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

Swish Long Live the King Since: Jan, 2001
Long Live the King
#53376: Apr 19th 2013 at 1:24:21 AM

Well... We used to expect our elected officials to ignore the internet completely because it's just a "series of tubes" that has "no significant impact on society"...

That they're using memes is progress on that, at the least...

It could have been worse. Mitch McConnell could have sent a pic of his dick*

to Harry Reid's cellphone, with the caption "suck it"...

edited 19th Apr '13 1:26:58 AM by Swish

RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#53377: Apr 19th 2013 at 7:38:41 AM

What the...

Whatever one might think about the policy stands of the 2013-14 edition of the New Hampshire Legislature, we suspect most would agree that it has conducted itself to date with a sense of professionalism and decorum.

Gone are the days of making national news for the wrong reasons, such as “birthers” trying to keep the president’s name off the Democratic primary ballot or filing legislation to make it mandatory for certain bills to quote directly from the Magna Carta.

Or so we thought.

That was until we learned last week that three disgruntled Republican lawmakers – including two from Greater Nashua – actually thought it was a good idea to file a formal petition of removal and criminal complaints against 189 of their fellow representatives.

Specifically, Londonderry Rep. Al Baldasaro, Goffstown Rep. John Hikel and Merrimack Rep. Lenette Peterson filed an “emergency petition for redress,” calling for removing the 189 from office for “breaching their oath” and for their criminal prosecution for “violating federal law.”

The offense?

Voting for legislation that would reset the standard for self-defense to what had existed with little fanfare for more than three decades. They claim any change would violate their right to bear arms to protect themselves and their property.

On March 27, a divided House of Representatives voted, 189-184, to pass HB 135, a bill that would repeal the state’s “stand your ground” law, which was enacted in 2011 by the Republican-led Legislature.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#53378: Apr 19th 2013 at 8:20:30 AM

Well. Logical conclusion of tea party rhetoric. Freedom for all americans. But anyone who disagrees with you isnt american, theyre filthy traitors

Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#53379: Apr 19th 2013 at 9:34:07 AM

Call me a kook, but I actually rather like the idea of all legislation having to cite some prior document. Maybe not Magna Carta (too old), but it would be nice if every bill had to specifically outline why and how it was compatible with the Bill of Rights or the Constitution.

In the UK, for instance, all legislation must set out how it relates to the Human Rights Act 1998 and specifically say so if it intends to derogate from it.

edited 19th Apr '13 9:34:25 AM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#53380: Apr 19th 2013 at 9:36:25 AM

That strikes me as redundant. Lawmakers are supposed to be passing laws that are compatible with the Constitution to begin with. It gives the sense of being intended less to elucidate and more to intimidate. "Don't you dare pass any laws that aren't Constitutional!"

edited 19th Apr '13 9:37:00 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#53381: Apr 19th 2013 at 9:39:28 AM

It gives the sense of being intended less to elucidate and more to intimidate. "Don't you dare pass any laws that aren't Constitutional!"

You don't think we could do with a bit of that? I mean, when we have the administration(s) keeping their legal justification for military actions secret from the public, perhaps making every legislator justify their legislation as it relates to the rights of Americans seems like no bad thing. It also gives the public confidence in the government - sending a clear message that, yes, the government does care about their rights.

edited 19th Apr '13 9:40:14 AM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#53382: Apr 19th 2013 at 9:40:58 AM

I've learned to be wary of anyone who waves the Constitution around without specific reason. It's a standard tactic of reactionary political groups.

Either that or it becomes meaningless boilerplate. You aren't going to modify the behavior of lawmakers by forcing them to go through the same ritual every time they write up a law.

edited 19th Apr '13 9:42:04 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
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
#53383: Apr 19th 2013 at 9:45:31 AM

If they had to explain how the law they were making was constitutional then it might reduce the amount of cases going before the Supreme Court. Since laws would already have been checked for vague constitutionalism when being made.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#53384: Apr 19th 2013 at 9:47:18 AM

[up][up]

I've learned to be wary of anyone who waves the Constitution around without specific reason. It's a standard tactic of reactionary political groups.

Perhaps now, what with Obama being in the White House. Plenty of left-wingers did the same thing under Dubya.

Besides, I think you've probably seen enough of my politics from my postings on OTC to know that I am not a reactionary. tongue

Either that or it becomes meaningless boilerplate. You aren't going to modify the behavior of lawmakers by forcing them to go through the same ritual every time they write up a law.

Oh, I'm not so sure. In the UK, for instance, the current ConDem government has been very wary of passing non-human rights compatible legislation thanks in part to the restrictions placed upon them by the current legislation. It's about inculcating a political culture of respect for fundamental individual liberties.

I'm not personally worried by the NDAA - but I am worried at the direction America (and Britain - we just strip people of their citizenship before we drone 'em) has taken post-9/11.

