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

Baff Since: Jul, 2011
#46426: Jan 6th 2013 at 7:49:52 AM

[up][up][up]

"Who controls the past now, controls the future, who controls the present now, controls the past" George Orwell.

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
MarqFJA The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer from Deserts of the Middle East (Before Recorded History) Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
#46427: Jan 6th 2013 at 8:38:03 AM

[up] Thanks, I was trying to remember the origin of the C&C phrase.

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#46428: Jan 6th 2013 at 8:38:21 AM

There's an order of operations in firms. You're supposed to pay off general creditors first-which I believe includes pension holders. Stockholders-that is, the owners-aren't supposed to get a dime until all liabilities have been addressed.

cutewithoutthe Góðberit Norðling Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Star-crossed
Góðberit Norðling
#46429: Jan 6th 2013 at 10:56:43 AM

Grant was a corrupt drunkard who was absolutely incompetent as president.

Excuse me, but no.

First of all, most presidents drink quite a lot. And even despite that? He was more of a lightweight than someone who drunk a lot.

Second of all, Grant was a good man. It was his overall good quality of trusting people that got him in that position in the first place. Have you actually read about him?

He trusted a few politicians, allowed them around him... then they cut him open and ruined his presidency.

If anything, it shows more of a problem with the government at large back then, rather than one with the presidency.

Here, educate yerself:

edited 6th Jan '13 10:57:06 AM by cutewithoutthe

Enkufka Wandering Student ಠ_ಠ from Bay of White fish Since: Dec, 2009
Wandering Student ಠ_ಠ
#46430: Jan 6th 2013 at 10:57:40 AM

The first act of the new group of congressional republicans? to try and stop "anchor babies."

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry
cutewithoutthe Góðberit Norðling Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Star-crossed
Góðberit Norðling
#46431: Jan 6th 2013 at 10:59:27 AM

anyone surprised

anyone

no

ok

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#46432: Jan 6th 2013 at 11:00:16 AM

Actually I'm somewhat in support of that. The spirit behind the law angers me but I can understand why we'd only grant citizenship if one of the parents is a citizen.

Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#46433: Jan 6th 2013 at 11:01:20 AM

[up]

so theyre encouraging mexicans to sell themselves to americans who'd pay a bunch of money to get an unwilling wife?

Sounds about right.

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#46435: Jan 6th 2013 at 11:04:13 AM

Yeah the actual consequences of the law matter.

We could stop illegal immigration from Latin America practically overnight by a) coming down on the big agriculture companies that use illegal immigrants, and b) putting into place a government-run temporary stay program for migrant workers in the style of what Japan, China, and Korea do for their English teachers. But they'd never go for that.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#46436: Jan 6th 2013 at 11:05:15 AM

The 14th Amendment is clear. These "people" are being racist assholes.

And we've seen in several places what happens to the agricultural industry when you drive off migrant workers: it crashes because no American wants to spend their day picking fruit.

[down] I think Bachmann tried that last week.

edited 6th Jan '13 11:07:14 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#46437: Jan 6th 2013 at 11:05:50 AM

So wait, their first act wasn't to repeal Obamacare again?

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#46438: Jan 6th 2013 at 11:09:36 AM

Radical Taoist: We'd also crush the agriculture industry. Americans are too proud to spend their days working on farms for the most part.

Unless we go with the idea of establishing a program where young city kids are sent to work on the fields in the summer we probably wouldn't be able to survive without the immigrants.

Fighteer: What, specifically, in the 14th amendment prevents this? My school didn't cover the later ones as extensively as the first ten.

edited 6th Jan '13 11:10:21 AM by Kostya

tricksterson Never Trust from Behind you with an icepick Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Above such petty unnecessities
Never Trust
#46439: Jan 6th 2013 at 11:10:16 AM

Whatever they do it's a gesture and they know it. A: It's never going to pass the Democratic controlled Senate. B: It would never pass a Presidential veto because C: Their grasp on the House is weaker by 11 members than it was before the election.

edited 6th Jan '13 11:11:40 AM by tricksterson

Trump delenda est
Baff Since: Jul, 2011
#46440: Jan 6th 2013 at 11:10:28 AM

[up][up][up][up]

What some of those companies do amount to slavery.

But you wont see CNN reporting on that.

edited 6th Jan '13 11:10:40 AM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#46441: Jan 6th 2013 at 11:11:05 AM

[up][up]Yes but it's also a gesture that wastes our goddamn time and money. I believe it costs around 1 million for congress to vote so they've effectively wasted that money on pointless political posturing.

[up]Who said it wasn't? That's part of the reason some people want them to be granted citizenship. Then they're entitled to the protections American workers are.

edited 6th Jan '13 11:12:00 AM by Kostya

tricksterson Never Trust from Behind you with an icepick Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Above such petty unnecessities
Never Trust
#46442: Jan 6th 2013 at 11:12:10 AM

And this is new from either side of the aisle?

Trump delenda est
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#46443: Jan 6th 2013 at 11:14:42 AM

Being an old trick does not mean I don't have the right to get pissed off. Also I don't know of a time when the Democrats voted 34 times to repeal something without success. They certainly didn't bring up getting rid of the tax cuts at every opportunity.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#46444: Jan 6th 2013 at 11:15:03 AM

@Kostya: The 14th Amendment says that if you're born in the United States, you are a citizen of the United States. No buts, no exceptions.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#46445: Jan 6th 2013 at 11:16:22 AM

Huh, interesting. To be perfectly honest I don't agree with that but trying to change it could risk the GOP using it as an excuse to do away with the amendment in its entirety. For now it should probably be left alone.

shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#46446: Jan 6th 2013 at 11:17:33 AM

The 14th amendment says that if you're born in the US, you're a US citizen. So basically you can't deny them citizenship without amending the constitution. The constitution says nothing about the nationality of your parents and was in fact designed to give immigrant's children citizenship because for most of US history up to that point, that was a big part of how the country got new people.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

edited 6th Jan '13 11:17:53 AM by shimaspawn

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#46447: Jan 6th 2013 at 11:19:49 AM

So if it's an amendment you don't like it's okay to touch it. That seems to be the message here.

Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#46448: Jan 6th 2013 at 11:20:19 AM

So if that law is passed, the Supreme Court could rule it unconstitutional really really quickly, right?

This sounds like a slippery slope type situation. If you begin restricting citizenship, you might eventually end up with a Switzerland situation. Basically the Swiss Bureau of Immigrations actively attempts to block citizenship attempts to people from the Middle East and some other countries. They actually do the same thing to foreign doctors hoping to work in Switzerland as well.

edited 6th Jan '13 11:22:16 AM by Zendervai

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#46449: Jan 6th 2013 at 11:21:20 AM

Yeah. Some people want to change the constitution for that but they are fighting a very uphill battle.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#46450: Jan 6th 2013 at 11:23:45 AM

If they do manage to change it, they just opened up the possibility of changing the 2nd amendment. If you change one, all become vulnerable.


Total posts: 417,856
Top