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

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#100326: Sep 10th 2015 at 6:08:50 AM

You know what, I'm all for bringing on the Rapture and Revelations and the End Times. Let's go for it. What's the worst that could happen? If all the uber-pious people go straight to heaven, it'll probably make things quite a bit easier for the rest of us who want to implement rational policies.

And if they happen to be right — to have randomly stumbled upon the truth of existence, then scrapping the whole mess and starting over seems like it would be for the best.

In the meantime, their silly prophecies of doom should be ignored.

edited 10th Sep '15 6:10:09 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
TheWanderer Student of Story from Somewhere in New England (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
Student of Story
#100327: Sep 10th 2015 at 6:12:29 AM

A really good and in-depth look at the fight between the conservative establishment (in this case, the National Review) and Trump's nativist/racist supporters

Here are just a few snippets from the article:

Donald Trump has been tearing the Republican primary apart for months now, and the success of his campaign has begun exposing cracks in the broader conservative movement.

One window into these strains is the #NRO Revolt hashtag, in which NRO stands for National Review Online, the digital edition of the flagship publication of the American conservative movement. As it's become clear that the Trump surge has some real staying power, the National Review has become increasingly vocal in its criticisms of Trump — referring to his campaign, for example, as a "medicine-man show."

The #NRO Revolt is a backlash to the National Review's historic role as the self-appointed monitor of what is and is not an acceptably mainstream view in the American conservative movement, including its sporadic "purges" of excessively anti-Semitic or racist elements. But it relies in part on a broader critique that the mainstream right is filled with "cuckservatives" who refuse to stand up for white interests and are laying the groundwork for LGBTQ equality, and encompasses an ugly critique of Jewish "kikeservatives" and other anti-Semitic themes.

Most of all, the #NRO Revolt takes much of what is merely the subtext of the Trump phenomenon and turns it into text. The explicit question it raises is whether the American conservative movement should be organized around tax cuts, business-friendly regulations, and a hawkish foreign policy — an ideology that, in practice, happens to be overwhelmingly supported by white people — or whether it should be an explicit vehicle for white interests in an increasingly diverse society.

The hashtag got started in response to a Jonah Goldberg column titled "No Movement That Embraces Trump Can Call Itself Conservative," in which Goldberg argued that the Trump phenomenon is "catharsis masquerading as principle, venting and resentment pretending to be some kind of higher argument."

Where Goldberg broke new ground was in attacking not just Trump, but Trump's fans among the conservative rank and file. "What we are seeing," he wrote, "is the corrupting of conservatism"

...

What is National Review? What is the alt-right? And why are they at war?

National Review is a magazine (and now a website) that, though never all that widely read, has long played a central role in the history of the US conservative movement.

It was founded in 1955 near the high-water mark of New Deal liberalism, when the Republican Party was marginalized in congressional and state politics and led at the national level by moderate Dwight Eisenhower. The magazine worked to forge a coherent ideological movement out of disparate groups opposed to the New Deal consensus — from Southern traditionalists to libertarians to strident anti-communists to devout Catholics — and helped create the ideological superstructure of what would emerge under Richard Nixon and especially Ronald Reagan as an electorally potent conservative movement.

Part of this project has always been defining certain groups and individuals out of the conservative movement. In the 1950s, that meant marginalizing the conspiracy theorists of the John Birch Society and anti-Semitic elements associated with the pre–World War II opposition to Franklin Roosevelt. Later, that meant rejecting the explicit racism of George Wallace's 1968 presidential campaign. More recently it's included purges of Pat Buchanan and other "unpatriotic conservatives" who dislike the tenor of post–Cold War conservative hawkish foreign policy, as well as figures like Peter Brimelow, whose anti-immigration advocacy was seen as crossing the line into racism.

But digital technology has made it relatively easy for purged elements — along with younger figures who sympathize with the purged — to simply launch new publications such as V Dare.com, Taki's Magazine, and the Right Stuff.

