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

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#53726: Apr 29th 2013 at 2:16:47 PM

They are cherry-picking, at any rate.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#53727: Apr 29th 2013 at 2:26:29 PM

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.

They still have their representation in the up-or-down vote. They don't need it in the filibuster closure votes. You can accept a little state having 2 of the 51 votes (a little under 4%) needed to kill a bill in an up-and-down vote without accepting that they're allowed to have 2 of the 41 votes (a little under 5%) needed to doom a bill by filibuster. Representation in the straight up-and-down vote is plenty for the little states.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#53728: Apr 29th 2013 at 2:32:41 PM

@Enkufka: Could you give us a little more information on that? If it's true, it's a good thing and I hope it gets passed.

Enkufka Wandering Student ಠ_ಠ from Bay of White fish Since: Dec, 2009
Wandering Student ಠ_ಠ
#53729: Apr 29th 2013 at 2:55:14 PM

@Ace of Aradia: link to the story.

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry
RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#53730: Apr 29th 2013 at 3:26:26 PM

...actually, I took a look at the list of congressional districts by state and the breakdown of the current Senate. Let's do the math and see how many "filibuster votes" the parties in the current Senate would have under my proposal, assuming that each Senator gets a number of filibuster votes equal to the number of ridings in their state; that's roughly proportional to population.

  • Alabama: 2 republican senators, 7 districts, 14 filibuster votes for the Republicans
  • Alaska: 1 republican senator, 1 democratic senator, 1 district, 1 filibuster vote for the Republicans, 1 for the Democrats
  • Arizona: 2 republican senators, 9 districts, 18 filibuster votes for the Republicans
  • Arkansas: 1 republican senator, 1 democratic senator, 4 districts, 4 filibuster votes for the Republicans, 4 for the Democrats
  • California: 2 democratic senators, 53 districts, 106 filibuster votes for the Democrats
  • Colorado: 2 democratic senators, 7 districts, 14 filibuster votes for the Democrats
  • Connecticut: 2 democratic senators, 5 districts, 10 filibuster votes for the Democrats
  • Delaware: 2 democratic senators, 1 district, 2 filibuster votes for the Democrats
  • Florida: 1 republican senator, 1 democratic senator, 27 districts, 27 filibuster votes for the Republicans, 27 for the Democrats
  • Georgia: 2 republican senators, 14 districts, 28 filibuster votes for the Republicans
  • Hawaii: 2 democratic senators, 2 districts, 4 filibuster votes for the Democrats
  • Idaho: 2 republican senators, 2 districts, 4 filibuster votes for the Republicans
  • Illinois: 1 republican senator, 1 democratic senator, 18 districts, 18 filibuster votes for the Republicans, 18 for the Democrats
  • Indiana: 1 republican senator, 1 democratic senator, 9 districts, 9 filibuster votes for the Republicans, 9 for the Democrats
  • Iowa: 1 republican senator, 1 democratic senator, 4 districts, 4 filibuster votes for the Republicans, 4 for the Democrats
  • Kansas: 2 republican senators, 4 districts, 8 filibuster votes for the Republicans
  • Kentucky: 2 republican senators, 6 districts, 12 filibuster votes for the Republicans
  • Louisiana: 1 republican senator, 1 democratic senator, 6 districts, 6 filibuster votes for the Republicans, 6 for the Democrats
  • Maine: 1 republican senator, 1 independent senator, 2 districts, 2 filibuster votes for the Republicans, 2 for Angus King
  • Maryland: 2 democratic senators, 8 districts, 16 filibuster votes for the Democrats
  • Massachusetts: 2 democratic senators, 9 districts, 18 filibuster votes for the Democrats
  • Michigan: 2 democratic senators, 14 districts, 28 filibuster votes for the Democrats
  • Minnesota: 2 democratic senators, 8 districts, 16 filibuster votes for the Democrats
  • Mississippi: 2 republican senators, 4 districts, 8 filibuster votes for the Republicans
  • Missouri: 1 republican senator, 1 democratic senator, 8 districts, 8 filibuster votes for the Republicans, 8 for the Democrats
  • Montana: 2 democratic senators, 1 districts, 2 filibuster votes for the Democrats
  • Nebraska: 2 republican senators, 3 districts, 6 filibuster votes for the Republicans
  • Nevada: 1 republican senator, 1 democratic senator, 4 districts, 4 filibuster votes for the Republicans, 4 for the Democrats
  • New Hampshire: 1 republican senator, 1 democratic senator, 2 districts, 2 filibuster votes for the Republicans, 2 for the Democrats
  • New Jersey: 2 democratic senators, 12 districts, 24 filibuster votes for the Democrats
  • New Mexico: 2 democratic senators, 3 districts, 6 filibuster votes for the Democrats
  • New York: 2 democratic senators, 27 districts, 52 filibuster votes for the Democrats
  • North Carolina: 1 republican senator, 1 democratic senator, 13 districts, 13 filibuster votes for the Republicans, 13 for the Democrats
  • North Dakota: 1 republican senator, 1 democratic senator, 1 district, 1 filibuster vote for the Republicans, 1 for the Democrats
  • Ohio: 1 republican senator, 1 democratic senator, 16 districts, 16 filibuster votes for the Republicans, 16 for the Democrats
  • Oklahoma: 2 republican senators, 5 districts, 10 filibuster votes for the Republicans
  • Oregon: 2 democratic senators, 5 districts, 10 filibuster votes for the Democrats
  • Pennsylvania: 1 republican senator, 1 democratic senator, 18 districts, 18 filibuster votes for the Republicans, 18 for the Democrats
  • Rhode Island: 2 democratic senators, 2 districts, 4 filibuster votes for the Democrats
  • South Carolina: 2 republican senators, 7 districts, 14 filibuster votes for the Republicans
  • South Dakota: 1 republican senator, 1 democratic senator, 1 district, 1 filibuster vote for the Republicans, 1 for the Democrats
  • Tennessee: 2 republican senators, 9 districts, 18 filibuster votes for the Republicans
  • Texas: 2 republican senators, 36 districts, 72 filibuster votes for the Republicans
  • Utah: 2 republican senators, 4 districts, 8 filibuster votes for the Republicans
  • Vermont: 1 democratic senator, 1 independent senator, 1 district, 1 filibuster vote for the Democrats, 1 for Bernie Sanders
  • Virginia: 2 democratic senators, 11 districts, 22 filibuster votes for the Democrats
  • Washington: 2 democratic senators, 10 districts, 20 filibuster votes for the Democrats
  • West Virginia: 2 democratic senators, 3 districts, 6 filibuster votes for the Democrats
  • Wisconsin: 1 republican senator, 1 democratic senator, 8 districts, 8 filibuster votes for the Republicans, 8 for the Democrats
  • Wyoming: 2 republican senators, 1 district, 2 filibuster votes for the Republicans

