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

nova92 Since: Apr, 2020
#341976: Dec 1st 2020 at 6:52:38 PM

Feinstein could probably be pressured/persuaded, given that she's given up her position as head Democrat of the Judiciary Committee.

Manchin being there to give Democrats a majority and letting Biden replace Judges and appoint key Cabinet members is also important. I have no doubt that Mitch will keep vacancies open or force other concessions if the GOP keeps the majority.


[down] IIRC, Manchin supports a public option.

Edited by nova92 on Dec 1st 2020 at 7:03:11 AM

Draghinazzo (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I get a feeling so complicated...
#341977: Dec 1st 2020 at 7:01:24 PM

I could be misremembering but I think I heard Manchin say he wanted to expand health care/the ACA. So that would be one positive assuming I'm correct and he doesn't change his mind.

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#341978: Dec 1st 2020 at 7:33:37 PM

But a DINO that votes with the Democrats 50% of the time is better than a Republican who would vote with them 0% of the time.

This.

So long as Mitch retains the role of Senate Majority Leader, it doesn't matter which way Manchin votes. Manchin won't be given the chance to cast a vote. Mitch doesn't use Republicans' majority status to vote down nominees and liberal bills. He doesn't have to. He can dispose of them himself.

Mitch discovered a long time ago that as long as he's sitting in that chair, he can just decide that the Senate will not deliberate this bill. They will not vote on this proposal. They will not hold a hearing for this nominee.

Mitch's #1 legislative weapon is the ability to simply not do his job at all. As Majority Leader, Mitch rules the Senate with an iron fist. If Republicans retain a 51+ majority, Mitch will simply put his feet up on his desk and write "NOPE!" on every single piece of legislation and every appointment confirmation that Democrats put on his desk.

We can fret about how much horse trading it takes to get bills passed and how often Democrats vote with us just as soon as we regain the ability to even hold votes at all.

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#341979: Dec 1st 2020 at 8:16:54 PM

Yup. The only thing stopping Mitch if the Dems don't take both runoff seats is a few Republicans defecting (or threatening to) on certain votes if he tries to shutdown Biden's entire cabinet appointment process or let the fiscal cliff happen, etc.

And as we've learned, Republican Senators cannot be trusted.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Draghinazzo (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I get a feeling so complicated...
#341980: Dec 1st 2020 at 8:20:34 PM

Republican senators are the reason Mitch is in the position he is anyway. If they didn't want his obstructive leadership, they wouldn't vote for him as majority leader.

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#341981: Dec 1st 2020 at 8:21:47 PM

With Mitch around, the GOP Senators basically get to sit around doing nothing.

...I really should have considered going into politics earlier in life.

Disgusted, but not surprised
tclittle Professional Forum Ninja from Somewhere Down in Texas Since: Apr, 2010
Professional Forum Ninja
#341982: Dec 1st 2020 at 8:27:01 PM

Trump threatens to veto NDAA bill if termination of section 230 isn't inside.

"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."
Perseus Since: Nov, 2009
#341983: Dec 1st 2020 at 8:41:31 PM

Ugh. I assumed that was going to be an article and now I need to scrub my computer with bleach to get the stank of Trump's twitter off.

Edited by Perseus on Dec 2nd 2020 at 3:42:17 AM

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#341984: Dec 1st 2020 at 8:45:42 PM

This is why I try to label my links to outside sources like so:

<Name of media outlet>: <Link to article>

That way people don't accidentally click on a link to a site they don't want to support.

Disgusted, but not surprised
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#341985: Dec 1st 2020 at 8:46:50 PM

I usually just post the url straight up myself.

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#341986: Dec 1st 2020 at 8:50:04 PM

Reading a straight up url tends to offend my senses though.

Disgusted, but not surprised
ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#341987: Dec 1st 2020 at 8:51:29 PM

Just saw this bit tonight - Lou Dobbs outright accused Barr of being "either a liar or a fool or both. He may be -- perhaps compromised. He may be simply unprincipled, or he may be personally distraught or ill." for saying there was no evidence of fraud.

This is the kind of media bubble that we need to burst.

[down]

It's the annual military spending bill (National Defense Authorization Act) - and it should be interesting to see how Republicans respond on that.

Edited by ironballs16 on Dec 1st 2020 at 12:07:13 PM

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
CookingCat Since: Jul, 2018
#341989: Dec 1st 2020 at 9:26:08 PM

[up]x7 Repealing Section 230 would kill Twitter, along with Social Media in general and basically any website that accepts user text input, including this one. It would completely destroy the internet.

Edited by CookingCat on Dec 1st 2020 at 9:27:32 AM

Perseus Since: Nov, 2009
CookingCat Since: Jul, 2018
#341991: Dec 1st 2020 at 9:33:37 PM

[up] Nope. Clearly a case of Didn't Think This Through.

Edited by CookingCat on Dec 1st 2020 at 9:33:45 AM

RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#341992: Dec 1st 2020 at 9:51:53 PM

Like he would care. He just wants to be able to sue someone.