The question of purging is itself a defining issue in these "alt-right" circles.

The Right Stuff's Hateful Heretic concedes that "you'll find some neo-Nazis here and there" in alt-right circles. But while he himself is not a neo-Nazi he has no intention of purging anyone from the movement for being too racist:

The alt-right is a safe space for crimethink. I recognize certain groups are double plus ungood, but as someone who's already at least ungood plus, I don't see any value in signaling that they're too extreme and hateful for me. The purpose of purges is to maintain respectability. Well, I think it's quite apparent that Buckleyite conservatism has failed. What the last 50 years has shown is that once you're done purging one group for being too extreme, the left just turns the ratchet, and now some formerly-acceptable group is the new Nazi. Once, it was Birchers. Today, it's anyone who doesn't clap hard enough for Bruce Jenner.

This worldview — that American politics is dominated by an Orwellian consensus ("crimethink" and "double plus ungood" are both ironic reclamations of terms used by the totalitarian propagandists in Orwell's 1984) that operates through periodic purges — is foundational to the alt-right. And while Trump may not be an avowed supporter of their cause, he is definitely someone who declines to self-censor his views of women and Mexicans, and he's unquestionably someone whom mainstream conservatives are trying to purge from their ranks.

(There's a lot of good content in that article, including tons of links, so I definitely recommend reading it in full when you have time.)

Surprisingly enough, Trump thinks the US needs to accept more Syrian refugees. (Of course that clashes wildly with Trump's recent statement that the US needs to vet anyone claiming to be a refugee seriously and not allow anyone into the country who isn't able to pay for themselves, their cost of living, and their healthcare, but that just proves Trump is all about saying whatever pops into his mind in that moment rather than having any clear and consistent plans.)

The Justice Department will begin targeting individuals who misbehave on Wall St. rather than fining their businesses

Stung by years of criticism that it has coddled Wall Street criminals, the Justice Department issued new policies on Wednesday that prioritize the prosecution of individual employees — not just their companies — and put pressure on corporations to turn over evidence against their executives.

The new rules, issued in a memo to federal prosecutors nationwide, represent the first major policy announcement by Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch since she took office in April. The memo is a tacit acknowledgment of criticism that, despite securing record fines from major corporations, the Justice Department under President Obama has punished few executives involved in the housing crisis, the financial meltdown and corporate scandals.

“Corporations can only commit crimes through flesh-and-blood people,” Sally Q. Yates, the deputy attorney general and the author of the memo, said in an interview on Wednesday. “It’s only fair that the people who are responsible for committing those crimes be held accountable. The public needs to have confidence that there is one system of justice and it applies equally regardless of whether that crime occurs on a street corner or in a boardroom.”

Though limited in reach, the memo could erase some barriers to prosecuting corporate employees and inject new life into these high-profile investigations. The Justice Department often targets companies themselves and turns its eyes toward individuals only after negotiating a corporate settlement. In many cases, that means the offending employees go unpunished.

The memo, a copy of which was provided to The New York Times, tells civil and criminal investigators to focus on individual employees from the beginning. In settlement negotiations, companies will not be able to obtain credit for cooperating with the government unless they identify employees and turn over evidence against them, “regardless of their position, status or seniority.” Credit for cooperation can save companies billions of dollars in fines and mean the difference between a civil settlement and a criminal charge.

“We mean it when we say, ‘You have got to cough up the individuals,’” Ms. Yates said, a day before she was to address the policy in a speech at New York University School of Law.

But in many ways, the new rules are an exercise in public messaging, substantive in some respects but symbolic in others. Because the memo lays out guidelines, not laws, its effect will be determined largely by how Justice Department officials interpret it. And several of the points in the memo merely codify policy that is already in place.

It is also unknown whether the rules will encourage companies to turn in their executives, but Ms. Yates said the Justice Department would not allow companies to foist the blame onto low-level officials.

“We’re not going to be accepting a company’s cooperation when they just offer up the vice president in charge of going to jail,” she said.

