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

kkhohoho (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#185126: Apr 27th 2017 at 8:42:50 AM

[up]x5 Trump and the GOP: Stupid Evil at it's finest. Thank fucking God.tongue

edited 27th Apr '17 8:43:12 AM by kkhohoho

DingoWalley1 Asgore Adopts Noelle Since: Feb, 2014 Relationship Status: Can't buy me love
Asgore Adopts Noelle
#185127: Apr 27th 2017 at 8:46:41 AM

[up][up] Trump's Tweets no longer hinder stocks, or at least not longer then 12 Hours, so that doesn't matter. Heck, he hasn't done it since the last company's stocks surged from Trump's insulting tweets (at least, I don't think he has).

MarqFJA The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer from Deserts of the Middle East (Before Recorded History) Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
#185128: Apr 27th 2017 at 8:50:16 AM

[up] Surged? Which lucky company was it?

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#185129: Apr 27th 2017 at 8:52:19 AM

I think it was Nordstrom, after they dumped Ivanka's brand because it wasn't selling. It was probably because they dropped a brand that wasn't selling that they had a surge.

edited 27th Apr '17 8:55:18 AM by Zendervai

nightwyrm_zero Since: Apr, 2010
#185130: Apr 27th 2017 at 8:53:46 AM

[up]x7 I'm lazy. I take too many breaks and leave things till the last minute. tongue

Trump is an ignorant dumbfuck who thinks the most important job in the world is a 9-5, Monday to Friday glorified CEO job where all he has to do is issue edicts and everything will be done according to his will.

edited 27th Apr '17 8:55:01 AM by nightwyrm_zero

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#185132: Apr 27th 2017 at 9:16:09 AM

Trump is trying to govern exactly like his primary constituents think government should work. It'd be hilarious if it weren't such a disaster.

edited 27th Apr '17 9:16:18 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
MorningStar1337 The Encounter that ended the Dogma from 🤔 Since: Nov, 2012
The Encounter that ended the Dogma
#185133: Apr 27th 2017 at 9:21:04 AM

Quick question are there any intellectual requirements to hold office besides Law School?

danime91 Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: Above such petty unnecessities
#185134: Apr 27th 2017 at 9:23:43 AM

[up]Even Law School isn't a requirement. Look at Trump, after all. I don't even think you need a high school diploma to be elected.

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#185135: Apr 27th 2017 at 9:24:05 AM

[up][up]Is that even a requirement?

[up] Guess not

edited 27th Apr '17 9:24:28 AM by sgamer82

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#185136: Apr 27th 2017 at 9:29:41 AM

There are no "requirements" for office except being legally eligible for the office (eg, the president must be a natural American citizen at least 35 years old) and winning the election.

If you're asking about what's necessary to be good at the job, that's an enormous subject that would honestly deserve its own thread to discuss in depth.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#185137: Apr 27th 2017 at 9:31:06 AM

Yeah, while a majority of our modern career politicians have a law background there's no standard. If you came all the way up from local government your educational background could be anything.

Other than Lincon (self taught) I believe most Presidents have had a college or equivalent education, however.

danime91 Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: Above such petty unnecessities
#185138: Apr 27th 2017 at 9:36:01 AM

Especially now, look at some of the people running for office. People from all sorts of STEM backgrounds, volcanologists, climatologists. Law school is nice for knowing how legislation works and being familiar with the necessary precedents and such, but as long as you're literate and willing to put in the effort to read up on them, that isn't too big of an issue.

Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#185139: Apr 27th 2017 at 9:46:38 AM

So, the Premier of British Columbia has come up with a new environmental friendly idea. Ban all use of BC ports for the shipping of thermal coal. While Canada does still have some low-level coal mining, it's something classified as metallurgical coal. So, basically, this move means that Canada's coal exports will be almost entirely unaffected, and BC will lose a tiny fraction of their income, as thermal coal doesn't really have a tariff worth anything on it, while the US will suddenly lose one of the most important ports for their coal exports to Asia.

I don't know if it's a good idea, but it is an interesting one. Especially since it can be justified on environmental grounds without international politics coming up in the discussion.