[up]

That too - if SCOTUS is anything like the ECtHR then its caseload must be murderous.

edited 19th Apr '13 9:47:59 AM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#53385: Apr 19th 2013 at 10:00:03 AM

My point, Achaemenid, is that I highly doubt that requiring lawmakers to insert a boilerplate Constitutional justification for those laws would have inhibited their writing or passage.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#53386: Apr 19th 2013 at 10:04:36 AM

[up]

But it would have at least forced the administration to justify them publicly. Something that didn't happen. Bush in particular (Obama's been much better, though he has faults) just said: "I claim this power, because terrorists!" Perhaps it wouldn't have stopped them entirely, but it would have made things much easier for potential challengers - US laws only have effect insofar as they are compatible with the Constitution, then it provides an obvious point of attack.

Public confidence in them would also have been boosted.

edited 19th Apr '13 10:06:13 AM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei
Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#53387: Apr 19th 2013 at 10:10:16 AM

[up]

Maybe. Maybe not. Public confidence tends to hinge on 2 things. How well they perceive the economy is doiung (regardless of its real state), and whether the president/congress belongs to their political party

NoName999 Since: May, 2011
#53388: Apr 19th 2013 at 10:16:56 AM

The Texas fertilizer plant that exploded had no sprinklers or safety features

http://www.fox23.com/news/national/story/Texas-fertilizer-plant-had-no-sprinklers-safety-f/yjku-N17G0ekuvv_8Cag_A.cspx

But apparently regulations are still "evil" and "anti business"

Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#53389: Apr 19th 2013 at 10:18:01 AM

http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/key-pro-austerity-study-based-incorrect-math-181511810.html

Well this is interesting. As it turns out, the study used to back up the pro-austerity measures that are currently being pushed has a rather large mathematical error in it, skewing the values.

[up] Avoiding security measures isn't "Freedom" it's stupidity. It is smart to try and prevent people from dying. It is smart to keep your product safe. The people who own the factory are probably in huge trouble because they lost all the stock they had and they have to deal with the issue of all the people affected.

edited 19th Apr '13 10:19:27 AM by Zendervai

Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#53391: Apr 19th 2013 at 10:36:52 AM

I think I agree Achaemenid here.

We do require the executive branch to show where it got its power when it takes action. Executive orders cite existing law because they have to be based on delegated power from current law; that's why Truman's order was challenged in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer case, when Truman decided to simply order things around.

The legislature could do likewise. It is a body of enumerated (specifically cited) powers after all, where it can't act without permission of the constitution. The constitutional check doesn't have to be an absolute judicial review from the congressional side, but more of a practice that gets the congresspersons thinking. A bit of preventative thinking could save the trouble of having laws overturned later.

It might or might not have a significant impact on the behavior of the lawmakers, sure. But it couldn't hurt. Before Marbury v. Madison cemented judicial review, Congress was careful to consider if its own laws were compatible with the constitution. This was shown when Madison said the National Bank was unconstitutional, while Hamilton justified its legality.

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
#53392: Apr 19th 2013 at 10:37:19 AM

I'm a bit iffy about the idea of diversity visas. If nothing else it implies that people from those areas can't get normal visas (more then is the normal level of impossibility) because they aren't able to meet the normal visa requirements, which I assume are being someone who would be good for the US.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#53393: Apr 19th 2013 at 10:42:04 AM

Congress already has a "Cite Constitutional authority" thing at least for the House.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#53394: Apr 19th 2013 at 2:41:47 PM

No sprinklers, eh? Goddamn, and it shows that we do have regulation in that article. But apparently no way or method for making sure that said safety regulations are followed in any manner. Ugh.

Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#53395: Apr 19th 2013 at 2:42:51 PM

Yeah..if they filed that they had no sprinklers in 2011 and not a single state official did anything with that info in 2 years..thats bad

it means either the government doesnt give a shit about enforcing those regulations or the paperwork got buried.

edited 19th Apr '13 2:43:23 PM by Midgetsnowman

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#53396: Apr 19th 2013 at 2:48:58 PM

Well, it doesn't necessarily mean that the regulation officials themselves don't care, it probably means that the higher up lawmakers in the state legislature and so on don't give a shit about the regulatory offices being able to do their job effectively. Government is not a monolith, and the laws here in regards to a lot of things are pretty lax to begin with. Which safety regulators don't have that much control over.

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#53398: Apr 19th 2013 at 6:12:33 PM

Jeb Bush will never win. Bush is still persona non grata.

edited 19th Apr '13 6:12:53 PM by Kostya

lordnyx Since: Aug, 2009
#53399: Apr 19th 2013 at 6:15:21 PM

[up]One can only hope but the next pres election is still a few years away and a lot of stuff can change.

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#53400: Apr 19th 2013 at 6:18:00 PM

It has been four years since Bush and they still barely acknowledge him at all. I don't think eight will be enough to make people forget.


Total posts: 417,856
Top