Not sure if I agree with all the particulars laid out in this article of how this might work, but in spirit, I'm pumping my fists in the air and shouting "Finalfuckingly!"

The Heritage Foundation is probably the most notable conservative think tank in the country, even though they've taken huge hits in credibility in recent years and fallen much too much in love with the anti-intellectual nativist crap that so many Republicans have. The other day, someone from Heritage accidentally posted Heritage documents publicly, and it gives some insight into what the big donors to Heritage and the Heritage employees really think.

Late last month, a strange file appeared on an Amazon server belonging to the Heritage Foundation, an influential Washington, D.C.-based think tank that remains widely regarded as one of the country’s most serious and respectable conservative institutions. The file—which appears to have been unintentionally uploaded by a Heritage staffer, rather than obtained by an intruder—offers a remarkable window into how Heritage maintains this reputation. It contains hundreds of emails and thousands of pages of internal fundraising reports documenting how the foundation navigated the flood of conservative conspiracy-mongering that followed Obama’s election in 2008, and how its staffers discussed the increasingly bizarre ideologies of its donor class with puzzlement and occasional derision.

The file, which has since been deleted, is a Microsoft Outlook backup folder that appears to have been associated with an assistant director at Heritage named Steve De Buhr, who belongs to the foundation’s “major gifts team” and handles donor relations in the Midwest. In that capacity, he received regularly updated “call reports” containing detailed dossiers on current and potential donors as well as De Buhr’s and other development officers’ various interactions with those donors throughout the country. By all accounts, the file appears to be authentic: It surfaced on the same server (thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com) where Heritage hosts policy papers and membership forms.

Between 2008 and 2009, Heritage raised approximately $135,000,000 in tax-deductible donations from private charities and individuals, according to publicly available tax filings. One of those individuals was a Pennsylvania businessman named Robert W. Ellis, who between 1994 and 2008 gave 40 gifts totaling nearly $250,000 to the foundation. De Buhr’s records indicate Ellis’s development officer, a Heritage employee named Jeffrey Trimbath, met Ellis in person at least seven times between July 2008 and June 2009. In notes taken after those meetings, Trimbath characterized what he took to be Ellis’s views toward Muslims and liberals.

After a July 15, 2008 meeting in West Chester, Pennsylvania, Trimbath wrote:

At lunch, Bob was characteristically passionate, but this time so no much against the Muslims, but against liberals and socialists. He said that everytime he meets a liberal/leftist person, he says “well, I guess you’re a mass murderer in training, because that’s where your ideology leads.” Trimbath’s characterization of Ellis’s views appears to be accurate. “Liberals are basically socialist in ideology, they believe in massive government,” Ellis told Gawker when reached by telephone. “Socialism, liberalism, they all seek to gain total control. And every time–with Stalin, Pol Pot, and so on—they lead to mass murder. They’re mass murderers!”

Ellis also confirmed, as Trimpath’s latter notes suggest, that he views the religion of Islam and its practitioners with suspicion and outright hostility. For example: After a January 14, 2009 meeting at Heritage’s Washington office, which followed a lecture by an Anglican bishop named Michael Nazir-Ali, Trimbath wrote:

Bob was characteristically aggressive with the Bishop, but not inappropriate. He represented the “hard line” position of not negotiating or even talking to Muslims. He was able to ask two questions,, and interject 2 or so comments in the meeting. He said that the Bishop should forget interfaith dialogue because it just gives credibility to the Muslims. When asked about this passage, Ellis told Gawker that “I don’t know if that’s an exact quote, but it probably came from what I said about the nature of Islam. Have you ever read the Quran? Have you ever heard of the concept of taqiya?” In the same conversation, Ellis said he interpreted taqiya to mean that Muslims are obligated to deceive non-Muslims in order to obtain power.

