introducing a national healthcare system. If Democrats let fear of electoral consequences stop them from doing what's necessary then they will have blood on their hands, not just here but in the rest of the world too.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#327907: Sep 19th 2020 at 1:16:44 PM

It's easy and rather cheap to say "fuck optics" when you are not a politician who has to actually deal with those optics.

And you can deride public opinion all you want, it still matters. If you throw all caution to the wind, optics be damned, expect to be punished for it by your own side.

Let me repeat that: Democratic voters will absolutely punish a Democratic administration if they think they have gone too far. You can't get around that.

Also, remember that you live in a democracy. What the public thinks does matter for a democratic system. When you start seriously disregarding public opinion, that is a road to dictatorship.

Edited by Redmess on Sep 19th 2020 at 10:19:24 AM

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
#327908: Sep 19th 2020 at 1:20:44 PM

I... believe that's exactly what I said? We have to do this regardless of the optics. But that doesn't mean the optics aren't there, and won't have consequences that we have to plan ahead for.

I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to the constant whinging about how we shouldn't pack the courts because it'll make the Democrats look bad.

[up]Does it matter more than preventing the nigh-erasure of civil rights?

You can crow about optics all you want, this is just an egg Dems will have to break lest what I just described comes to pass.

Edited by PhysicalStamina on Sep 19th 2020 at 4:22:33 AM

i'm tired, my friend
RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#327909: Sep 19th 2020 at 1:21:58 PM

[up][up] And now suggest any other option rather than navel-gazing about how the optics must be considered.

Kayeka (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#327910: Sep 19th 2020 at 1:24:39 PM

Well, for the sake of argument, let's go with the obvious: sucking it up and legislate like normally. I don't know too much about how the process works, but as I understand it, the SC only comes into play when the question of certain legislation being constitutional comes up. So that means that stuff like gun control are out for now, but it's not like they could take every bit of Democrat legislation all the way to the SC, right?

Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#327911: Sep 19th 2020 at 1:25:58 PM

[up][up][up] I never said we shouldn't. Quite the contrary. I already said that it is necessary.

The problem is doing it without blowing up in the Democrats' face in four years.

[up][up] I don't see any other option. I just think this option is a very risky one.

Seriously guys, read my posts and please stop jumping to conclusions about what I think.

Edited by Redmess on Sep 19th 2020 at 10:27:58 AM

Hope shines brightest in the darkest times
RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#327912: Sep 19th 2020 at 1:26:50 PM

Sure they can. And they'll just pick "originalists", falling back on the argument that for basically anything you might want to legislate it was not known/understood/invented until after the Constitution was written or last amended and therefore an overreach of federal power.

Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#327913: Sep 19th 2020 at 1:29:25 PM

Spartan: You should read my post again. I want to add more justices. But I want to do it in a way that doesn't cost us electorally because all that stuff we want to do or protect won't come to fruition if we lose Congress two years from now. Half a term isn't long enough to get everything we want done.

Resileafs I actually wanted to be Resileaf Since: Jan, 2019
I actually wanted to be Resileaf
#327914: Sep 19th 2020 at 1:30:00 PM

Fuck the optics. This is an actual war against neo-nazis trying to take over your government. The only way to stop them is with a strong response to their evil. It's time for the Democrats to stand up for themselves, point at the Republicans and loudly tell everyone that those assholes are trying to destroy democracy, remove minority rights and are following a white supremacist agenda.

PhysicalStamina i'm tired, my friend (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
i'm tired, my friend
#327915: Sep 19th 2020 at 1:30:14 PM

Can I ask where the idea that Dems packing the courts will cause significant chunks of their base to turn on them in the first place? Because it seems more likely that looking like they aren't doing enough to the wake of this vacancy would do more than less in that regard.

Edited by PhysicalStamina on Sep 19th 2020 at 4:30:41 AM

i'm tired, my friend
Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#327916: Sep 19th 2020 at 1:30:48 PM

[up][up][up] Exactly, this is what I've been arguing as well. Getting more justices won't mean much if Democrats do it so ham-fisted it loses them the next election.

Edited by Redmess on Sep 19th 2020 at 10:31:15 AM

Hope shines brightest in the darkest times
ScubaWolf from South Carolina Since: Feb, 2020
#327917: Sep 19th 2020 at 1:30:56 PM

[up]x6 If the Democrats institute rule changes, a bunch of laws that have been sitting on Mc Connell's desk that have been needing to go through, and basically destroy the immoral systems Republicans use to get into office...can they get into office again?

Edited by ScubaWolf on Sep 19th 2020 at 4:31:10 AM

"In a move surprising absolutely no one"
Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#327918: Sep 19th 2020 at 1:33:05 PM

[up][up][up] I think it will cost the Dems electorally if they pack the courts without being able to sell it to their voters. That part will be crucial. You can't just disregard optics, because that means disregarding voters, and again, you still live in a democracy where what your voters think of you matters.

Edited by Redmess on Sep 19th 2020 at 10:33:50 AM

Hope shines brightest in the darkest times
TyeDyeWildebeest Unreasonably Quirky from Big Rock Candy Mountain Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: How does it feel to treat me like you do?
Unreasonably Quirky
#327919: Sep 19th 2020 at 1:33:08 PM

Let me repeat that: Democratic voters will absolutely punish a Democratic administration if they think they have gone too far. You can't get around that.

Yeaahhh... I think you have a point.

The reason the Republicans can afford to fight dirty and we can't is because we have a voter base who actually cares about that shit. There's a small but significant subset of our base who will stay home or vote third party if they're disappointed with the Dem candidate's actions.

Republican voters aren't like that. They will, without any hestitation, show up in droves to vote for you on Election Day, as long as you a) have an R next to your name, and B) are anti-abortion.

That's why we tend to struggle so much. Overall, we outnumber Republicans, but our voters are far more fickle.

Edited by TyeDyeWildebeest on Sep 19th 2020 at 4:49:53 AM

No beer?! But if there's no beer, then there's no beef or beans!
PhysicalStamina i'm tired, my friend (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
i'm tired, my friend
#327920: Sep 19th 2020 at 1:53:55 PM

On the other hand, you have people upset that Democrats seemingly do nothing but pout when Republicans engage in corruption.

i'm tired, my friend
RainingMetal (Handed A Sword) Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#327921: Sep 19th 2020 at 1:57:01 PM

I wonder if the Dems opt to add more justices that the Republicans will interpret this as being able to do this themselves in the future.

ASAB: All Sponsors Are Bad.
RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#327922: Sep 19th 2020 at 2:00:27 PM

I can guarantee that they would have done it by now anyway if they thought it was necessary.

WillKeaton from Alberta, Canada Since: Jun, 2010
#327923: Sep 19th 2020 at 2:01:23 PM

Just so we're clear, how many new Justices are we talking about adding here? How many would be needed for the Democrats to have a majority?

Edited by WillKeaton on Sep 19th 2020 at 3:01:51 AM

RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#327924: Sep 19th 2020 at 2:03:46 PM

4.

I think the Supreme Court had 13 members at one point?

Kayeka (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#327925: Sep 19th 2020 at 2:05:06 PM

[up][up]Four. Personally, I'm still feeling a bit skittish about this whole thing, so maybe it would be better to go with two, for a 6-5 towards conservative-appointed judges.

It would take the edge of in selling it to the public, as opposed to packing until we got a majority, and considering that the conservative judges have already shown to be somewhat willing to honour the law over party loyalty, it might be enough to diminish the damage being done now.

Edited by Kayeka on Sep 19th 2020 at 11:05:25 AM


Total posts: 417,856
Top