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

Clarste One Winged Egret Since: Jun, 2009 Relationship Status: Non-Canon
One Winged Egret
#236876: Mar 27th 2018 at 5:48:04 PM

I mean, I don't want to downplay bi-erasure, but in its full context the phrase comes across as just a slightly awkward/amusing rhetorical device.

edited 27th Mar '18 5:48:26 PM by Clarste

Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#236877: Mar 27th 2018 at 5:51:15 PM

By saying that you're explicitly downplaying bi-erasure, this would be fine if Nixon where a Lesbian but she is not.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#236878: Mar 27th 2018 at 5:53:49 PM

What kind of defense could be mounted to argue "I have the right to own a sawed-off shotgun"? Yeah, there was no defense at all, but the right conclusion was reached. While we should never fall to "the ends justify the means", just because the means were bad does not somehow invalidate the end result.
The idea that an issue can be tried in absentia without the accused allowed to defend themselves is anathema to the idea of justice. This issue would have theoretically determined whether or not Miller went to jail, remember — though the fact that he was dead ultimately makes that a moot point, it's still utterly antithetical to the principles of the criminal justice system. The accused has the right to defend themselves, full stop. Any case in which the accused is not allowed to defend themselves is a kangaroo court.

The attitude that "I like the outcome, so that makes it okay" appalls me.

And sometimes, maybe, "I don't like the conclusion the court reached" is the right response. Highly simplified, of course, but the general gist of it is that sometimes the courts will make decisions based on party policy and populist sentiment rather than genuine impartial consideration of what would be right, fair, and just. And sometimes they come to the wrong conclusion even if they did try to be impartial, because they're only human.
The correct response in that case is to pass a new law that moots the court's decision. In the case of gun control, that may entail amending the Constitution. If that's what it takes, so be it — I've said from the start that I'm 100% okay with the attitude that the Second Amendment is outdated and needs to be revised or eliminated.

But you can't just just dismiss a ruling as invalid if you don't like it and accept it if you do. That's not how rule of law works.

So what I'm saying is that interpreting the 2nd Amendment to somehow mean everyone has an uninfringeable right to own a gun is the wrong conclusion reached by the courts.
That's a strawman argument. The assertion was never that "everyone should always be allowed to have any gun they want, all the time". The case being argued in US vs Miller was that the Second Amendment gave him the right to "keep and bear" a short-barrelled shotgun. The ruling was that since short-barrelled shotguns have no military value and therefore no relevance to participation in "a well-regulated militia", banning them was not unconstitutional.

You know why that's a problem? Because short-barrelled shotguns do have military value. They were used extensively in WWI for clearing trenches (where a shotgun is more useful than a rifle, and the short barrel makes it easier to maneuver in tight quarters). Had Miller been allowed a defense, they certainly would have brought that up and the SCOTUS would have had to take that into account in their ruling.

This doesn't mean that they would have decided that short-barrelled shotguns are constitutionally protected, but it means they would have had to find a better justification for upholding the National Firearms Act than the one they gave. Why is this important? Because shitty rulings are easy to overturn. Someone could have theoretically brought the exact same case all the way back up to the SCOTUS just by pointing out that short-barrelled shotguns do actually have military value and are thus relevant to participation in a well-regulated militia.

Luckily for all parties, everyone seems to understand what a hatchet job US vs Miller was, and it was only cited seven times in further SCOTUS cases. Seven times in 80 years is not much.

Point is, good process makes for good rulings. If you do dumb things in the trial, you end up with dumb rulings. Dumb rulings are easier to get thrown out (or largely ignored, like US vs Miller was). If you end up with a ruling that's well-grounded in logic and precedent but results in an outcome you don't like, then change the law. That's how the system works.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Joesolo Indiana Solo Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Indiana Solo
#236879: Mar 27th 2018 at 5:53:51 PM

Yea bi =/= lesbian

I'm baaaaaaack
Clarste One Winged Egret Since: Jun, 2009 Relationship Status: Non-Canon
One Winged Egret
#236880: Mar 27th 2018 at 5:54:20 PM

I'm just saying it probably wasn't meant as an insult, not that she was correct to say it. Even read in its best light, it's still awkward, as I mentioned.

