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

occono from Ireland. Since: Apr, 2009
#57676: Jul 4th 2013 at 12:27:52 PM

The state laws in Mississippi that closed down all but one of their clinics are being challenged on a federal level though, aren't they? Maybe that'll happen with this.

That possibly the plan behind all these state laws. To bring them back up to SCOTUS and challenge Roe.

Dumbo
Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#57677: Jul 4th 2013 at 12:32:12 PM

An article from Slate about Edward Snowden and why he has found it so hard to find asylum. Slate links are hated by the forum, so if it isn't working, c'n'p this (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2013/07/edward_snowden_and_asylum_he_is_a_terrible_candidate.html) into the search bar.

TL;DR: He's a terrible candidate for it, being:

  • A: not on the territory of the nations he's seeking asylum from (this is a legal device used to keep the numbers of asylum seekers each country has to deal with down).

  • B: he's not being persecuted on account of their race, ethnicity, religion, or membership in a social or political group, crucially, he would likely be regarded as a criminal had he been a national of the countries he's applied to for asylum,

  • C: he's now a busted flush from an intel perspective, having revealed nearly everything he's planning to in such a way that potential hosts have benefitted from his disclosures without having to do anything for him in return,

  • and D: he's more trouble than he's worth, as a fugitive from the law - cf Assange in Ecuador's London embassy.

Thus, his options are now highly limited, mainly to seeking shelter in hybrid or authoritarian regimes such as Bolivia, Nicaragua, Russia, or Cuba, in the process giving up some of his beloved civil liberties, or returning to America and trusting in his popular support. Neither option is appealing, given the circumstances.

Schild und Schwert der Partei
Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#57678: Jul 4th 2013 at 12:49:32 PM

Thus, his options are now highly limited, mainly to seeking shelter in hybrid or authoritarian regimes such as Bolivia, Nicaragua, Russia, or Cuba, in the process giving up some of his beloved civil liberties, or returning to America and trusting in his popular support. Neither option is appealing, given the circumstances.

And he has to Trust that any of the regimes won't eventually pass him onto the Americans.

Keep Rolling On
joeyjojo Happy New Year! from South Sydney: go the bunnies! Since: Jan, 2001
Happy New Year!
#57679: Jul 4th 2013 at 1:12:06 PM

I bet wish he was back in Hawaii with his model girlfriend now.

hashtagsarestupid
Hermiethefrog Since: Jan, 2001
#57680: Jul 4th 2013 at 2:48:34 PM

@ Roccono: Wait, what? Seriously?! I thought this was 2013, not 1953. Can we not?

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#57681: Jul 4th 2013 at 3:43:37 PM

French minister slams US 'espionage' at Fourth of July event

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
GlennMagusHarvey Since: Jan, 2001
#57682: Jul 4th 2013 at 3:44:59 PM

Here is some commentary on the importance of downballot elections: how a close Attorney General race in California may have affected the Supreme Court decision on Proposition 8.

TL;DR: SCOTUS dismissed the appeal on the basis of lack of standing, but that's because the plaintiff wasn't the state itself; the state AG didn't defend prop 8. Had the state AG chosen to do so, standing would not have been in question. In 2010, current AG Kamala Harris (who chose not to defend Prop 8) defeated opponent Steve Cooley (who said he would defend Prop 8) by 13796 votes in the statewide race for attorney general.

edited 4th Jul '13 3:48:21 PM by GlennMagusHarvey

occono from Ireland. Since: Apr, 2009
#57683: Jul 4th 2013 at 4:15:05 PM

occono: Wait, what? Seriously?! I thought this was 2013, not 1953. Can we not?

There is thought that Kennedy may ultimately vote to overturn Roe or weaken it heavily if a direct challenge is brought to it. Assuming Roberts and Alito would also vote to (Scalia and Thomas definitely would) then some have speculated that states are passing anti-abortion laws so they'll be challenged and appealed to SCOTUS.

If Roe were to be overturned, several states have passed "trigger laws" since Roe that would immediately prohibit abortion, and some would go back to their old statutes banning it. Many states have passed laws that ensure abortion would remain legal if Roe were overturned too.

