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

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#43426: Dec 10th 2012 at 6:36:46 PM

His words can be taken to mean that amendments are unconstitutional in which case it should be perfectly legal to deny minorities their rights or bar women from voting.

Now see, this is an example of someone twisting Scalia's words and intent.

Senate moves to block Pentagon plans to increase number of spies overseas

edited 10th Dec '12 6:39:45 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#43427: Dec 10th 2012 at 6:38:30 PM

The reason we hate him is because everything he says is wrong. Still, the "Scalia says there's not a living constitution" is like saying "Scientists determine water is wet."

I will have to disagree. He wrote opinions that I'm sure we can agree with. Furthermore he did join the "liberal side" of the court in certain cases, whether or not we agree with each individual case. Saying that everything he says is wrong is ad hominem.

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#43428: Dec 10th 2012 at 6:40:52 PM

Deviant: Well what do you think he meant? If the constitution is not living document then that means it isn't able to change with the times which means amendments can't be done. He might not have meant that but it could be taken that way since that was my first thought when I read that.

OhnoaBear I'm back, baby. from Exiting, pursued by a... Since: Jan, 2011
I'm back, baby.
#43429: Dec 10th 2012 at 6:42:49 PM

The concept that the constitution should be interpreted the same way forever and ever is exactly as sane as treating the bible the same way.

"The marvel is not that the Bear posts well, but that the Bear posts at all."
Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#43430: Dec 10th 2012 at 6:43:20 PM

Kostya, I already told you why that's incorrect. You can believe living constitution is a flimsy thing and because of that, changes to the constitutional meaning must be done with explicit amendments.

"You want Obamacare? That's not in our constitution. You want it to be legal? Write it in!"

edited 10th Dec '12 6:44:22 PM by Trivialis

HilarityEnsues Since: Sep, 2009
#43431: Dec 10th 2012 at 6:46:17 PM

It just bugs mes me that "constitutional literalism" is synonymous with right-wing authoritarianism because of people like Scalia.

What has to be the matter with you to think torture is constitutional but universal healthcare/whatever is going too far?

OhnoaBear I'm back, baby. from Exiting, pursued by a... Since: Jan, 2011
I'm back, baby.
#43432: Dec 10th 2012 at 6:48:25 PM

The constitution is a set of laws. The way we determine the suitability of laws is by testing them until they break. At least, that is how I have always understood the American Court system to work.

"The marvel is not that the Bear posts well, but that the Bear posts at all."
DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#43433: Dec 10th 2012 at 6:49:44 PM

Moving on...

McCain seeks seat on Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Lindsey Graham to Obama: How about ‘manning up’ on debt?

Obama Blasts Right-to-Work Bills in Detroit

Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii hospitalized: 'For the most part, I'm OK'

Kennedy is more remembered for being shot than for his actual record, which was painfully average.

Kennedy’s legislative record in 1961–63 was the best of any President since Roosevelt’s first term. The Kennedy administration was far more successful than most people give it credit for.

I'm not sure about LBJ. Dude was a ruthless and totally amoral opportunist who mostly thrived on giving the people with a hold on him what they wanted. Yes, he did a lot of pro-civil-rights stuff as president, but he also set back civil rights by years when he was the majority leader for the Senate, and seriously dragged his feet on dealing with Mc Carthy's witch-hunts.

You'd get populist policies from him as president, but not necessarily good ones.

Sure, Johnson was ruthless and immoral (its the reason he was so successful) but besides his Civil Rights work, there wasn't much populist about him. Johnson pushed his own agenda (The Great Society), and wasn't afraid to crush those in his way.

In many ways Johnson was a more liberal and less paranoid Nixon.

edited 10th Dec '12 7:21:39 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#43434: Dec 10th 2012 at 7:21:01 PM

It's not that hard to be less paranoid than Nixon was. I think LBJ was a better man than most give him credit for, though.