Clarste One Winged Egret Since: Jun, 2009 Relationship Status: Non-Canon
One Winged Egret
#236881: Mar 27th 2018 at 6:00:28 PM

Breaking this down, there are two parts to this: Was she correct to call her a lesbian? Factually, no. Nixon is bi, not lesbian.

But why did she call her a lesbian. Probably not to intentionally misidentify her. Probably instead to emphasize their similarities as queer women running for office. "I have nothing against lesbians, but I prefer smart ones like me to dumb ones like her." That kind of intent. That's what "unqualified lesbian" means.

Does that absolve her of her ignoranance of bisexuality? No, of course not. But I was answering the question of "why call her a lesbian at all?" Not any other question.

IE: I disagree with the idea that it's a dogwhistle. I think the speaker is ignorant, not malicious.

edited 27th Mar '18 6:04:21 PM by Clarste

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#236882: Mar 27th 2018 at 6:17:28 PM

"Unqualified lesbian"...when the other person is bisexual.

...Yeah, that's problematic.

Disgusted, but not surprised
RedSavant Since: Jan, 2001
#236883: Mar 27th 2018 at 6:26:26 PM

As a bisexual man myself, I'd actually consider it kind of funny - at least in a less combative setting. It does sound like she was trying to make a joke rather than sneering, but it ends up being a pretty dumb thing to say.

It's been fun.
KarkatTheDalek Not as angry as the name would suggest. from Somwhere in Time/Space Since: Mar, 2012 Relationship Status: You're a beautiful woman, probably
Not as angry as the name would suggest.
#236884: Mar 27th 2018 at 6:39:20 PM

"Unqualified lesbian" does kind of sound like "bi people aren't really LGBT+" (sounds weird, what with the B, yeah, but I don't know how some people here feel about the other words I could use).

Oh God! Natural light!
megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#236885: Mar 27th 2018 at 6:52:06 PM

Someone found this on Craig's List. I think it's a parody?

SEEKING LEAD ATTORNEY FOR DIFFICULT CLIENT (1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW)

compensation: Client is a hugely wealthy man. Hugely successful. Everyone says it.

Seeking a lead attorney to represent client involved in an ongoing Federal investigation. Must be familiar with laws and procedures around discovery, executive privilege, international financing of licensed real estate, election law and the Logan Act. Working knowledge of social media, especially Twitter is a plus, as is a better than average knowledge of the adult film industry and a collection of Playboy magazines from 1985-2010. Must look the part - Gregory Peck or Tommy Lee Jones type. Prior appearances on Fox News a huge plus. No fatties.

Must be prepared to work with a client who is very forceful and opinionated about his defense and is his own best counsel.

Basically your job boils down to keeping him from testifying under oath and hoping the rest comes out in the wash.

Ask about our other openings on our staff and submit your resume to be considered for potential openings in the near future. Perhaps the very near future. Like, hit refresh on your browser now. Now again.

I started a spreadsheet for all the Hard Russian Bots and Trolls that I found, if anyone wants to check it out. Right now, there isn't a lot on their yet, and it's just ones that I can be confident with identifying as Russian, so it's mostly harder stuff, and not necessarily related to American Politics (although some of it is.)

edited 27th Mar '18 9:16:52 PM by megaeliz

BearyScary Since: Sep, 2010 Relationship Status: You spin me right round, baby
#236886: Mar 27th 2018 at 7:32:59 PM

That ad is [lol]

Do not obey in advance.
nightwyrm_zero Since: Apr, 2010
#236887: Mar 27th 2018 at 7:53:31 PM

Notice the compensation line says nothing about paying you, just that the client is wealthy and successful. [lol]

rmctagg09 The Wanderer from Brooklyn, NY (Before Recorded History) Relationship Status: I won't say I'm in love
The Wanderer
#236888: Mar 27th 2018 at 9:31:12 PM

Crossposting from the East Asia thread:

Trump Secures Trade Deal With South Korea Ahead of Nuclear Talks:

President Trump scored his first significant trade deal this week, securing a pact with South Korea that represents the type of one-on-one agreement that Mr. Trump says makes the best sense for American companies and workers.

