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

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
#102276: Sep 29th 2015 at 8:15:45 PM

[up][up]That would be the ideal option, but I don't think Turkey would want Kurdistan as a next door neighbor, and the Sunnis would object to a Shia state.

edited 29th Sep '15 8:16:35 PM by Skycobra51

Look upon my privilege ye mighty and despair.
LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#102277: Sep 29th 2015 at 8:17:47 PM

We can't stabilize the area by ourselves, we'd need a full NATO intervention. And even then if we have to spend the entire conflict working against the Russians we'd get nowhere.

The Russians only care about stability and their hard power in the area, fine. But stability is what we need to even hope to begin any kind of reconstruction effort.

edited 29th Sep '15 8:18:16 PM by LeGarcon

Oh really when?
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#102278: Sep 29th 2015 at 8:18:42 PM

Also Putin doesn't seem to keen on cooperating with the US on anything, so I don't get why Garcon keeps suggesting that. Putin wouldn't agree to it and he certainly wouldn't agree to get rid of a leader that as I understand it is friendly towards him. (?)

And you keep saying "multinational effort" but that would require getting the UN to agree to this. Otherwise it'd just be us, the US, landing into a situation when neither side has committed no strikes against us. There's currently nothing that would actually justify a full invasion force to the US public or the rest of the world, no matter how much Shinra seems to think we'd be justified. International aid is another matter entirely and generally doesn't involve sending a full invasion force.

FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#102279: Sep 29th 2015 at 8:19:32 PM

[up][up][up]The Sunnis can object all they want, since the alternative is genocide. Again, this is why the world can't be beholden to a particular faction.

Likewise the Turks. They want a seat at the big boy table, they need to start putting up or shutting up. Maybe they can be stationed west of the Euphrates so they can ensure the Kurds to push west, but beyond that, Turkey can't do anything about it short of full scale war, which they have yet to do.

[up]Have you seen the budget for the UNHCR? We're doing nothing.

NATO can intervene simply because of the humanitarian situation, which is gravely affecting most of Europe in addition to Syria's neighbors. Hell, if not for the red lines, one could even see the UN getting involved. But short of that, NATO would have to go in. And if you present NATO intervention as an alternative to keeping refugees, you can even get the jackass politicians in Eastern Europe to commit troops. Or at least be more willing to take in refugees. Win win.

Also the French are intervening, the British....might? And one could convince Jordan to help in Daraa.

edited 29th Sep '15 8:24:45 PM by FFShinra

LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#102280: Sep 29th 2015 at 8:20:07 PM

[up][up]What? The Kremlin hates Assad right now. The Russians are there in force, not to help Assad but to secure their assets in the area. Something that Assad has utterly failed to do.

Expect to find him in some ditch before this is over.

edited 29th Sep '15 8:20:22 PM by LeGarcon

Oh really when?
ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#102281: Sep 29th 2015 at 10:08:15 PM

Of course, there's one thing we all seem to be forgetting.

People hate, hate, hate when "outsiders" try to decide things for them. It treats them like they're children who don't know better at best, and is seen as having outside values imposed upon them at worst. Which is kind of a huge thing when we're talking about International relations - that's how we soured shit with Iran to begin with, after all, along with a shitload of other Middle-Eastern nations.

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#102282: Sep 29th 2015 at 11:55:45 PM

I'm with Shinra: the least bad solution I can think of is to take down Assad, IS and Al-Qaeda affiliated rebels. That means, of course, having a plan for rebuilding over the next decade or two.

If we were the British Empire, of course, the answer would be a small military garrison, plus hiring the Sons of Iraq to do the majority of the security work in our new Mandate. Withdraw if and when the territories are capable of self-government. (Also, make sure that America gets the profits from all that sweet, delicious oil.) However, this is the 21st Century, and we're not Britain, and 4X is generally not seen as a legitimate model of international relations.