Oh, and some news has come out about that North Korea briefing. It was a whole load of nothing that actually left people more confused about the NK policy than they were before.

edited 27th Apr '17 9:48:05 AM by Zendervai

ThePest179 Since: Jul, 2015
#185140: Apr 27th 2017 at 9:47:20 AM

"His own fucking party has a majority in Congress. If he can't get shit done even with an advantage like that..."

Because the right is filled with internal divisions. Everyone has their own particular vision and don't feel like compromising with each other. Case in point: healthcare. Moderates want a slightly modified version of Obamacare, extremists want the whole thing dead and buried.

The Republicans are a clusterfuck held together only by their opposition to the left.

CrimsonZephyr Would that it were so simple. from Massachusetts Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
Would that it were so simple.
#185141: Apr 27th 2017 at 9:48:19 AM

The ubiquity of lawyers is something of a mixed blessing. The knowledge of legal arcana means we have no instances of "dockworker becomes President-for-Life, has two thousand capitalist pigdogs shot," but it's a liability when we're trying to get things like climate change legislation or greater research funding, and most of them are, to some extent, science-illiterate.

"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#185142: Apr 27th 2017 at 10:13:24 AM

[up][up] And, ironically, at a point when the Let's opposition should be ultimately symbolic at best, their infighting means they can't get anything they don't wholly agree on through.

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#185143: Apr 27th 2017 at 10:59:06 AM

Seeing on CNN "WH: don't review Flynn's security clearance" and, just before that, WH: Blames Obama for Flynn security clearance"

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#185144: Apr 27th 2017 at 11:01:10 AM

Because the right is filled with internal divisions. Everyone has their own particular vision and don't feel like compromising with each other.
To be fair, this is to a large extent true of the left as well. It's much easier to get people to agree that they don't like any given proposal on the table than it is to get them to agree to support any given proposal.

The key to effective governance is being willing to compromise so that everyone gets something they want. It means that no one gets everything they want, but it's also better than no one getting anything they want.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
TheRoguePenguin Since: Jul, 2009
tclittle Professional Forum Ninja from Somewhere Down in Texas Since: Apr, 2010
Professional Forum Ninja
#185146: Apr 27th 2017 at 11:15:16 AM

The Texas House passed a bill which would ban "Sanctuary" jurisdictions early this morning.

The House bill allows local police to question the immigration status of those they legally detain, places a Class A misdemeanor on sheriffs, constables, and police chiefs who don't comply with immigration officials, and all attempts by Democrats to make shields for immigrants at homeless shelters, domestic violence shelters, pre-kindergarden schools, sports games, etc. failed except for places of worship.

    The Article in full 
After more than 16 hours of debate, the Texas House of Representatives early Thursday morning tentatively gave a nod to the latest version of a Senate bill that would ban “sanctuary” jurisdictions in Texas.

The 93-54 vote fell along party lines and came after one of the slowest moving but most emotional legislative days at the state Capitol.

The vote came at 3 a.m. after state Rep. Dennis Bonnen, R-Angleton, successfully made what some Democratic members called an unprecedented motion to group all of the remaining amendments — more than 100 — and record them as failed. He said he made that suggestion so members wouldn't be forced to pull their amendments. The motion passed 114 to 29, with about a third of Democrats approving the measure.

Members voted on the bill after adding back a controversial provision that extends the scope of the bill and allows local peace officers to question the immigration status of people they legally detain. The original House version of the bill only allowed officers to inquire about status during a lawful arrest.

That detainment language was included in what the Senate passed out of its chamber in February but was later removed by state Rep. Charlie Geren, R-Fort Worth, the bill’s House sponsor.

The amendment to add that provision back into the bill was offered by Tyler Republican Rep. Matt Schaefer, who was in the middle of a back-and-forth, deal-making struggle that stopped debate for more than hour. Both parties’ members caucused as they tried to hammer out a deal whereby Schaefer would pull his amendment and Democrats would limit the number of proposals they would offer.

But no compromise was reached, despite several high-profile Republicans, including Geren and House State Affairs Committee Chairman Byron Cook, R-Corsicana, telling members they would vote against the Schaefer proposal.