The grand total is:

  • 509 filibuster votes for the current Democrats
  • 364 filibuster votes for the current Republicans
  • 2 filibuster votes for Angus King
  • 1 filibuster vote for Bernie Sanders

Okay maybe kinda partisan :P

edited 29th Apr '13 3:32:11 PM by RadicalTaoist

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#53731: Apr 29th 2013 at 3:44:38 PM

The filibuster rule only exists because the Senate never had a Czar Reed.

In the House of Representatives, you used to have Congressmen deliberately busting quora to ensure that nothing ever got done, and Reed eventually locked Congress in and counted everyone present to put that off. We should probably abolish the filibuster in the Senate, but both parties would rather have the filibuster when they need it than deny their opponents the filibuster when they need it denied.

edited 29th Apr '13 3:46:21 PM by Ramidel

RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#53732: Apr 29th 2013 at 4:54:45 PM

We should probably abolish the filibuster in the Senate, but both parties would rather have the filibuster when they need it than deny their opponents the filibuster when they need it denied.
This is the problem. Though it's obvious and expectable for them to do so, real problems arise when politicians care more about political advantage than effective process.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#53733: Apr 29th 2013 at 5:34:21 PM

The problem with the filibuster as it's currently being used is that they changed the rules to let people filibuster without actually filibustering. The filibuster was originally supposed to be someone actually getting up and continuing debate on an issue by talking until they gave up, handed the floor to someone else, or collapsed.

The limit on the use of the filibuster is supposed to be physical endurance. It's use is supposed to be rare because someone (or a group of people) has to get up at the podium and keep talking. The 60-vote thing is to short-circuit that so no one can hold routine business hostage by filibustering it until their totally-unrelated demands are met.

The way it's being used instead is, in essence, to raise the number of votes necessary for anything to pass the Senate from 50 to 60. Since they no longer actually require people to be up and speaking for it to count as a filibuster, they've made it a lot easier to use and thus — shockingly — led to it being used a record amount.

I'd say that they should change it back... but that'd probably be filibustered.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#53736: Apr 29th 2013 at 10:05:39 PM

Well, statistically, most people aren't likely to be accidentally shot. Or held at gunpoint. So I guess for a lot of people it's not the lynchpin issue that absolutely decides their vote, more like a really nice bonus if the candidate is for whatever you're for.

Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#53737: Apr 30th 2013 at 9:39:13 AM

Obama to renew efforts to close Camp Delta

Obama is making a new push to close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center. The President cited recent convictions of terrorists in the civilian justice system as evidence that it was capable of handling terrorist cases. Obama further stated that the Camp was "contrary to who we are" and harmful to US interests: "It is inefficient, it hurts us in terms of our international standing, it lessens co-operation with our allies on counter-terrorism efforts, it is a recruitment tool for extremists, it needs to be closed," said Barack.

He intends to work with lawmakers to devise a legal solution when it comes to prosecuting some detainees on US soil.

The President apparently supported, or at least tacitly condoned the practice of force-feeding hunger strikers: "Obviously, we don't want any of them to die," he said.

So, this should be interesting. A step in the right direction from the President, but I will wait until I see the "legal solution" to the problem of prosecuting the terrorists on US soil before I express anything more than cautious optimism. Also - how will he get it through Congress?

TL;DR: Obama is trying to close the prison at Guantanamo again.

Schild und Schwert der Partei
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#53738: Apr 30th 2013 at 9:40:54 AM

Good luck for him at getting that through Congress (or past it).

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
tryrar Since: Sep, 2010
#53739: Apr 30th 2013 at 9:46:01 AM

...wasn't that the reason he didn't close it before(congress had a sudden case of NIMBY)?

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#53740: Apr 30th 2013 at 9:50:15 AM

Yes.

Something to think about: Are the Guantanamo inmates really more dangerous than rapists, serial killers, domestic terrorists and the other folks who are in in-country max sec prisons? Yes, I know no NIMBY cares about that.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Wildcard Since: Jun, 2012
Karkadinn Karkadinn from New Orleans, Louisiana Since: Jul, 2009
Karkadinn
#53742: Apr 30th 2013 at 10:09:05 AM

I would love to have to get a new forum signature.

Looooooooove to.

But, yeah, not holding out hope on our dear legislative branch not obstructing irrationally again.

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.
MarqFJA The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer from Deserts of the Middle East (Before Recorded History) Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
#53743: Apr 30th 2013 at 10:11:17 AM

Something to think about: Are the Guantanamo inmates really more dangerous than rapists, serial killers, domestic terrorists and the other folks who are in in-country max sec prisons?
Yeah, this had been one major sticking point for me about Guantanamo ever since I started seriously thinking about it. Of course, the only reason GWB built it in the first place was to take advantage of the legal limbo caused by it technically not being on US soil, and thus not bound by any US laws that would impede usage of "enhanced interrogation methods", not because the prisoners were inherently more dangerous than those held in max-sec prisons.

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#53744: Apr 30th 2013 at 10:11:48 AM

[up][up]

You could change it to "Guantanamo Bay Detention Center" or "GBDC" or "Camp Delta", to make it clear you are talking about the camp and not the US naval base which has been there since 1898? tongue

edited 30th Apr '13 10:11:59 AM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei
Xopher001 Since: Jul, 2012
#53745: Apr 30th 2013 at 10:14:56 AM

Maybe all those people wouldnt be so dangerous if we didnt throw them into a horrible prison system in the first place. I've been told that sometimes they can't be helped, but that doesn't justify putting them in a place where they can be raped and traumatized, and come out worse than they went in. Bluh bluh prison system sucks

Balmung Since: Oct, 2011
#53746: Apr 30th 2013 at 10:17:42 AM

@SH: Not really. As The Daily Show pointed out, these guys aren't really any more dangerous (at least in a prison context) that our good old fashioned, home grown, American brain eaters (yes, they interviewed a guy who ate a dude's brain). And they're certainly not more dangerous as prisoners than our various gang members.

edited 30th Apr '13 10:18:04 AM by Balmung

Xopher001 Since: Jul, 2012
#53747: Apr 30th 2013 at 10:19:32 AM

Well, I still don't think it's a very healthy scenario to put people in. Also what? tongue that actually sounds pretty cool. Brain eaters. >_>

edited 30th Apr '13 10:20:10 AM by Xopher001

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#53749: Apr 30th 2013 at 11:07:29 AM

We have criminals killing hundreds and impoverishing thousands daily who fly around in executive jets and dine with lawmakers. Compared to them, terrorists and serial rapists are small fry.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#53750: Apr 30th 2013 at 11:13:50 AM

Man, I knew the comments on those stories were gonna be wack before I even read them.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Total posts: 417,856
Top