BlueNinja0 The Mod with the Migraine from Taking a left at Albuquerque Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
The Mod with the Migraine
#102283: Sep 30th 2015 at 12:10:25 AM

The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were ultimately mistakes
The invasion of Iraq, I agree. The invasion of Afghanistan wasn't a mistake, but the execution of the invasion has been a string of mistakes.
Russia is not a mustache twirling villain,
Are we talking Putin, or Russia?
Assist [insert country here] in annexing the whole thing.
That's just exchanging the problem for a new and different one. It also assumes that any of Syria's neighbors actually want to annex it. And allowing Wal Mart to annex the country would be firmly setting a precedent of MegaCorp rulership that we do not need.
I don't think Turkey would want Kurdistan as a next door neighbor
If there formed an actual Kurdistan, the main reason for Turkey to be unhappy is that a corner of their country would be advocating for secession to join them.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw
Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#102284: Sep 30th 2015 at 12:17:16 AM

[up][up] We tried doing that in Iraq...and then find out what happened during World War II.

Keep Rolling On
probablyinsane Since: Oct, 2011 Relationship Status: I LOVE THIS DOCTOR!
#102285: Sep 30th 2015 at 1:26:31 AM

imho, these days - if you invade a country - it's yours forever. No take backs.

This is cause wars in the modern age makes it difficult to rebuild when the citizens most qualified (to rebuild) are better off in another country altogether. It's like a forced brain drain with little chance of attracting those citizens back.

Plants are aliens, and fungi are nanomachines.
BlueNinja0 The Mod with the Migraine from Taking a left at Albuquerque Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
The Mod with the Migraine
#102286: Sep 30th 2015 at 2:57:15 AM

Economists estimate Trump's tax plan will cost the US about $1 trillion per year, largely through reduced tax income.

The first reviews are in and they agree on this much: Donald Trump's tax plan carries a hefty price tag. Analysts at the left-leaning Center for Tax Justice and the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation released top-line estimates on the Republican presidential front-runner's tax plan that was unveiled Monday. According to the Center for Tax Justice, Trump's tax proposal would reduce revenues by around $900 billion per year, which would translate to about $9 trillion over a decade. The Tax Foundation is singing a similar tune: It predicts that the billionaire's plan would reduce tax revenue by some $10 trillion over the next 10 years (when measured alongside economic growth).

The real estate mogul is proposing deep cuts to the income tax rate for people across the board His idea is to allow those at the bottom-most income bracket (singles making $25,00 or less and married couples making $50,000 or less) to pay no income taxes, and reduce the top income tax rate from the current rate of around 40% to 25%.

Trump's campaign manager Corey Lewandowski pushed back on the cost estimates, calling on the groups to "go back and take a look at the actual plan." "We project at a 3% growth rate that this plan is revenue neutral," he said on CNN's "Situation Room." "If we're fortunate enough that the economy of this country continues to grow which we think it would under this plan ... then anything above a 3% growth rate — which is a very modest growth rate — would allow us to continue to reduce the deficit."

And Hope Hicks, Trump's campaign spokesperson, said the estimates "seem to largely ignore most of the plan's pay-fors." "But even accounting for that, their figures seem wildly off the mark," she said.

Trump promised in a press conference Monday that his proposal would not add to the country's debt or deficit. Pressed by CNN's Erin Burnett on how he would offset the deep tax cuts, Trump answered in broad terms, saying much of the money would come from increased job growth and investments at home. "The economy's going to just be absolutely like a rocket," he said.

The Tax Policy Center, a joint group run by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, has yet to score Trump's plan. But Eric Toder, the group's co-director, told CNN Tuesday that it is difficult to see how the revenue loss would be made up. "Without having scored it, just looking at the numbers, there's probably going to be a pretty big revenue loss," Toder said. "That's the big story."

And meanwhile in Kentucky, Citizen's United means it's perfectly legal to bribe politicians.
As we learned from the Citizens United ruling, corporations are people and money donated to campaigns is free speech. But did you know that outright bribery is free speech, too? Three Kentucky politicians — including one elected official — have filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court arguing that state ethics laws, which ban gifts from lobbyists and their employers, as well as set a $1,000 campaign contribution limit.