The intent of bill is “getting dangerous criminals off the street. That's the mission. Shouldn't be any more than that," Cook said.

The bill keeps a provision that makes sheriffs, constables and police chiefs subject to a Class A misdemeanor for failing to cooperate with federal authorities and honor requests from immigration agents to hold noncitizen inmates subject to removal. It also keeps civil penalties for entities in violation of the provision that begin at $1,000 for a first offense and swell to as high as $25,500 for each subsequent infraction."

Democrats also offered myriad amendments that sought to shield people at certain places from being subject to the provisions of the bill. Those include domestic violence shelters, homeless shelters, pre-kindergarten schools, and public school events such as football games. All failed along party-line votes.

House Democrats scored one victory with an amendment by Rep. Victoria Neave, D-Dallas, that allows local entities to prohibit their employees and peace officers from assisting federal immigration officers at places of worship. (The bill already excludes commissioned peace officers who are employed by religious organizations.)

The emotional debate that members witnessed early on in the afternoon continued as the daylight faded. At one point, Rep. Mary González, D-Clint, told members that she was once a victim of sexual assault and said immigrants would fear reaching out to police should something similar happen to them.

She pleaded with members to keep the language about status inquiries limited to only people under arrest.

“If you ever had any friendship with me, this is the vote that measures that friendship," González pleaded. But amendments by her and her Democratic colleagues were shot down repeatedly before the final vote on the bill.

Throughout the floor debate, House Democrats had done everything from warning Republicans against heckling them to shedding tears during floor speeches.

Before debate on actual policy started, Democrats tried their best to tug at Republican heartstrings in hopes of diluting what they labeled an “intentionally” racist proposal.

State Rep. Ana Hernandez, D-Houston, recounted through tears how she was undocumented for years after her visa expired when she was growing up.

She said the bill exemplifies the fear her parents experienced "each day their little girls went to school. Worrying about an immigration raid.” Hernandez gave a similar speech in 2011, the last time the Texas House took up a “sanctuary” measure.

She was followed by state Rep. Victoria Neave, D-Dallas, who’s been fasting in protest of the bill since she last attended church on Sunday. She said she’s received hate mail telling her to “die” and “starve.”

Addressing “sanctuary” jurisdictions was declared an emergency item by Gov. Greg Abbott in the early days of the 85th legislative session. SB 4 passed the Senate in February.

House members had expected a rough debate. Before the bill reached the House floor, one member predicted “trench warfare,” while another said that “battle lines have been drawn.” A third House member simply predicted “a total shitshow.”

Houston-area Reps. Gene Wu and Harold Dutton, both Democrats, added their own opinions Wednesday. A choked-up Wu said the bill was personal to him as an immigrant, and he recounted the fear the proposal has stirred in his district. Dutton calmly recited the history of what he deemed racist pieces of legislation and their effects on women, Chinese immigrants, former slaves and other minority groups.

Through it all, Geren stood his ground and said the bill wasn’t about targeting minorities or about racial profiling. Geren said it's about focusing efforts on deporting undocumented criminals.

“Most of the [immigrant community] is not a lawless community,” he said. “And that’s why we are going [only] after the ones that are criminals.”

State Rep. Jason Villalba, R-Dallas, had Geren’s back. He said his immigrant relatives were called “spics” and “wetbacks.” But he said the bill was commonsense policy that was about the rule of law.

Either way, Democrats said they intend to keep fighting. During his floor speech, the usually mild-mannered Rep. Eddie Lucio III, D-Brownsville, warned Republicans: “Do not mess with us today.”

The House version has a provision that forces college campus administrators to comply with the bill, which Democrats have argued could get college students deported for relatively minor offenses such as being a minor in possession of alcohol.

Proponents of the legislation say it is about the rule of law and ensuring law enforcement agencies follow the same policies.

“This bill ensures that there is predictability that our laws are applied without prejudice” no matter who is in custody, state Sen. Charles Perry, R-Lubbock, said when the Senate voted on SB 4 in February.

Opponents of the measure say it would make communities less safe as many undocumented immigrants would be reluctant to reach out to police for fear of being deported. They also fear it would open the door to racial profiling and argue it’s not needed because local jails already cooperate with immigration officers.

