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

Hodor2 Since: Jan, 2015
#330326: Sep 30th 2020 at 7:28:16 PM

@Wyldchyld - I've seen a description of Trump as the first (extremely) online President, and I think the Green New Deal thing is good illustration.

I'll preface this by saying that I don't really know enough about the Green New Deal to have much of an opinion (which maybe supports my point), but I definitely recall a vehement liberal/left split on it. At the same time though, at least as I understand it, it was a fairly "inside baseball" disagreement that wouldn't necessarily register to someone who doesn't follow political people on Twitter.

And so I assume that Trump or some handler thought it would be a good idea to bring up the issue, based on those online disputes, but it didn't make much sense, including to the audience, perhaps because as you get at, Trump might not have understood what the Green Deal was himself.

As similar examples, although this isn't really a liberal/left split issue (well, somewhat with the former), Trump has unusually strong and vehement opinions on the 1619 Project and anti-bias training compared to your average person.

Edited by Hodor2 on Sep 30th 2020 at 9:29:36 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
#330327: Sep 30th 2020 at 7:32:18 PM

Roberts already handed the election to George W. Bush when he (almost certainly) lost it.

Roberts was appointed in 2005...

Nobody is disputing that a 2000 style situation will go to Trump, what we’re disputing is the idea that all 50 states (or even enough states for a clear Biden win) could announce that Biden has won and the Supreme Court would go “lol don’t care, Trump is president anyway”.

Edited by Silasw on Sep 30th 2020 at 2:32:59 PM

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#330328: Sep 30th 2020 at 7:36:05 PM

Thankfully a close election doesn't seem plausible, Biden is getting very good numbers and they've been steadily enough to unlikely be some kind of massive error.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
Shaoken (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Dating Catwoman
#330329: Sep 30th 2020 at 7:39:34 PM

2000 and 2016 required very precise circumstances to occur and it would be highly improbable that these factors would happen again in 2020.

Galadriel Since: Feb, 2015
#330330: Sep 30th 2020 at 7:55:13 PM

I still think the greatest danger is widespread voter suppression and election rigging by the Republicans - a combination of discouraging mail-in voting; refusing or destroying mail-in ballots; severely limiting in-person polling stations in Democratic areas; and relying on minority voters being (legitimately) afraid to go to crowded polling stations due to minority communities having been hit far harder hy COVID.

In a normal year, Trump would lose. But nothing about voting this year is normal, and all those factors combined seem like they make it very feasible for him to rig the election without it being clearly provable that he did so.

Edited by Galadriel on Sep 30th 2020 at 10:55:47 AM

Gilphon (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#330331: Sep 30th 2020 at 8:25:46 PM

So, I mean, unless the result ends up very close, Trump probably won't be able to steal the election. If polling numbers we've been seeing hold up, he is going to be out of the White House in january, no matter how much trouble he causes.

But it's entirely possible for him to cause trouble in a way that does long-term damage the US's democracy. He's already done that, in fact, by not even bothering to hide the fact that he intends to steal the election. He won't succeed in stealing the election, because nobody seems to be willing to back him up on that and stealing an election isn't a one-man job, but a sitting president openly attempting that is establishing a very dangerous precedent, one that could be a huge problem in a closer election.

tclittle Professional Forum Ninja from Somewhere Down in Texas Since: Apr, 2010
Professional Forum Ninja
#330332: Sep 30th 2020 at 8:29:09 PM

Roberts was appointed in 2005...

Roberts was on GWB's legal team during Bush v Gore (drafted by none other than Ted Cruz).

"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."
Kaiseror Since: Jul, 2016
#330333: Sep 30th 2020 at 8:41:32 PM

Wasn't the second debate supposed to be tonight?

Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#330334: Sep 30th 2020 at 8:45:31 PM

Not till sometime next month. And we have the VP debate before that.

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#330335: Sep 30th 2020 at 9:21:59 PM

VP debate is this Wednesday.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
HailMuffins Since: May, 2016 Relationship Status: Shipping fictional characters
#330336: Sep 30th 2020 at 9:25:30 PM

Hopefully that one looks a little more like a debate and less like a toddler throwing a tantrum at its nanny.