Republican Kentucky state Senator John Schickel, along with two Libertarian political candidates argue that the ethics laws, which were established in 1992 after an FBI investigation revealed that fifteen elected officials had been selling their votes, violate their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

“This infringes on the legislator’s, lobbyist’s, and employer of lobbyist’s right to freedom of association, and freedom of speech,” the lawsuit argues. Schickel whines that ethics laws prevent him from attending “holiday parties, hosted by longstanding friends, who are lobbyists or employ lobbyists.”

“They have gone so far overboard with these rules that it’s ridiculous,” said Christopher Wiest, attorney for Schickel and his friends. “If you’re a legislator and a lobbyist is your next-door neighbor, and he invites you over to his place for a Christmas party, you can’t accept, because it might be considered a form of entertainment or a thing of value.”

But, of course, this is really about the politicians’ ability to get free stuff. As the Herald-Leader notes, Schickel “needn’t sit alone during the holidays” as long as he doesn’t accept “food, drink, or other favors” without paying for his share of the entertainment.

The attorney for Schickel, Kentucky House candidate David Watson, and Pendleton County Judge-Executive candidate Ken Moellman Jr. says the trio is attempting to challenge ethics laws in court because House Democrats are unlikely to “go along with him on these issues.” Schickel says he will need $350,000 to defend his Senate seat next year, but complains that he has been able to collect just $98,000 from 150 donors so far. He says that his lobbyist friends are clamboring to throw more money at him, but he fears criminal charges if he accepts illegal money — go figure.

“In my view, any limits are completely unconstitutional and violate free speech,” Schickel says, claiming that the current system favors those already in office. “The legislature through its ethics code and campaign finance laws has restricted free speech, and this is also a major issue for anyone trying to take on an incumbent. The system completely favors those in office.”

But Edwin Bender, executive director of Follow the Money.org, says the opposite is true:

“This concept of doing this for free speech is disingenuous. The politicians are doing it because, when they are in power, they are able to retain power.”

Unfortunately, the Herald-Leader notes, federal courts have “proven willing in recent years to overturn campaign-finance restrictions that judges believe violate the constitutional rights of donors and candidates.” One court, for example, eliminated the $50,000 limit on how much Kentucky gubernatorial candidates may loan their campaigns.

It would be nice to think that Schickel and company will fail, and that ethics rules will remain intact — but it is entirely possible that (as with Citizens United) monied interests — sorry, “free speech” — will prevail in the end.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw
tclittle Professional Forum Ninja from Somewhere Down in Texas Since: Apr, 2010
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#102288: Sep 30th 2015 at 3:20:41 AM

Why do I doubt that this is true?

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#102289: Sep 30th 2015 at 3:40:04 AM

Because that group has lied before.

@Ramidel - Thats why I say its the best solution....not the most likely. Certainly not after the way we've been going about it.

Honestly, best we can hope for given the political realities would be to convince Jordan to set up that safe zone in Daraa.

JackOLantern1337 Shameful Display from The Most Miserable Province in the Russian Empir Since: Aug, 2014 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
Shameful Display
#102290: Sep 30th 2015 at 4:17:58 AM

[up] Don't they have some nuclear reactors planed with the Russians? I doubt they'd want to offend Moscow.

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
tclittle Professional Forum Ninja from Somewhere Down in Texas Since: Apr, 2010
Professional Forum Ninja
#102291: Sep 30th 2015 at 5:03:12 AM

Welp, it looks like we may have another New England hurricane.

"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."
JackOLantern1337 Shameful Display from The Most Miserable Province in the Russian Empir Since: Aug, 2014 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
Shameful Display
#102292: Sep 30th 2015 at 6:20:45 AM

[up] And they say global warming isn't real. Those motherfuckers. Hopefully my power doesn't go out this time.

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
speedyboris Since: Feb, 2010
#102294: Sep 30th 2015 at 6:48:38 AM

[up]x7 Even if that were true, so what?

