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

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#237176: Apr 1st 2018 at 7:57:26 AM

[up] In this case, it was supposedly a "joke". At least that's what the idiot's lawyer claimed.

Disgusted, but not surprised
megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#237177: Apr 1st 2018 at 7:57:33 AM

Thread regarding David Hogg

David, I'm the first person to retweet this message. It's one of just a few your had the opportunity to post before you became famous as a result of the worst moment in your life. I'm sorry to intrude, but to keep the bots off your back I've had to pull some data on your tweets.

I won't pretend to know you, but in these few messages, I can glimpse you as you were before your world turned upside down. A normal kid, who liked tech, basketball, photography, running the school news, surfing...

But even then, there were hints of the man you would grow to be.

I call you a man, because that is what you are now, forced into the role well before your time.

An aspiring Eagle Scout, socially conscious, concerned for refugees, who released a viral video even before this tragedy, and most tellingly to me, shot this photo of a #WWII veteran.

You were fond of quotations, once citing Marcus Aurelius, "The best revenge is to be unlike him who performed the injury."

As well as Jack Canfield, writing "Everything you want is on the other side of fear."

Why do I draw your attention to this now, a past that is so close yet so irretreivably distant? Because I want the man you are to remember the boy you were: his values, his passion, his honest zeal.

When you wander into the unknown, remember him.

In moments of confusion, and self-doubt, remember him. He'll know what to do. And you'll know how to do it.

Remember you haven't lost your bearings. You've simply wandered into uncharted territory.

And as for the bots and trolls tormenting you... You have certainly faced far worse. But you shouldn't have to face that in addition.

If you're still interested in learning to code, we'll be available. But in the meantime, we pulled this data so we can take care of those bots.

You've done more in weeks of your young life than most can dream of accomplishing in decades. Others will be jealous or threatened because you challenge the status quo. Don't let them scare you for a moment.

If you ever need us... We'll be watching out for you here.

Now I've got work to do. And so do you.

May we one day meet again under better circumstances. We're all tremendously proud. Good luck.

The Data will be published eventually, and will be turned over to Twitter.

edited 1st Apr '18 9:11:27 AM by megaeliz

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#237178: Apr 1st 2018 at 8:24:03 AM

Trump Tweeted out that he's no longer interested in a DACA deal (big surprise) and he's threatening Mexico via NAFTA if they don't clamp down on immigration. He also wants the GOP to go nuclear in the Senate.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/01/politics/trump-no-more-daca-deal/index.html

Busy morning I see. Maybe he's agitated about something?

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
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
#237179: Apr 1st 2018 at 8:47:08 AM

Maybe he's agitated about something?
Maybe it has something to do with this ...

Raging lunatic and former contender for Worst American Alive, Ann Coulter, sat down for an interview with the NY Times, where she says specifically that without the border wall, she and many other Americans will not vote Trump again. Full article text 

Donald Trump has a boatload of problems. Ann Coulter, the author of the 2016 book “In Trump We Trust,” is now one of them.

A week ago, when he signed a $1.3 trillion spending bill with nothing for his promised border wall, her frustrations with him turned into fury. And during a long conversation with me at The Times on Thursday, she sent him a warning about the wrath he’d face if the wall doesn’t rise: “The Former Trumpers should keep Donald Trump awake at night.”

Coulter isn’t just any Trump critic. She was one of his earliest and fiercest advocates. It’s for that reason that I pressed her to visit The Times. What follows is a condensed and edited transcript of our conversation. A longer version appears online.

Frank Bruni: You have become one of Trump’s fiercest critics. What happened? Ann Coulter: What was great about him being a coarse vulgarian was that he didn’t care about the opinions of Manhattan sophisticates. But something switched Nov. 8. Suddenly it was: “Please like me, Goldman Sachs.”

The $1.3 trillion spending bill that he signed last week sent you over the edge. This is a different category you’re seeing now: Former Trumpers. We have been betrayed over and over and over with presidents promising to do something about immigration. If he played us for suckers, oh, you will not see rage like you have seen.

You had a tweet just the other day in which you said: “Stormy says she and Trump had sex only once. I guess if you want the guy to screw you repeatedly you have to be one of his voters.” Does the Stormy Daniels story bother you? The fact that he’s totally walked away from his central campaign promises does change your opinion of things like that and how you evaluate them. I said throughout the campaign, “This is a one-time pass for a two-time divorcé.”

One month into Donald Trump’s presidency, you said, “So far, I give him an A-plus.” What’s his grade today? We’re halfway through the semester and he’s failing. He could still get ahead. There’s still a shot for extra credit.

Let me guess: It involves a wall. There is one thing he promised every single day for 18 months. That was the chant at every rally. I didn’t make this up.

We have written endlessly about Never Trumpers. What are Former Trumpers? This is not Never Trumpers. It was very easy to brush aside Jeb Exclamation Point. Charlie Sykes. Bill Kristol. The Former Trumpers are the ones who would die for Trump, who would defend him from anything, who did defend him and blew off the “Access Hollywood” tape — blew off everything. We kept coming back.