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#330338: Sep 30th 2020 at 9:40:09 PM

Or would he want to, since it would require him to be in proximity to a woman without a chaperone?

HailMuffins Since: May, 2016 Relationship Status: Shipping fictional characters
Imca (Veteran)
#330340: Sep 30th 2020 at 10:19:40 PM

How are congressional recesses decided?

Lazlo74 from A tropical hell-hole Since: May, 2018
#330341: Sep 30th 2020 at 11:08:44 PM

Not really familiar with the presidential debates, if the second one is the VP debate, what can we look forward to on the third debate?

Scaled seeker
RedSavant Since: Jan, 2001
#330342: Sep 30th 2020 at 11:15:10 PM

As far as I know, there will be three presidential debates, which are separate from the vice-presidential debates. Hopefully the mythical mute protocols will go into practice before the second presidential debate.

It's been fun.
Deadbeatloser22 from Disappeared by Space Magic (Great Old One) Relationship Status: Tsundere'ing
#330343: Oct 1st 2020 at 1:41:06 AM

I thought Congress didn't technically recess. Or is that just the Senate?

"Yup. That tasted purple."
Imca (Veteran)
#330344: Oct 1st 2020 at 2:05:05 AM

Normaly they don't but I was wondering if there was a way for the Dems to force a true recess, and thus allow Trump to make a Recess Appointment to RBG's seat.

The logic being that a recess appointment would only last until January 2021, so while it would be a short term loss... it would be a better situation long term then allowing a true appointment.

Edited by Imca on Oct 1st 2020 at 2:05:36 AM

Kayeka (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#330345: Oct 1st 2020 at 2:28:22 AM

[up]Well, that depends on who the current president pro tempore, the longest serving senator, is.

In order to maintain the session pro forma, every four days, the president pro tempore (or a suitable substitute of their choosing) opens the session in front of an allegedly empty room, and immediately adjourns for three days. But, if the PPT were to do a roll call, thus revealing that indeed no senators had shown up, the session pro forma would end and congress would be officially in recess.

More on that in this delightful CGP Grey vid.

Edited by Kayeka on Oct 1st 2020 at 11:32:16 AM

Imca (Veteran)
#330346: Oct 1st 2020 at 2:32:02 AM

The current PPT is a republican, but couldn't the democrats send some one in and have them demand a roll call? Insisting that it sure does look like slightly less then 51 people showed up... maybe only 40, and that they really should check...

Edited by Imca on Oct 1st 2020 at 2:33:12 AM

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#330347: Oct 1st 2020 at 3:17:31 AM

If my understanding is correct, there is a convention that the Senate and House adjourn at the same time because otherwise the president could do it for them. And that the Senate does pro forma sessions to impede recess appointments. And even the pack of depraved sycophants that is the Senate Republican Conference has kept these practices during the Trump era. So I wouldn't expect them to break with convention just now, unless Trump tries to pressure them. As for Democrats ... I think that goading Trump into a recess appointment of a SCOTUS judge seems like an oddball move.

The folks at 538.com think that Trump's chances are going down, both because his polls aren't getting better and because he's running out of time to turn the race around.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Memers Since: Aug, 2013
#330348: Oct 1st 2020 at 4:06:15 AM

21%, that is still absolutely horrifying.

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#330349: Oct 1st 2020 at 4:09:08 AM

It beats 30%, which is what his odds were in 2016.

Disgusted, but not surprised
thok That's Dr. Title, thank you! (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Non-Canon
That's Dr. Title, thank you!
#330350: Oct 1st 2020 at 5:28:01 AM

Some of that probability come from the assumption that there's possible news that would shift the electorate in favor of Trump; one of their articles mentions that if the election was held today, Trump would only have a 9% chance of winning. (This works both ways, but moving the electorate towards Biden just means he wins 400-500 electoral votes, so is less interesting.)


Total posts: 417,856
Top