“We know the Republicans have the numbers in the building,” said state Rep. Chris Turner, D-Grand Prairie, the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. “You’re going to see Democrats fighting very hard through a variety of tactics, including amendments detailing the deficiencies of the bill, the pointlessness of the bill.”

Tensions in the House began percolating this week when Democrats successfully blocked a procedural maneuver known as a calendar rule. The rule would have set a 1 p.m. Tuesday deadline for proposed amendments to SB 4. Democrats said that would have given Republicans too much time to study the amendments and find ways to cut off debate.

Wednesday’s debate comes just a day after Austin Mayor Steve Adler revealed that, according to what U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions told him at a meeting about what the federal government considers a "sanctuary" jurisdiction, neither Austin nor Travis County is considered one.

It also comes after a federal judge on Tuesday ruled that President Donald Trump exceeded his authority when he signed an executive order withholding federal money from "sanctuary" cities in the country. The judge ruled that only funds related to immigration enforcement can be withheld, according to the Associated Press.

"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."
TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor
#185147: Apr 27th 2017 at 11:31:48 AM

The Far Left is Still out of Touch with Black Voters

In late 2016, nearly 9 out of 10 Black voters approved of President Obama. To many Black voters, he is the symbol of success for Black America. You might not agree with everything he has done, and I certainly haven’t agreed with everything, but you have to respect him for what he means to Black Americans-making it to the height of American politics and withstanding eight years of racist attacks. Sanders and his movement see Obama as symbolic of evil neoliberal corporate interests. Therein lies the disconnect. The far right holds disdain for Obama for some of the same reasons that the far left does: they see him as beholden to special interests instead of “those of the people.”

Black people can see this, they aren’t stupid. They see that the political fringe on the left and most of the right hates Obama for some of the same reasons. So when the far left comes out and says that the first Black President should be held to a different standard than Presidents before him — that he doesn’t deserve to get paid for his post-Presidential work or shouldn’t be compensated — the Black community feels that one of its largest symbols of success is under attack from an overwhelmingly white political movement.

Why does the far left believe the first Black president should be held to a standard of making less money? Why does the far left believe that the first Black president doesn’t deserve to be compensated for his work? These are the issues that resonate with the black community. The rebuttal will be, well, the money is corporate, the money is from Wall Street. Well, nobody in the far left was coming for Sanders when he invested his money on Wall Street. Nobody on the far left was coming for The Young Turks when they took $4 million from Republicans. There are a plethora of organizations and publications on the far left that take big money from corporate donors, Republicans, and Wall Street investment bankers. But they are not viciously attacked for making money or taking in millions in donations. Why do they hold the first Black President to a standard they don’t hold themselves to? They haven’t just come for Obama either. They’ve heavily criticized activist De Ray and the Black women behind Safety Pin Box for making money for their work, accusing them of being beholden to corporate interests. When Obama, De Ray, or Safety Pin Box is making money, all of a sudden the far left has a problem with it. But when their own organizations and publications are taking Wall Street or corporate donations, there is no anger, no criticism, no vitriol.

Do you see how Black people see this? How we look at this and say “They don’t want Black people to succeed or to be represented in politics, business, or media? They don’t want Black people to make money?” This is a movement that hates identity politics, refused to campaign in the diverse southern states, and calls out prominent successful Black people for getting paid for their work. Vox wrote an article saying that Obama shouldn’t have taken the money not because it was corruption (it clearly wasn’t) but because of the optics could make it appear so. Well, think about how the optics of how the far left appears to Black people. From a Black perspective, you can see how the far left and the far right’s criticisms of prominent Black people appear very similar?

Can the church say Amen?!

New Survey coming this weekend!
megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#185148: Apr 27th 2017 at 11:35:43 AM

This again?

edited 27th Apr '17 12:00:31 PM by megaeliz

Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#185149: Apr 27th 2017 at 11:36:53 AM

[up][up]Amen!

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#185150: Apr 27th 2017 at 11:43:53 AM

[up][up]Because the racially charged BS thrown around by some of the so-called "progressives" has to be called out.


Total posts: 417,856
Top