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

Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#53701: Apr 29th 2013 at 4:47:56 AM

[up]

Tanks For Nothing!

Except they aren't really helping, since the USA has tanks growing out its arse. It's more "give us some control over our own fucking budget and let us buy stuff we actually need".

Perhaps they could extend basic training by a couple of weeks or more. Be a better use than needless tanks.

Still emblematic of the "pork-barrel complex"note . For instance, a US Army accounting error was worth more than the entire defense budget of Slovenia.

edited 29th Apr '13 4:49:05 AM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei
Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#53702: Apr 29th 2013 at 5:29:53 AM

So some of these people are so obsessed with propping up the military and ensuring the right to bear arms that they're actually hurting them. These people are so short-sighted they're looking backwards.

EDIT: Wait, they're so short-sighted they can't even do that. They can't see outside of their own heads.

edited 29th Apr '13 6:11:44 AM by Zendervai

Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#53703: Apr 29th 2013 at 6:46:37 AM

I do question what idiot thought it'd be a good idea to have congress apparently get to decide what the military gets budgeted for without having to take the military's opinion into account.

I also find the argument "where are we gonna get our tanks from if we stop making them? china?" hilarious, because it apparently seems to ignore tiny issues like the possibility of tanks becoming outdated altogether.

edited 29th Apr '13 6:49:45 AM by Midgetsnowman

MarqFJA The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer from Deserts of the Middle East (Before Recorded History) Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
#53704: Apr 29th 2013 at 8:05:47 AM

How exactly can you enforce a mandate of "take the military's opinion into account when deciding its budget"? Maybe set it so that the President can veto the military budget if the Defense Secretary and the Joint Chiefs of Staff present him with a joint official letter/memo/whateveryacallit voicing their objections and reasoning (which have to be non-frivolous), and if the Congress can't work up an acceptable budget, the previous budget gets a limited extension?

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#53705: Apr 29th 2013 at 8:08:45 AM

Or give the Joint Chiefs the ability to veto spending plans for military expenses they dont like.

Or that congress can only consider budget plans proposed by the Military.

edited 29th Apr '13 8:09:21 AM by Midgetsnowman

Belian In honor of my 50lb pup from 42 Since: Jan, 2001
In honor of my 50lb pup
#53706: Apr 29th 2013 at 8:21:34 AM

That is why everything goes through committee. The people on the committee have a better knowledge of what the committee is in charge of than the average congressperson and can make better/more-informed decisions. *looks at house econ committee members* In theory.

Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!
Euodiachloris Since: Oct, 2010
#53707: Apr 29th 2013 at 8:26:37 AM

[up]Enjoy that theory. tongue There ain't no decision by a team of specialists that the generalist in charge can't fuck up in the execution of what they like to think the team said. wink

edited 29th Apr '13 8:28:55 AM by Euodiachloris

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#53708: Apr 29th 2013 at 8:39:08 AM

Also, these specialists often fill up the bills with "earmarks" and other spending that is only useful for their district/state.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#53709: Apr 29th 2013 at 9:26:15 AM

The problem with committees is, as any examination of the science committee will tell you. The people on committees have a good chance of knowing NOTHING about their committee's field.

After all, theres more than one person on the science committees in congress who either believes in creationism or denies climate change

RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#53710: Apr 29th 2013 at 9:27:38 AM

I've figured out how I'd like to reform the Senate filibuster: while the votes on legislation are one per Senator, votes for closure are based on proportional representation. That is, the more populous a Senator's state, the more votes that Senator gets for saying yea or nay on the specific procedural vote of ending or sustaining a filibuster.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#53711: Apr 29th 2013 at 9:34:07 AM

I am sure a lot of people will have constitutional concerns about that.

Also, I can hardly imagine a more partisan approach to filibuster reformtongue

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Karkadinn Karkadinn from New Orleans, Louisiana Since: Jul, 2009
Karkadinn
#53712: Apr 29th 2013 at 9:42:50 AM

That's only partisan if you expect the Republican party to remain entrenched in 'appeal to a minority' in perpetuity.

And if they do, they've pretty much flunked how to democracy anyway and deserve the full repercussions for that.

Personally I don't understand why, with all the checks and balances we already have in place, we also need to give the minority the power to filibuster. It's like telling an entire shopping mall to close down because one person in it decided to throw a tantrum. Except he's not even throwing a tantrum, he's just filing a formal motion to say that he's throwing a tantrum while he continues to go around enjoying his day.

How is giving people the formally authorized power to bring the business of government to a screeching halt whenever they want EVER a good idea, no matter how many brakes you put on it? That's what protests are for, and protests are sufficiently inconvenient that people only bother to do them when it's over something that really matters to them, instead of just using it as another way to stick it to the political opposition.

edited 29th Apr '13 9:43:24 AM by Karkadinn

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.
RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#53713: Apr 29th 2013 at 9:50:03 AM

[up][up]I'm sorry, but I don't care. The Republican party can reliably pick up Senators in Texas, Florida, and Louisiana. That's not an insignificant chunk of the population. They want to vote against legislation? They have their one vote against legislation when it actually gets voted on. This bullshit that happened with the background checks bill, where the representatives of less than a third of the country's population blocked legislation that had approval ratings of over 80% among every political demographic (including Republicans and NRA members), needs to stop. If you want to block legislation, you don't get a coward's veto in the filibuster. You can offer alternatives, negotiate with senators in the other side, ask for other options, and reach across the aisle - you know, like politicians in both parties are supposed to do.

edited 29th Apr '13 9:50:13 AM by RadicalTaoist

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#53714: Apr 29th 2013 at 10:42:06 AM

Meh, I never understood the outrage over the filibuster.

