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

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#192826: Jun 11th 2017 at 9:49:11 PM

I seriously doubt all 80% of the people didn't vote out of principle.

I think it's something like half the U.S. population that doesn't bother voting most of the time?

This would be the other reason they abstained instead of voting no. In addition to delegitimizing the vote, it also pads their numbers by tacitly including people who were too lazy, apathetic, or just plain ignorant of the issue as abstainers.

It's like the difference between everyone who voted for Donald Trump and everyone who did not vote for Hillary Clinton. The latter number is substantially larger than the former.

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#192827: Jun 11th 2017 at 9:51:23 PM

While Trump can voice his support for or against Puerto Rico becoming a state, it appears that it's Congress that ultimately gets to make that decision. The president just makes the official proclamation. Or at least that's what Wikipedia tells me. The article on Admission is surprisingly short.

Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#192828: Jun 11th 2017 at 9:54:25 PM

Makes sense considering the U.S has not been adding new states for a while.

Might wanna look on Russia's, theirs would be updated.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#192829: Jun 11th 2017 at 10:00:23 PM

The rule on new states in the Constitution is just the bare minimum put in with the knowledge it would be needed later but there have been laws made since to flesh out the process. All of them are likely very out of date.

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#192830: Jun 11th 2017 at 10:00:35 PM

On the boycott, Wikipedia has this:

The referendum was boycotted by all the major parties against statehood for several reasons. One reason is that the title of the ballot asserted that Puerto Rico is a colony.{{efn|The title of the ballot was "PLEBISCITE FOR THE IMMEDIATE DECOLONIZATION OF PUERTO RICO."}} The [[Popular Democratic Party (Puerto Rico)|Popular Democratic Party]] (PPD) has historically rejected that notion. Similarly, under the option for maintaining the status quo, the ballot also asserted that Puerto Rico is subject to the plenary powers of the [[United States Congress]], a notion also historically rejected by the PPD.{{efn|The blurb used below the third option asserted that, "With my vote, I express my wish that Puerto Rico remains, as it is today, subject to the powers of the Congress and subject to the Territory Clause of the United States Constitution that in the Article IV, Section 3 states: “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State”."}} Likewise, under the 'independence/free association' option, the ballot asserted that Puerto Rico must be a sovereign nation in order to enter into a compact of free association with the United States.{{efn|The blurb used under the second option asserted that, "The Free Association would be based on a free and voluntary political association, the specific terms of which shall be agreed upon between the United States and Puerto Rico as sovereign nations."}} Supporters of the free association movement reject this notion. Had the different parties not boycotted the referendum, they would have had accepted those assertions implicitly, regardless of whether the assertions were correct or not.

A lot of it was apparently justified by not liking the exact wording. But either way, their non-voting representative is adamant about pushing the petition forward with the results for this, so we'll see.

Edit: Also, here's just something about why people might feel conflicted on the matter, a woman talking about how she feels being Puerto Rican in the United States and the history of it all.

edited 11th Jun '17 10:58:25 PM by LSBK

NoName999 Since: May, 2011
Medinoc from France (Before Recorded History)
#192832: Jun 12th 2017 at 6:40:49 AM

Well as far as Trump bothers to know, they're fighting Daesh too, so they're bigly good guys, right?

Nevermind that Putin and Assad don't actually want to wipe Daesh out, not while there are still non-Daesh rebels breathing.

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#192833: Jun 12th 2017 at 6:53:35 AM

[up][up] Something like that I'm more concerned becoming public/common knowledge that coming into possession of another enemy of the hacked group. Though looking at the article I guess the work was less Russia having it and more Russia keeping it vs giving it to another Israeli enemy.

edited 12th Jun '17 6:55:57 AM by sgamer82

Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#192835: Jun 12th 2017 at 8:38:04 AM

[up]Heard about that. And I respond with this.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#192836: Jun 12th 2017 at 9:19:53 AM

Trump’s lawyer is completely out of his depth and giving bad legal advice: NYT report

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/06/trumps-lawyer-is-completely-out-of-his-depth-and-giving-bad-legal-advice-nyt-report/

President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer has stepped in to defend the president in what appears to be shaping up into an obstruction of justice investigation, but sources close to the White House say that attorney Marc Kasowitz is out of his depth and dispensing bad legal advice to the president and his aides.