[up] Hmm, I think in that situation SCOTUS maybe wouldn't have taken the case, so it would still mean just California would get marriage. It's be a big precedent in the 9th circuit though, even if narrow by itself.

It does really seem like they took it out of interest in the standing question.

edited 4th Jul '13 4:24:42 PM by occono

Dumbo
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#57684: Jul 4th 2013 at 4:24:40 PM

What would be the basis for overturning Roe v. Wade? If it's a human rights issue then I'd think the rights of the woman would supercede those of the child. By saying a woman can't abort the baby you'd be saying she has less right to her body than a corpse does.

edited 4th Jul '13 4:24:50 PM by Kostya

midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#57685: Jul 4th 2013 at 5:13:15 PM

The basis would be Scalia inventing some insanely creative legalese way of pretending abortion was never constitutional.

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#57686: Jul 4th 2013 at 5:25:56 PM

On what grounds? I'm ticking off the amendments in my head and I can't think of anything that would prohibit abortion.

SKJAM Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Baby don't hurt me!
#57687: Jul 4th 2013 at 5:27:49 PM

[up][up]Or rather, that it was "never" protected by the federal Constitution, thus devolving back to state laws. (As opposed to being forbidden by the Constitution.) Not so bad in some states, disastrous in others.

edited 4th Jul '13 5:28:13 PM by SKJAM

midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#57688: Jul 4th 2013 at 5:47:25 PM

[up][up]

does he need grounds?

I mean, as the daily show put it when Scalia complaimed about DOMA right after defanging the VRA. "Scalia was citing the judicial principle of "WAAHHHHHHHHHH"

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#57689: Jul 4th 2013 at 5:50:17 PM

[up]But he'd have to convince the other justices and when they issue the ruling they have to say why they changed their minds. I'm asking what they could base this on.

RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#57690: Jul 4th 2013 at 6:26:41 PM

What would be the basis for overturning Roe v. Wade? If it's a human rights issue then I'd think the rights of the woman would supercede those of the child. By saying a woman can't abort the baby you'd be saying she has less right to her body than a corpse does.

Or the woman's rights and the child's rights are of equal importance, and neither has the right to kill the other and take full possession of the body. Conjoined twins also share (parts of) the same body; that doesn't make it legal for one twin to kill the other.

hermiethefrog Since: Jan, 2001
#57691: Jul 4th 2013 at 6:44:53 PM

My opinion on abortion is that I'd prefer we have it as an option, even if I personally feel iffy about it. Making it illegal isn't going to stop people with vaginas from having abortions. It's just going to make a lot more difficult for them to do so safely. I don't want people permanently damaging their reproductive organs or dying for a procedure that seems rather simple. (Simple from a purely medical standpoint.)

Sadly, I don't think this holds any constitutional water? So I doubt the SCOTUS would use this to go one way or the other.

RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#57692: Jul 4th 2013 at 6:47:07 PM

[up][up] Not to get into that debate but the original Roe vs Wade case was decided on the principle of bodily autonomy, which trumps a lot in U.S. law.

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
#57693: Jul 4th 2013 at 7:10:01 PM

Ginsburg says she isn't going anywhere

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
joeyjojo Happy New Year! from South Sydney: go the bunnies! Since: Jan, 2001
Happy New Year!
#57695: Jul 4th 2013 at 7:19:36 PM

justice ginsburg says-she isnt going anywhere

Glass ceilings eh?

hashtagsarestupid
DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#57697: Jul 4th 2013 at 7:44:05 PM

[up]

who wants to bet half of them think it for absolutely opposing reasons.

deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#57698: Jul 4th 2013 at 7:46:41 PM

[up][up] Indeed they would be. I mean, non-whites, women, and people without property can vote!

PhilippeO Since: Oct, 2010
#57699: Jul 4th 2013 at 7:56:14 PM

[up][up][up][up][up] Unfortunately, what good for Justice Ginsburg is not good for liberal in America. if Ginsburg retire during Republican presidency, it would follow O'Connor example as liberal judge replaced by conservative judge. it O'Connor retirement that give us Citizens United, with conservative majority a lot of law will be changed.

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#57700: Jul 4th 2013 at 7:57:25 PM

Fireworks industry: Free us from the feds

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

Total posts: 417,856
Top