CookingCat Since: Jul, 2018
#341993: Dec 1st 2020 at 9:53:22 PM

[up] I'm pretty sure he would care if he found out he'd be unable to tweet anymore.

Edited by CookingCat on Dec 1st 2020 at 9:57:51 AM

Altris from the Vortex Since: Aug, 2019 Relationship Status: Not caught up in your love affair
#341994: Dec 1st 2020 at 9:54:31 PM

I don't think he's thought that far through. He's just mad that Twitter is flagging his tweets with "official sources called this election differently" and the like.

So, let's hang an anchor from the sun... also my Tumblr
Shaoken (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Dating Catwoman
#341996: Dec 1st 2020 at 11:33:38 PM

Could we get a summary of this since posting web links without further elaboration is frowned upon/against the rules in OTC?

I mean I can guess it's bullshit, but the rules point stands.

nrjxll Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Not war
#341997: Dec 2nd 2020 at 1:10:34 AM

I tried, but my eyes completely glazed over.

Is there any chance this could actually go anywhere? I mean, as much its origins may be Trump being a giant baby, Big Tech seems to be pretty legitimately unpopular with both parties in Congress, albeit for completely opposite reasons (hell, it's not like I have a remotely positive opinion of Twitter myself.) Fighting in the name of preserving its legal shield doesn't seem like something they'd be eager to do. OTOH, it's hard to imagine big changes to the status quo being made as anything other than the result of their own major debate, not as a side issue to a defense bill.

Edited by nrjxll on Dec 2nd 2020 at 3:12:35 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
#341998: Dec 2nd 2020 at 1:13:11 AM

If what Trump wanted only hit social media it might have a chance, but if people are right that it would kill all user-input sites then it’s not gonna go anywhere.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#341999: Dec 2nd 2020 at 1:19:08 AM

It's the usual bullshit about how it's censorship to not allow blatant lying just because it comes from Republicans.

nova92 Since: Apr, 2020
#342000: Dec 2nd 2020 at 1:20:46 AM

Here's a Business Insider article from late October, when Congress was debating whether to repeal or rewrite Section 230.

  • Section 230 - a federal law that shields social media companies from liabilities that would otherwise reshape or crush their businesses - is closer than ever to being repealed or rewritten.
  • The law protects social media companies from being held liable for the content of users' posts. Proponents argue it enables open forums on the internet to exist.
  • But critics of the law say it doesn't adequately hold social media companies accountable for harmful content like misinformation or hate speech. Some Republican lawmakers have also argued that social media companies embolden anti-conservative bias and have used repealing Section 230 as a threat.

One arcane internet law passed in 1996 stands between social media companies and massive legal liabilities that would otherwise crush or fundamentally reshape their businesses - and that law is closer than ever to being repealed.

Lawmakers from both major political parties have signaled that the law should be repealed or rewritten, arguing that it shields social media companies from responsibility. Meanwhile, tech companies have warned that doing so could reshape the internet as we know it, eliminating comment boards, messaging, user-submitted posts, forums, marketplaces, and other trademarks of online communication.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, known simply as Section 230, is part of a law that protects social media companies from being held liable for the content of users' posts in the way that newspapers are liable for articles they publish. It enables open forums on the internet to exist.

But critics of the law say it lets big tech companies get away with making bad content moderation decisions selectively without consequences. Republicans have lodged claims based on scant evidence that big tech companies are systematically biased against President Donald Trump and his allies, while Democrats say platforms need more legal incentives to remove hate speech and misinformation.

Critics have also pointed to the fact that tech companies have taken control of distribution channels for content produced by traditional publishers, vacuuming up advertising revenue from struggling newspapers without facing any of the risks associated with publishing news.

Civil liberties activists have also defended Section 230, arguing that repealing or fundamentally changing the law would hurt free expression online. Fight for the Future, a digital rights group, has argued that repealing Section 230 would hurt smaller tech companies and further entrench giants like Facebook and Google.
If Section 230 is repealed, tech companies would have to weigh whether to continue to host open forums, or to pursue less risky models.

On more recent going-ons from Axios:

What's happening: A source familiar with the negotiations told Axios that Sen. Roger Wicker, Republican chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, has proposed that his bill limiting Section 230 protections be included in the National Defense Authorization Act.

But, but, but: It's a long shot, for political and logistical reasons.

  • The White House has pushed lawmakers to insert a repeal of Section 230 into the NDAA, as part of a compromise that would have President Trump sign the bill even though he's opposed to a provision that renames military bases that are named for Confederate leaders.

  • But Senate Republicans are instead trying to negotiate an alternative that would combine multiple bills aimed at reforming the law, including the bipartisan Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency Act and Wicker's Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act, a Hill source familiar with the matter told Axios.

The bottom line: It appears Republicans are open to the White House's buzzer-beater policy goals, but Democrats are sure to object.


Okay, the impression I get from reading this is that a straight-repeal would have negative consequences, but there are legitimate reasons to want to reduce the scope of the law or reform it. And it's not quite as simple as Section 230 is repealed, the Internet dies.

Edited by nova92 on Dec 2nd 2020 at 1:25:19 AM


Total posts: 417,856
Top