The New York Times said on Sunday that Kasowitz has told White House personnel that they will not need to obtain legal representation of their own and urged them not to speak to the media about the investigation into Trump and his campaign’s ties to Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

“His visits to the White House have raised questions about the blurry line between public and private interests for a president facing legal issues. Mr. Kasowitz in recent days has advised White House aides to discuss the inquiry into Russia’s interference in last year’s election as little as possible, two people involved said. He told aides gathered in one meeting who had asked whether it was time to hire private lawyers that it was not yet necessary, according to another person with direct knowledge,” wrote the Times‘ Rebecca R. Ruiz and Sharon La Franiere.

For the president’s private lawyer to address administration officials — who are government employees — in such a manner and in an open setting is highly unusual, said lawyers from previous administrations to the Times. In doing so, Kasowitz bypassed the White House’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) and more than one attorney has reportedly been deterred from working with the White House by Kasowitz’ inexperience and lack of knowledge with cases of this kind.

Jeff Sessions makes last-minute request to testify in public so ‘people hear the truth directly’

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/06/jeff-sessions-makes-last-minute-request-to-testify-in-public-so-people-hear-the-truth-directly/

Attorney General Jeff Sessions reportedly wants his Tuesday testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee to be open to the public.

Following allegations that Sessions failed to disclose a third meeting with Russian officials, the attorney general canceled his Appropriations Committee testimony and agreed to testify in a closed session to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Democratic lawmakers scolded Sessions for refusing to answer questions in a session open to the American people. And on Monday, the former Alabama senator relented.

In a statement, the Department of Justice said that Sessions is calling for his Tuesday testimony to be available to the public.

“He believes it is important for the American people to hear the truth directly from him,” a spokesperson said.

edited 12th Jun '17 9:22:38 AM by sgamer82

TheWanderer Student of Story from Somewhere in New England (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
Student of Story
#192837: Jun 12th 2017 at 9:43:06 AM

Handel refused to speak with queer Georgia lawmaker who tried to talk with her about LGBT+ issues, police may have been called on said lawmaker after they tried to speak to Handel

Karen Handel, Republican candidate for Georgia’s 6th Congressional District, is still keeping quiet about her views on LGBT rights — even refusing to speak to a fellow elected official following a public debate about them.

According to Rewire, local area radio station WABE called the police on openly queer Rep. Park Cannon (D-Atlanta) after she tried to speak with Handel following a public debate on June 8.

During the Young Democrats of Georgia Stonewall Caucus’ meet-and-greet on June 9 with LGBT families and Democratic candidate Jon Ossoff, Cannon took the floor to speak about the experience, but did not mention her police escort to the crowd.

“Yesterday, I attended a debate. I was attending just to listen to what was happening at a public broadcasting station. After the debate was over, as an elected official, I wanted to do a little diplomatic work. I went up to the woman who was in the room who I just saw debate a man — let’s have that moment for a moment, women in the room — and I said to her, ‘You did a good job. And if you’re elected, I want to work with you. But I want to work with you on a specific issue, and that has to do with gay marriage and gay adoption. I have seen what you’ve been saying in the media, and as a gay person, I want to leverage what I have on the ground here in Georgia to help you,’” Cannon said. “She literally turned her head and walked away.”

Cannon said as Handel left, Ossoff remained to shake hands.

“He wasn’t scared to talk to the people that he is going to represent,” she said.

As Cannon left the debate space, she was approached by a staff member of WABE. Rewire reported that Cannon said the staffer “held his hands up against the door so that I could not exit the building,” and questioned her about the thumbs-up and–down gestures she made to the candidates, which Cannon told him she did in reference to their positions on various LGBT-related issues.