Most bills that die in in the filibustered Senate would never have survived the House.

Former members of Congress to hear week of testimony about space aliens

Sandra O’Connor worries Supreme Court was wrong to rule in Bush v. Gore

edited 29th Apr '13 12:37:21 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
terlwyth Since: Oct, 2010
#53715: Apr 29th 2013 at 10:46:09 AM

[up] I think the apocalypse has come,...I actually agree with Scalia.

What I mean is,Gore accepted and no matter which way the election went,because of how damn partisan that election was,it was either the Dems or GOP that would lose out.If the Supreme Court wasn't involved,the affair would've gone on for longer and that would've been terrible.

edited 29th Apr '13 2:45:43 PM by terlwyth

RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#53716: Apr 29th 2013 at 11:00:26 AM

Another "you've gotta be kidding me" moment, via Charles Pierce: With Bags of Cash, C.I.A. Seeks Influence in Afghanistan

For more than a decade, wads of American dollars packed into suitcases, backpacks and, on occasion, plastic shopping bags have been dropped off every month or so at the offices of Afghanistan's president - courtesy of the Central Intelligence Agency. All told, tens of millions of dollars have flowed from the C.I.A. to the office of President Hamid Karzai, according to current and former advisers to the Afghan leader. "We called it ‘ghost money,' " said Khalil Roman, who served as Mr. Karzai's deputy chief of staff from 2002 until 2005. "It came in secret, and it left in secret."

[...]

No one mentions the agency's money at cabinet meetings. It is handled by a small clique at the National Security Council, including its administrative chief, Mohammed Zia Salehi, Afghan officials said. Mr. Salehi, though, is better known for being arrested in 2010 in connection with a sprawling, American-led investigation that tied together Afghan cash smuggling, Taliban finances and the opium trade. Mr. Karzai had him released within hours, and the C.I.A. then helped persuade the Obama administration to back off its anti-corruption push, American officials said. After his release, Mr. Salehi jokingly came up with a motto that succinctly summed up America's conflicting priorities. He was, he began telling colleagues, "an enemy of the F.B.I., and a hero to the C.I.A."

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
Karkadinn Karkadinn from New Orleans, Louisiana Since: Jul, 2009
Karkadinn
#53717: Apr 29th 2013 at 11:02:58 AM

[up][up]He seems to be channeling O'Reilly there. I don't really agree with the position that just because something is old, it means that it's no longer relevant.

Florida, for example, still is a good case for us needing to regulate the election process to ensure transparency, ease of access and overall clarity. The fact that one state's system was so fucked up that the Supreme bloody Court had resolve it is pretty damning.

edited 29th Apr '13 11:03:14 AM by Karkadinn

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.
Enkufka Wandering Student ಠ_ಠ from Bay of White fish Since: Dec, 2009
Wandering Student ಠ_ಠ
#53718: Apr 29th 2013 at 11:24:06 AM

I'd like to remind everyone that last year, when authorizing a military spending bill to which the generals objected to because it was too much money, Paul Ryan accused them of lying about it.

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#53719: Apr 29th 2013 at 11:24:33 AM

The former justice said she worried that the decision, which was derided by many Democrats as overtly political, "gave the court a less-than-perfect reputation."
So, you essentially steal an election from the candidate that was actually voted in, and your concern is that damaged your reputation?

Man, don't even get me started about the Bush v Gore case. Pet peeve doesn't even begin to describe it.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Enkufka Wandering Student ಠ_ಠ from Bay of White fish Since: Dec, 2009
Wandering Student ಠ_ಠ
#53720: Apr 29th 2013 at 12:29:09 PM

Representative Peter DeFazio is going to introduce a bill to repeal the 75 year pre-fund requirement for the postal service.

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry
Maka4 Since: Apr, 2011
#53721: Apr 29th 2013 at 12:35:10 PM

[up][up][up][up][up]The CIA seems to be reeeally good at creating long run problems to solve short run ones.

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#53722: Apr 29th 2013 at 12:43:07 PM

Chris Christie Says No Regrets About Post-Sandy Obama Embrace, Praises: He’s ‘Kept Every Promise’

edited 29th Apr '13 12:44:27 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#53723: Apr 29th 2013 at 1:23:10 PM

About the budget: Is there a way to convince Congress to install a rule that it may not spend more money on defense than the military has asked for?

No, Congress does what Congress wants.

In theory, we could use a state ratifying convention with overwhelming public majority to go all the way up to a constitutional amendment.

In practice, lolno.

I've figured out how I'd like to reform the Senate filibuster: while the votes on legislation are one per Senator, votes for closure are based on proportional representation. That is, the more populous a Senator's state, the more votes that Senator gets for saying yea or nay on the specific procedural vote of ending or sustaining a filibuster.

So in other words, throwing out the entire point of the senate to disproportionately represent the interests of smaller states that would otherwise be lost in the House.

How about no.

Most bills that die in in the filibustered Senate would never have survived the House.

Depends. The House is considerably more extreme than the Senate. Filibusters rarely even happen there unless Something Horrible gets passed by the House with an overwhelming majority (Wyden yanking at the bit to filibuster CISPA). They tend to filibuster by reaction to dysfunctional policy actually getting through than as a preemptive stonewall to all opposing policy.

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#53724: Apr 29th 2013 at 1:26:44 PM

The House rules actually don't allow for any sort of filibuster.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
tryrar Since: Sep, 2010
#53725: Apr 29th 2013 at 2:03:29 PM

...I read the comments on that hill article on chris chrstie, and I'm wondering if they have any factual basis in reality. Are there really people without power still from the storm, or are those guys just blowing smoke? Or is it really not christie's fault for the above, and it's congress doing the delay?


Total posts: 417,856
Top