Wow, Graham sounds an awful lot like he's whining there. He even points out that Obama won, and somehow expects him to do something "bipartisan" when it's already been proven that doesn't work very well with this Congress.

edited 10th Dec '12 7:21:31 PM by AceofSpades

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#43435: Dec 10th 2012 at 7:23:20 PM

Obama won by a clear majority and the Democrats made major gains in the House and even picked up a few Senate seats. I think it's clear the public in general is more on their side and the GOP needs to bend. There's also the fact that if gerrymandering wasn't being done they probably would have retaken the house.

edited 10th Dec '12 7:23:41 PM by Kostya

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#43436: Dec 10th 2012 at 7:31:37 PM

There's also the fact that if gerrymandering wasn't being done they probably would have retaken the house.

I say the GOP would still control the House (if only by a slight margin). The Republicans have 34 more seats than the Dems in the 113th United States Congress. Plus quite a few Dem victories are due to Gerrymandering.

edited 10th Dec '12 7:32:01 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#43437: Dec 10th 2012 at 7:34:39 PM

It s me that "constitutional literalism" is synonymous with right-wing authoritarianism because of people like Scalia.

What has to be the matter with you to think torture is constitutional but universal healthcare/whatever is going too far?

While I agree with you on torture and healthcare, one criticism living constitution gets is its attempt to find the perfect meaning. Like trying to weave things here and there to reach the desired outcomes. But our constitution may not be perfect; sometimes judges make the uncomfortable decision where they follow the law, but in doing so pick the less sympathetic option.

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#43438: Dec 10th 2012 at 11:51:09 PM

http://prospect.org/article/not-wisconsin-its-worse

A piece about what it means if they manage to pass right to work in Michigan. It's incredibly ominous.

edited 10th Dec '12 11:52:45 PM by AceofSpades

Sledgesaul Since: Oct, 2011
#43439: Dec 11th 2012 at 5:48:58 AM

Yeah, Snyder's definitely gonna piss off so many people from now on.

Lying about not writing the Right to Work law and passing it while everyone else was still recovering from the initial shock? That's some Scott Walker tactics.

QuestionMarc Since: Oct, 2011 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
#43440: Dec 11th 2012 at 6:12:37 AM

Curve ball question time: is it true that there is negotiations between the suprem court and libertarian groups to turn the New Hampshire into a libertarian state? Or something?

Source: my teacher. Philosophy teachers are known for a lot of things, but reliable news is not one of those.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#43442: Dec 11th 2012 at 6:37:00 AM

Obama doesn't need to compromise to get what he wants. Therefore he will compromise. waii

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Sledgesaul Since: Oct, 2011
#43443: Dec 11th 2012 at 6:45:08 AM

We'll get some Grand Bargain-esque deal just before we were supposed to have gone off the fiscal cliff.

Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#43444: Dec 11th 2012 at 7:24:46 AM

Obama has at least said he won't compromise on tax rises, which is a good thing.

Schild und Schwert der Partei
Chalkos Sidequest Proliferator from The Internets Since: Oct, 2010
Sidequest Proliferator
#43445: Dec 11th 2012 at 7:49:33 AM

[up]x whatever: I'm pretty sure there are no negotiations between the Supreme Court and anyone. The Supreme Court has no right or power to alter the laws of a state except as they conflict with the Constitution of the United States, anyway. Your philosophy teacher may have been thinking of a particular state law which is being challenged in the court system; I don't know if there is even such a law, though.

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#43446: Dec 11th 2012 at 7:55:00 AM

And when they conflict with federal law.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
QuestionMarc Since: Oct, 2011 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
#43447: Dec 11th 2012 at 8:32:50 AM

So there's no talk of expatriating anyone or changing dramatically the governement in the New Hampshire?

Pleh, I thought so. "Libertarians groups requesting a state" sounded like a fishy story.

Tangent128 from Virginia Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Gonna take a lot to drag me away from you
#43448: Dec 11th 2012 at 9:06:48 AM

There's the Free State Project, with the goal of moving a bunch of Libertarians into New Hampshire. That's been around a while.

Do you highlight everything looking for secret messages?
QuestionMarc Since: Oct, 2011 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
#43449: Dec 11th 2012 at 9:34:50 AM

Okay so that's weird.

They want to create a libertarian state with 20000 people.

Out of a state of 1,100,000 people.

Okay, so how big a deal is this Free State Project to actual US citizens? It looks just as laughable as the sedition petition.

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#43450: Dec 11th 2012 at 9:38:06 AM

^I suspect it's basically irrelevant, less than secession in fact.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Total posts: 417,856
Top