Cannon told Rewire the staffer “proceeded to call one police officer, and that police officer called another police officer.” Cannon was then able to leave.

Public Broadcasting Atlanta’s senior vice president of marketing and business strategy, Hilary Silverboard, responded to interview requests from Rewire with a statement about the incident. Public Broadcasting Atlanta oversees WABE.

“It was our agreement with the campaigns that there would not be an audience Q&A after the debate. Based upon this agreement, all audience members were asked to remain in the studio until the candidates had left,” Silverboard said in the statement. “WABE staff escorted Sec. Handel from the studio to the front door and asked for assistance from an officer when an audience member (whom we later learned was Rep. Cannon) followed rather than remaining in the studio as requested. The actions we took were consistent with what was communicated to the candidates and the audience, and was by no means an effort to suppress the views of Georgia state Rep. Cannon.”

Silverboard said WABE was to provide security for candidates while on the studio premises, and escorting Handel to the door away from audience members was honoring security protocol.

Right wing media figures are trying to argue in favor of firing Mueller to block investigation

There's nothing to investigate

Ann Coulter offered the argument that since Comey testified that Trump was not personally under investigation, there is nothing to investigate, and thus no need for a special counsel.

Ann Coulter twitter post: Now that we FINALLY got Comey to admit Trump not under investigation, Sessions should fire Mueller. Why do we need a special counsel now?

The problem here is that even if the president is personally innocent of any wrongdoing, there can still be significant legal jeopardy for people in his orbit.

Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn appears to be in hot water regarding his secret sources of foreign income, Attorney General Jeff Sessions made false statements under oath regarding his meetings with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, senior adviser Jared Kushner seems to have made false sworn statements on his security clearance paperwork regarding meeting an executive at a Russian bank that’s widely seen as a front for Russian intelligence, and Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort is facing questions about possible money laundering.

That’s all the kind of thing you might want investigated by someone outside the normal Department of Justice chain of command.

There’s a conflict of interest

Byron York of the Washington Examiner floats a different account: Mueller can’t investigate Comey because they used to work together.

“Comey,” York writes, “is a good friend of special counsel Robert Mueller — such a good friend, for about 15 years now, that the two men have been described as ‘brothers in arms.’”

The idea that Mueller is unfit to investigate a Republican administration because he served alongside Comey as a high-level appointee in the previous Republican administration is too ridiculous for York to outright endorse, so instead he frames his article as a reporting mission in which he consults with experts on the question of whether or not there’s a conflict of interest. York is unable to find a single person willing to go on the record as supporting his conflict of interest theory.

But he does find four anonymous lawyers, three of whom worked at one point for the Justice Department, to say it’s inappropriate for Mueller to head an investigation that involves Comey as a witness.

Mueller’s team is biased

Gingrich’s argument is more straightforward: Mueller is biased and unfair.

This is a bit of a hard sell. Mueller won a bronze star as a Marine in the Vietnam War. Ronald Reagan appointed him as US attorney for Massachusetts, George H.W. Bush appointed him an assistant attorney general, and George W. Bush as deputy attorney general and then later FBI director. He’s not a particularly partisan figure (he also served a couple of years as a Clinton-appointed US attorney, and Barack Obama extended his term as FBI director by two years,) but he’s generally regarded as a Republican, and has received Senate-confirmed appointments by each of the past five presidents.

But Gingrich's suggestion that we “look at who he is hiring” and “check FEC reports” hints at the broad outline of a case.

Andrew Weissmann, the head of the DOJ Criminal Division’s fraud section, for example, has gone to work for Mueller. That seems natural enough since Weissmann served as general counsel of the FBI when Mueller was director. But FEC reports show that Weissmann donated about $2,300 to the Obama/Biden campaign in 2008.

Jeannie Rhee, a former Justice Department lawyer who’s now a colleague of Mueller’s at Wilmer Hale donated to Obama, to Hillary Clinton, and to a few of Democratic senate candidates over the years.