Furthermore, after an April 3, 2009 phone call about a recent presentation about sharia law that Ellis had seen in Washington, D.C., Trimbath described Ellis’ thoughts about the presentation this way:

[Robert W. Ellis] said that the presentation was good, and Bob made reference to the event we attended in Maryland last fall. Of course, this subject unleashed the typical torrent of passion that we’ve come to know in Bob and his views about Islam. “You can kill ‘em as fast as they’re making ’em” was a quote I hadn’t yet heard. We’re the moderates in light of this view, but that is ok. When asked about this passage, Ellis clarified: “I probably said, ‘you can’t kill them as fast as they’re making them.’ Or that they’re killing each other faster than we can kill them.” After noting the population growth of the Iraq, the majority of whose citizens practice Islam, Ellis added: “It would be easier for us to just let them kill each other.”

Trimbath’s private attempt to distance Heritage from Ellis’s position—which, boiled down, seems to be that Muslims should be killed at a pace commensurate with their birth rate—didn’t stop the foundation from regarding him as an ally: Elsewhere in his notes, Trimbath refers to Ellis as “our good friend Bob Ellis.”

Everyone who's surprised, raise your hand. *Sits on his own hands*

| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#100328: Sep 10th 2015 at 6:25:19 AM

[up]I find all of those articles fascinating — thank you for posting them. I'm mildly amused by Heritage staffers struggling to maintain a higher sense of intellectual integrity than their major donors, illustrating the fundamental problem with "think-tank" institutions that are sponsored by people with ideological agendas.

The best news must be that Justice Department memo, though. I hope they are serious about it.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Skycobra51 A suitable case for treatment from The US of A Since: Nov, 2013 Relationship Status: Only knew I loved her when I let her go
A suitable case for treatment
#100329: Sep 10th 2015 at 6:31:43 AM

[up]That remains to be seen. It'll basically come down to "My lawyers are better than yours." between Corps and the Justice Department.

Look upon my privilege ye mighty and despair.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#100330: Sep 10th 2015 at 6:32:37 AM

It's always come down to that. The difference is whom they are prosecuting for financial crimes. If companies can save themselves some cash by coughing up the people responsible for malfeasance, it might establish more internal accountability.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#100331: Sep 10th 2015 at 7:09:35 AM

Has there been any discussion on Congress? My usual newspaper did run a segment this morning noting that the Planned Parenthood dramarama is partly motivated by the inability of Congressional Republicans to accomplish anything of political relevance so far, while the Obama administration is busy implementing its own agenda.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#100332: Sep 10th 2015 at 7:16:25 AM

It's a perennial issue. Republicans can't get anything done, so they find trivial issues and manufacture scandals out of them.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Deadbeatloser22 from Disappeared by Space Magic (Great Old One) Relationship Status: Tsundere'ing
#100333: Sep 10th 2015 at 7:58:04 AM

Welp, Davis has announced formally that all Marriage licenses issued while she was in lockup are invalid.

"Yup. That tasted purple."
Gabrael from My musings Since: Nov, 2011 Relationship Status: Is that a kind of food?
#100334: Sep 10th 2015 at 8:00:58 AM

Big surprise.

Impeach her butt and be done with it.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur
Memers Since: Aug, 2013
#100335: Sep 10th 2015 at 8:05:03 AM

More jail time! Her entire term sounds good.

Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#100336: Sep 10th 2015 at 8:11:23 AM

Oh Kim Davis. Your 15 minutes of fame have come and gone. You're not even stupid enough to be a meme. Let it go.

As for the ID thing, if anyone still cares, technology and administrative measures have considerably improved. While chugging loads of info in one place is a massive risk, it is a risk well worth it for the benefits it can bring. Size and numbers are made irrelevant when we are capable of putting entire libraries in the head of a pin and instantly talk from one side of the world to another.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#100337: Sep 10th 2015 at 8:17:09 AM

@Gabrael: She has the support of the legislature, sorry. Jailing her butt again and keeping her locked up and out of the way is all that can be done.