If he doesn’t have us anymore — that’s what he should be worried about, because, you play those people for suckers? The ones who stood by him through thick and thin and thought this was finally something different? Former Trumpers should put the fear of God in him.

Personally I give this statement a veracity of 0/10, because there's no way in hell she'd vote for Bernie, Kamala Harris, or any other Democrat even with a gun to her head. And I don't know if the GOP has anyone crazy enough to out-primary Trump.

And speaking of Republicans denying the existence of reality, an article about how the EPA is leading the charge in refusing to accept balanced, unbiased scientific research. Full article text 

The other day, Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, took yet another step to muzzle the scientific inquiry that for years has informed sound policy at an agency he seems determined to destroy. He told his subordinates that they could no longer make policy on the basis of studies that included data from participants who were guaranteed confidentiality. Over the years, such studies have been crucial to establishing links between mortality and pollution, led to regulations and saved many lives. Limiting policymakers to only those studies with publicly available health data greatly narrows the field of research.

This got us to searching again (we’ve been here before with Pruitt) for the word that best describes the Trump administration’s hostility to scientific inquiry. “Disdain” jumps to mind. Fourteen months into his term, President Trump has yet to name a director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, or any of the four associate directors authorized by Congress — jobs that have provided presidents for decades with unbiased counsel.

There’s another word: Fear. From the top down, the people who run this government seem absolutely terrified of scientific inquiry and the ways in which it could threaten Trump’s promise to ease regulations on fossil fuel companies and increase their profits, no matter the cost to public health and the planet. Think of it from Trump’s point of view. Why would he want a science adviser telling him that the link between climate change and the burning of fossil fuels is incontrovertible, that he should stick with the Paris agreement on climate change, that it’s a grave mistake to repudiate every one of President Obama’s efforts to slow the dangerous warming of the earth’s atmosphere?

Far better to stick his head in the sand, ostrichlike; do that, and the need for policies regulating greenhouse gas emissions or dangerous pollutants like soot and mercury magically disappears. Which is certainly Pruitt’s modus operandi. As Gina Mc Carthy, a former E.P.A. administrator, and her deputy for air quality, Janet Mc Cabe, said in a recent Times Op-Ed: “Pruitt’s goal is simple: No studies, no data, no rules.”

Pruitt has been averse to science and fact from Day 1. Last fall, he announced that scientists who receive or had received federal research grants would be barred from serving on the agency’s nearly two dozen scientific advisory committees. The purpose, he said, was to eliminate conflicts of interest; the real purpose, it soon became clear, was to create vacancies that he could fill with industry experts and state officials pushing for lax regulations — people whose own conflicts of interest would be left unexamined. As Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists noted at the time, Pruitt’s claim that federal funding should exclude scientists from an E.P.A. advisory board while industry funding should not exclude them was on its face absurd.

Though the E.P.A. is the epicenter of denial, avoiding inconvenient truths is common practice elsewhere in the administration. Last year, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke reassigned Joel Clement, the department’s director of policy analysis and top expert on the impact of climate change in the Arctic, to an accounting job (Clement resigned in protest). Zinke also ordered the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine to cancel two studies that conflicted with the administration’s goal of expanding domestic fossil fuel production. One was examining the health risks of people living near surface coal mining sites in Appalachia; the other sought ways of strengthening the department’s oil and gas safety inspection program.

Even the official vocabulary of global warming has changed. At the Agriculture Department, for instance, staff members are encouraged to use terms like “weather extremes” instead of “climate change.” Web pages about global warning have been removed, edited or buried throughout the government. Last week, E.P.A. staff members in regional offices received a list of talking points instructing them to tell people that “clear gaps remain including our understanding of the role of human activity” on global warming.

Trump’s economic advisers have reinforced this bias. His latest budget called for big funding cuts and in some cases elimination of programs aimed at protecting human health and building resilience against the effects of climate change — among them the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s coastal research program and the Energy Department’s energy efficiency and advanced technology programs. Congress wisely denied these cuts.

Pruitt is widely believed to be positioning himself for a run for governor in his home state, Oklahoma; he also seems to covet the attorney general’s office, and, astoundingly, is said to harbor presidential ambitions. But he and Zinke are unlikely to go anywhere soon, and as long as they have the support of the denier in chief, we can expect more disrespect for science and its practitioners.

Now, I understand - I, too, am justifiably upset with reality for not giving me super powers. But even though I don't like it, I can't deny the power reality holds over me.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw
Reflextion from a post-sanity world (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: What's love got to do with it?
#237180: Apr 1st 2018 at 9:03:52 AM

[up] On the one hand, more people not voting for Trump can only be a good thing (and more people actually A. getting their asses to the polls and B. voting for the f*cking Democratic candidate, would be even better, but I digress)

On the other, this kinda seems like Right for the Wrong Reasons

Someone did tell me life was going to be this way.
megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#237181: Apr 1st 2018 at 9:10:18 AM

I'm really happy that someone is trying to get at least some of the Bots that have been tomenting him off that poor kid's back. It's just a wonderful thing to do.

edited 1st Apr '18 9:12:42 AM by megaeliz

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#237182: Apr 1st 2018 at 9:17:29 AM

[up][up] It seems like what we've been seeing off and on for a while now: People turning on Trump or other Republicans because he's not crazy enough.

edited 1st Apr '18 9:17:42 AM by sgamer82

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#237183: Apr 1st 2018 at 9:19:02 AM

The best part of this is that it is impossible for the Wall promise to be fulfilled by 2020. Even with total cooperation and full funding (starting today), the logistics mean that not much visible work will be done by then.