James Quarles, a Watergate prosecutor and longtime Wilmer Hale attorney, was also a donor to Obama in 2008 and Clinton in 2016.

edited 12th Jun '17 9:49:26 AM by TheWanderer

| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
Wyldchyld (Old as dirt)
#192838: Jun 12th 2017 at 10:08:49 AM
Thumped: This post has been thumped with the mod stick. This means knock it off.
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.
ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#192839: Jun 12th 2017 at 10:32:09 AM
Thumped: This post has been thumped with the mod stick. This means knock it off.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#192840: Jun 12th 2017 at 11:26:20 AM

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/337416-covefe-act-would-make-social-media-a-presidential-record

Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) introduced legislation Monday to classify presidential social media posts — including President Trump's much-discussed tweets — as presidential records.

The Communications Over Various Feeds Electronically for Engagement (COVFEFE) Act, which has the same acronym as an infamous Trump Twitter typo last month, would amend the Presidential Records Act to include "social media."

Presidential records must be preserved, according to the Presidential Records Act, which would make it potentially illegal for the president to delete tweets.

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#192841: Jun 12th 2017 at 11:30:42 AM

That just makes it seem like he wants to preserve the president embarrassing himself for all eternity. (Really though it's probably pretty easy to retrieve deleted tweets, considering how many mirror or retweet Trump these days.)

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#192842: Jun 12th 2017 at 11:32:19 AM

[up] One probably would lead to the other, wouldn't it?

FireCrawler2002 Since: Apr, 2017
#192843: Jun 12th 2017 at 11:37:28 AM

[up][up][up] So that's what it actually stood for?

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#192844: Jun 12th 2017 at 11:44:24 AM

[up]No, the acronym is just an obvious jab at Trump.

Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#192845: Jun 12th 2017 at 11:51:56 AM

There is discussion about Donald's tweets being admissible evidence in the various court cases surrounding him so while an obvious jab it's not without practical purpose.

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#192846: Jun 12th 2017 at 11:52:04 AM

This is another piece of entertaining troll legislation from the Democrats. Like the others, it almost certainly will not pass Congress because the GOP knows exactly how bad it would be for them, but it still makes a great point. And a witty one! That's important!

It's a matter of much debate as to whether or not Trump's Twitter can be considered official government documentation. Trump wants it to be 'cause of his ego, but the GOP doesn't 'cause Trump's an idiot and doesn't understand how bad that would be for him.

If his Twitter account is considered a presidential record, then deleting a Tweet would be destruction of government documentation; a federal crime. Trump could literally be impeached and jailed because he deleted covfefe.

edited 12th Jun '17 11:52:23 AM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#192847: Jun 12th 2017 at 12:14:58 PM

On the other hand, banning the deletion of typos by government accounts is a bit much.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor
#192848: Jun 12th 2017 at 12:15:34 PM

Our legislators are actively trolling each other.

I don't know if I should laugh or cry.

New Survey coming this weekend!
Gilphon (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#192849: Jun 12th 2017 at 12:16:22 PM

But honestly though, I feel like this probably shouldn't pass- it would make it illegal for anyone to delete those tweets. So, like, if Twitter does bankrupt and has to shut down 20 years from now and has to shut down, they wouldn't be legally able to pull the plug on the website. Unless they kept record of Trump's tweets, I suppose, but if that works then Trump can get around this just as easily- and indeed one could argue that given how many copies of the tweet have already been made, he wouldn't really be destroying anything by deleting the original.

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#192850: Jun 12th 2017 at 12:25:34 PM

In the unlikely event that Twitter does go down, I don't know why they WOULDN'T have a way to record or save any one account's tweets in the future. In fact, in the odd event that it does pass, it'd probably become someone's job to make sure that these particular tweets are, in fact, saved.

Like, it's not that hard to preserve an account's records these days. Even if a company goes down, there's methods to make sure you save anything deemed important enough and store with the appropriate organization. That part isn't what the problem is.


Total posts: 417,856
Top