The deal, which is expected to be formally announced on Wednesday, opens the South’s market to American autos by lifting existing limits on manufacturers like Ford Motor and General Motors, extends tariffs for South Korean truck exports and restricts, by nearly a third, the amount of steel that the South can export to the United States. Mr. Trump used his threat of stiff steel and aluminum tariffs as a cudgel to extract the concessions he wanted, helping produce an agreement that had stalled amid disagreements this year.

But winning the deal may have had more to do with the geopolitical realities confronting the United States and South Korea as America embarks on tricky nuclear discussions with North Korea. The United States cannot afford a protracted trade standoff at a moment when it needs the South as an ally.

The trade deal came as the Chinese state news media reported that North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, made an unannounced visit to Beijing to meet with President Xi Jinping weeks before planned summit meetings with American and South Korean leaders.

The political success of the trade agreement — and its ability to be replicated in other negotiations — is not guaranteed. Many countries have reacted coolly to Washington’s pugilistic approach to trade, viewing the president’s preference to punch first and negotiate later as counter to global interests.

Hugging a Vanillite will give you frostbite.
megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#236889: Mar 27th 2018 at 9:56:19 PM

So apparently this 90s sitcom, Roseanne, just got a reboot with the main star being a Trump Supporter, just like her actress.

I haven't seen either version so I can't say if it's good, but Here's a review of the first episode. I do know who did like it though, Russian Bots.

[down] I'm not familiar with the show or the actress, honestly, so I can't really say.

edited 28th Mar '18 5:38:32 AM by megaeliz

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#236890: Mar 27th 2018 at 9:58:16 PM

Roseanne is a Trump supporter? Huh, her politics seemed like they were a different flavor of crazy.

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#236891: Mar 27th 2018 at 10:15:30 PM

According to this New York Times interview, she's one of those people who projects their idea of what they want Trump to be onto him. Her Trump is pro-LGBT and a champion of job-creation for the working class.

Also she doesn't like Mike Pence because she thinks Pence is a bigot.

Roseanne Conner has become a Trump supporter. How did that happen?

I just wanted to have that dialogue about families torn apart by the election and their political differences of opinion and how we handle it. I thought that this was an important thing to say at this time.

Was it your idea for Roseanne to back Trump?

Yes. Because it’s an accurate portrayal of these people and people like them. In terms of what they think, and how they feel when they are the ones who send their kids over to fight. We’ve been in wars for a long, long time, which everybody seems to forget — but working class people don’t forget it because their kids are in it.

Trump has had tough words for ABC. Did you get any pushback from ABC about making Roseanne a Trump supporter?

Not from ABC, no.

From who?

Everyone else in the world.

Why do you think?

You know, people only want to see — they want to stick to their narrative and they don’t want it shaken up. But, you know, I was like, ‘Oh, here we go. I’m just the person for this job.’

Considering that Trump opposes many of the principles that you and Roseanne Conner have stood for, how can you support him?

No, he doesn’t, I don’t think he does. I don’t think so at all. I think he voices them quite well.

I’m thinking of abortion rights, same-sex marriage rights, labor protections —

He doesn’t oppose same-sex marriage.

He doesn’t favor it. He has not come out in favor of it.

He does. Yes, he does. He has said it several times, you know, that he’s not homophobic at all.

What about labor union protections and blue collar workers, and

What do you mean, the — oh, let’s not get into this.

[A representative for Ms. Barr interjected: “You don’t have to get into it. We can move on.”]

Well, you know, it’s —

Yes, let’s do.

A question people wonder about.