Honestly, I don't blame her for doing that this time. The judge released her with a court order that she had not agreed to, when she'd previously made it clear that she was not going to obey the law. What the hell did they expect to happen?

What I honestly want to see happen, though, is a situation where the entire county office either refuses to comply with the law or is fired for complying, and the entire marriage-license business is shut down. Because then someone will have to come up with a solution, which might get the US Army sent to rearrange Kentucky's politics. (There's precedent for that, or at least for the threat - Andrew Jackson was an asshole, but he knew exactly how to deal with state governments that wouldn't obey federal law.)

edited 10th Sep '15 8:20:43 AM by Ramidel

Gabrael from My musings Since: Nov, 2011 Relationship Status: Is that a kind of food?
#100338: Sep 10th 2015 at 8:20:57 AM

I don't care what happens to her. But even in jail, she still has that job. They need to get her out of that job and get someone else who will do it properly in her place.

She as a person can fade into the Appalachians for all the fucks I give about her.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#100339: Sep 10th 2015 at 8:24:06 AM

Gabrael, out of curiosity, how would you go about ensuring, without the support of the local political system, that she could not be elected to her county clerk's office?

That's the big problem with the shit she's pulling: she has the support of the majority of her constituents and the legislature of Kentucky, and both of those elements need to be bypassed. Do you have a solution for removing her from her job without Kentucky's permission?

Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#100340: Sep 10th 2015 at 8:26:24 AM

Ketchup and five minutes alone with a hungry, hungry bear.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#100341: Sep 10th 2015 at 8:32:43 AM

I'm sure the feds could force her to comply if they wanted to.

TheWanderer Student of Story from Somewhere in New England (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
Student of Story
#100342: Sep 10th 2015 at 8:33:35 AM

Guess Davis liked prison enough to want to stay there. Also I recommend that whenever someone brings out the freedom of religion argument on this, everyone respond that nothing gives anyone the freedom to impose religion, or there personal interpretation thereof. So if letting mark of the beast people rip the semiconductors out of your computer is unacceptable, or Sharia law is unacceptable, or an Amish DMV worker refusing to give out driver's licenses is unacceptable, then so are the deeds of Kim Davis. That's why no establishment of religion is plain as day in the 1st amendment.

As for Planned Parenthood, this isn't the first time Republicans have tried this little song and dance in Congress. In the 2000s a nearly identical case happened, until it turned out the video from that case was faked, just as it's already been found that this one was edited.

And, because as Fighteer has said, Congressional Republicans are a one trick pony, and cant accomplish anything except turning manufactured issues into scandals, they're trying something similar with the Iran deal.

Republican lawmakers, having lost the battle to block the Iran nuclear deal in Congress, appear to be considering a new strategy: turn the deal into a never-ending political circus.

The old and busted GOP plan was to vote on a measure formally disapproving of the Iran nuclear deal. Republicans could express their rejection of the deal, forcing President Obama to veto their resolution. That way they'd get to oppose the deal without actually taking responsibility for finding an alternative. But Obama got more supporters in the Senate than was expected — enough that he won't have to veto — and the resolution became something of an embarrassment for Republicans.

So now the new hotness among Republicans is that they shouldn't bother voting to disapprove of the Iran nuclear deal, and instead should vote for a resolution that, according to Politico's Jake Sherman, "would delay a disapproval vote because they believe Obama has not disclosed some elements of the deal." The entire caucus is not yet on board, but it looks like they're moving in this direction.

The Washington Post's Greg Sargent called this "snatching defeat from the jaws of defeat," which is a great line, but to me this looks like a much stronger political strategy for Republicans, even if it is also cynical and dishonest. So much stronger, in fact, that I'm sort of surprised they're only coming around to it now.

Republicans, in this new plan, would argue that President Obama didn't live up to his promise to fully inform Congress about the Iran nuclear deal, so therefore Congress cannot vote on whether to approve the deal.