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#102295: Sep 30th 2015 at 6:58:28 AM

Not to derail things, but I walked into work today and saw a quick blurb of news about the GOP wanting to de fund Planned Parenthood. I've only just really started paying close attention (I tend to lose patient quickly with politics) so at first I thought it was just a Thing of Carly Fiorina. But now an agenda against PP seems Republican wide. What's going on there?

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#102296: Sep 30th 2015 at 7:04:06 AM

[up] What happened is that one of those political attack groups — the same one that made the ACORN video a while back — created some bogus "sting" videos against Planned Parenthood, purporting to show them selling aborted fetuses for medical research and organ harvesting.

As should be obvious, this was a deliberate lie, constructed by doctoring videos taken during rigged interviews. Planned Parenthood does indeed donate aborted tissue for research purposes, but it does not "sell" the tissue, collecting only those payments it needs to cover its costs. However, it re-inflamed the Republican base, who hates Planned Parenthood with a fiery passion for providing abortion services — and, indeed, for providing free healthcare to women.

This escalated until members of Congress decided to hold the federal budget hostage against the total elimination of all funding for Planned Parenthood, despite:

  • Only 3 percent of PP's services are abortion-related.
  • The federal government is already barred, legally, from funding PP's abortion services. (They are instead funded by fees-for-service and the aforementioned medical donations.)
  • PP provides critical health services for millions of women.

Among Republican candidates, Carly Fiorina has recently taken up the anti-PP banner, claiming to have witnessed a video showing a living, aware fetus on a dissection table despite there being no proof of it being anything other than another doctoring job. She is making it a signature issue of her campaign, diving off the deep end thereby.


Oh, and Jeb Bush is pulling a Mitt Romney. In the wake of his promise to stop giving black voters "free stuff", he doubled down by pulling up the old saw that Democrats "sabotage the economy for political gain" — specifically, to keep voters dependent on government for handouts. But nobody cared, because Jeb is fifth in the polls and dropping.

edited 30th Sep '15 8:30:40 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
#102297: Sep 30th 2015 at 7:07:46 AM

It's gotten so crazy that even Fox have (at least once) asked what the hell people are thinking. I think the leader of the biggest anti-abortion group actually also came out against the shutdown plan, though that was on more practical "we need an anti-abortion president and we won't get that if three quarters of the country hate us for shutting the goverment down."

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
JackOLantern1337 Shameful Display from The Most Miserable Province in the Russian Empir Since: Aug, 2014 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
Shameful Display
#102298: Sep 30th 2015 at 7:24:05 AM

[up][up][up][up] For that group it means that they have the Pope at their back. For almost the entire rest of the country though,it means that the Pope met with an ignorant lazy scumbag who refused to do her job, and lowers their opinion of Francis considerably. Mind you meeting with her doesn't mean he agreed with her. Hell the man met with Raul Castro. And if he did meet with Davis, than at least he was nice enough not to make it public, and thus embarrassing the administration considerably.

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
Canid117 Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: Hello, I love you
#102299: Sep 30th 2015 at 8:08:42 AM

"Also, make sure that America gets the profits from all that sweet, delicious oil."

The Anglo-Persian Oil company (Now BP) isn't American.

"War without fire is like sausages without mustard." - Jean Juvénal des Ursins
speedyboris Since: Feb, 2010
#102300: Sep 30th 2015 at 8:34:33 AM

[up][up] Obviously we don't know the full extent of their conversation, but it sounds like the Pope told her to stay strong in her faith and prayed for her. I fail to see what's so scandalous or traitorous about that.

Beyond that, it's already been well established that the Pope isn't in favor of gay marriage, so it's not like him supporting a woman who doesn't approve of gay marriage is at odds with his previous comments (and thus, hypocritical). People cherry-picked one comment he made, "If someone is gay and is searching for the Lord and has good will, then who am I to judge him?" and jumped to conclusions, but that's hardly the same as saying "I am fully in favor of gay marriage."

edited 30th Sep '15 8:36:09 AM by speedyboris


Total posts: 417,856
Top