Well, I think working-class people were pissed off about Clinton and NAFTA, so let’s start there. That’s what broke all the unions and we lost all our jobs, so I think that’s a large part of why they voted for Trump because they didn’t want to see it continue, where our jobs are shipped away. So, it’s more, why did people support shipping our jobs away?

Why is Trump O.K. but Pence is objectionable, by your lights?

I think Pence is not as good as Trump, not as accepting, and not as, you know — I think that he’s way more radical.

edited 27th Mar '18 10:17:40 PM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#236892: Mar 27th 2018 at 10:17:24 PM

Well, that's unfortunate...I don't know about the reboot, but at least this won't make me enjoy the old show any less.

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#236893: Mar 27th 2018 at 10:19:22 PM

Meh, I was never a fan of the original series anyway.

[up][up]

she's one of those people who projects their idea of what they want Trump to be onto him. Her Trump is pro-LGBT and a champion of job-creation for the working class.

So like pretty much every single Trump supporter.

edited 27th Mar '18 10:20:52 PM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#236894: Mar 27th 2018 at 10:22:38 PM

[up]It's apparently highly endorsed by Russian Bots, for whatever reason. It's actually kind of weird.

edited 27th Mar '18 10:48:27 PM by megaeliz

BearyScary Since: Sep, 2010 Relationship Status: You spin me right round, baby
pwiegle Cape Malleum Majorem from Nowhere Special Since: Sep, 2015 Relationship Status: Singularity
Cape Malleum Majorem
#236896: Mar 28th 2018 at 2:18:55 AM

Rosanne wasn't funny when she first started doing standup comedy. She's just loud, rude, and obnoxious. Shock value only works the very first time, after that it's just annoying.

This Space Intentionally Left Blank.
PhysicalStamina i'm tired, my friend (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
i'm tired, my friend
#236897: Mar 28th 2018 at 4:45:01 AM

I remember Chinese rapper Jin doing a diss track towards her after she made fun of Chinese people in exactly the way you think in one of her standup routines. For added irony, the track featured... Donald Trump.

i'm tired, my friend
megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#236898: Mar 28th 2018 at 5:24:31 AM

Something that may have been missed in the Discussion of Trump's Lawyer. Some speculate that Robert Mueller or one of his team may have been the one to tell Trump about his new Lawyers' conflict of interest.

thatindiantroper Since: Feb, 2015
#236899: Mar 28th 2018 at 5:30:47 AM

That review actually sounded mostly positive.

megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#236900: Mar 28th 2018 at 6:32:29 AM

#MuellerTime has come once again!

New Gates tie alleged in special counsel filing on van der Zwaan sentencing

(CNN) The special counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election revealed Tuesday night that prosecutors say they have connected former Trump deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates to a person with ties to a Russian intelligence service while Gates worked on the campaign.

That Gates and the unnamed person, who had lived in Kiev and Moscow and worked for one of Paul Manafort's companies, were in touch in September and October 2016 was "pertinent to the investigation," a court filing from prosecutors said Tuesday night.

The acknowledgment that Gates knew the person had Russian intelligence ties is alleged in a report prosecutors filed about the coming sentencing of a Dutch attorney. That attorney, Alex van der Zwaan, who worked with Gates and Manafort previously, pleaded guilty last month to lying to special counsel Robert Mueller's investigators about his interactions with Gates and the unnamed person.

The document can be read here

This goes in a bit more in depth.

Mueller's office says it "does not take a position" on the appropriate sentence for Van Der Zwaan, but points out that he is a lawyer at a major firm and he "lied regarding topics at the center of a significant investigation."

Mueller's office says it "does not take a position" on the appropriate sentence for Van Der Zwaan, but points out that he is a lawyer at a major firm and he "lied regarding topics at the center of a significant investigation."

Mueller's office says a prison sentence that would have Van Der Zwaan home for the birth of his child in August "would be within the recommended [Sentencing] Guidelines range."

edited 28th Mar '18 7:08:41 AM by megaeliz


Total posts: 417,856
Top