This is not really true, but that's beside the point. The point is that Republicans don't like their current strategy because it means, after they vote on their doomed resolution, they will have conceded the Iran deal as politically legitimate.

This new strategy would allow Republicans to argue in perpetuity that the Iran nuclear deal is somehow illegitimate, without ever actually proving that. It would create a definitionally irresolvable political "controversy" over the deal, allowing Republicans to raise money and hold hearings and go on conservative talk radio for many years to come, making conspiratorial claims about the Obama administration withholding some vital information.

So look forward to the Iran deal becoming the new Benghazi or death panels.

| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
Gabrael from My musings Since: Nov, 2011 Relationship Status: Is that a kind of food?
#100343: Sep 10th 2015 at 8:37:28 AM

In most circumstances, if you are impeached from office, you have a lifetime ban on returning to that office.

I am not an expert on Kentucky Law so I could be wrong.

But I seriously, don't care what solution we take so long as it's legal. Just get her out of that job and get someone else in there.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur
BonsaiForest Since: Jan, 2001
#100344: Sep 10th 2015 at 9:08:51 AM

Davis sure seems to think that her specific "religious freedom" trumps the religious freedom of people who don't share her brand of Christianity.

Christians who explicitly support same-sex marriage need to vocally proclaim that they want their "religious freedom" - the freedom to grant such marriages.

I imagine Kim thinks that despite her - ahem - "imperfections" regarding her marriage history, she still thinks she should prevent gay marriage since at least she has control over that. Makes me wonder if she ever considered preventing straights from remarrying, since isn't divorce a sin according to her? Be consistent!

But logic doesn't matter to people like that. Hell, one of the conclusions I've come to over time is that if people desperately want to do something, they'll pull any reason out of their ass to do it. If the reason even makes sense or not doesn't matter. Only that the reason exists, to try to lend a modicum of credibility to what they want to do.

edited 10th Sep '15 9:09:14 AM by BonsaiForest

Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#100345: Sep 10th 2015 at 9:12:19 AM

Is it possible to Federalise a State?

Keep Rolling On
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#100346: Sep 10th 2015 at 9:15:12 AM

There is not a precedent for it. The closest would be during desegregation, when federal troops were sent into some states to compel schools to allow black students to attend.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
BonsaiForest Since: Jan, 2001
#100347: Sep 10th 2015 at 9:16:16 AM

I do think that if the federal government tried to force the states to follow the laws in a way that was very visible and seen as very intrusive, it could sadly spark a rebellion. Or at least throw red meat to a very rabid conservative base. Give the politicians on the right another dumb little thing, a cause they'll eventually lose anyway, to rally people over.

Now, about the Justice Department actually jailing executives who tell their companies to break the law - holy shit. It's like whoever proposed that idea read my mind. Well, and the minds of likely millions of Americans who were also sick and tired of the serious lack of disincentive companies have to break the law. Well, there's a disincentive... assuming that A) this law is actually passed and enforced, and B) the companies don't have a sneaky way of passing the blame to their fall guy and letting that person go to jail.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#100348: Sep 10th 2015 at 9:19:00 AM

It is not clear to me that federal troops could enforce the issuance of marriage licenses by a state office in the same way that they could force schools to admit black students. Is some menacing dude with a gun going to hold Kim Davis' hand and forcibly write out signatures?

Anyway, if red states want to revolt over this, bring it on.

edited 10th Sep '15 9:19:46 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#100349: Sep 10th 2015 at 9:21:23 AM

I was thinking more along the lines of arresting people that refuse to follow the law until we get people that do.

BonsaiForest Since: Jan, 2001
#100350: Sep 10th 2015 at 9:22:07 AM

[up][up]I'd say something about red states revolting being bad for the country but... well, I do have a question. How well off are the red vs. blue states? Generally, blue states tend to be better off in just about every measure. Now, how intertwined are they? How much do blue states need red states and vice versa?

[up]Same.

edited 10th Sep '15 9:22:29 AM by BonsaiForest


Total posts: 417,856
Top