The hardcore Trump voters who went with him because of his immigration stances would never vote Democrat, or them staying home or voting Libertarian or Constitution is best possible option. You won't win those types over (nor should you want to, unless they do a 180 on a host of political stances), these aren't the Obama-Trump types.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#237184: Apr 1st 2018 at 9:40:46 AM

@Reflextion: Not really. These are people who voted for someone who pandered to their hate on campaign and are now realizing that their candidate isn't able to force through their agenda.

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#237185: Apr 1st 2018 at 9:51:05 AM

A thought that just came to me. Any possibility that this might become something of a reminder that the office of President isn't the end-all be-all?

It's always been something of the face of the nation in general and the President's party in particular. That's why Trump does so much harm. But I'm wondering if more people, than just Trump himself, had a much different idea of what being President allowed one to do. I would think Obama would've been proof of that, but even if he wasn't, this is a President who shares his party with the congressional majority and, as I've said before, their only big achievements are either already blowing up in their faces (the tax bill) or were achieved solely through Screw the Rules, I Make Them! (Supreme Court)

edited 1st Apr '18 9:53:25 AM by sgamer82

Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#237186: Apr 1st 2018 at 10:00:01 AM

On the other, this kinda seems like Right for the Wrong Reasons
Quite right but it was inevitable, the people who stay with Trump but decide to abandon him won't do it because of some epiphany regarding how terrible he is. Rather they'll do it because he's not actually accomplishing anything and they want their bigotry to be actually done.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
hardcorefakes coolest_guy from probably America Since: Oct, 2015 Relationship Status: You cannot grasp the true form
coolest_guy
#237188: Apr 1st 2018 at 1:41:34 PM

Has anyone ever informed Trump that he can't just "stop" NAFTA?

megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#237189: Apr 1st 2018 at 1:44:47 PM

[up] He wouldn't listen even if they did.

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#237190: Apr 1st 2018 at 1:45:16 PM

Well, he can't split three interdependent economies (even if he put up massive tariffs, it would just cause damage but the free trade genie is out of the bottle), but the legal case for him eliminating NAFTA unilaterally is unclear. Some think he can, others think he needs Congressional approval (which would never happen).

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
singularityshot Since: Dec, 2012
#237191: Apr 1st 2018 at 2:41:35 PM

I'd give Obama a pass on the whole "the Presidency ain't all it was cracked up to be" thing. I don't think anyone predicted how obstructionist the Republicans were going to be as a response to his election - or at least I don't remember any warning signs.

Now however - I think both sides are aware of the limitations of the Presidency. That said, we have all thought at least a few times this year about things Trump could do that we really wish he couldn't, simply because "there ain't no rule / we thought it went without saying" was in effect. Someone really does need to go through with a fine tooth comb and close all the loopholes that Trump made apparent through his unprecedented self-serving attitude.

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#237192: Apr 1st 2018 at 2:58:46 PM

Those loopholes might involve changing the Constitution though, which is practically impossible and definitely going to get messy.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
singularityshot Since: Dec, 2012
#237193: Apr 1st 2018 at 3:12:23 PM

Tough one really - it depends on the nature of the loophole.

If it is down to an interpretation of something written in the constitution - yup, don't want to touch that with a fifty foot barge pole.

If however it is an omission from the constitution then there might be a chance - as long as it is initiated from the executive branch. We've seen legislators wring their hands over protecting Muller, because they would see such an action as a constitutional overreach by the legislature on an executive branch function. (It also conveniently allows them to do nothing, trusting in Donald Trump's better insticts.) If however the executive initiated a rule protecting the independence of a special prosecutor and asked Congress to ratify it through legislation then surely that could be justified as it is the executive branch willingly tieing it's own hands.

megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#237194: Apr 1st 2018 at 4:13:08 PM

[up] an easy thing would be to pass a bill requiring presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns. It's been the custom for years now, and should be cemented into law.

edited 1st Apr '18 4:46:12 PM by megaeliz

megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#237195: Apr 1st 2018 at 4:38:54 PM

I just found out my awesome, goofy, fun, uncle, also believes that the San Bernadino, Parkland, and Sandy Hook were faked, and that the Parkland Kids were actors. As he was working on his OH model train layout, he completely seriously told me about how it was all a drill, and people were faking it, but it always gets taken off the Internet really quickly, in the same goofy way as normal.

We talk about things like Q Annon, and other conspiracy that are outright unconnected from reality, and the obvious conspiracy nuts, but this is something more subtle, and more insidious. Instead, it's inserting Disinformation narratives into seemingly "objective" reporting, rather than making it up wholesale.

edited 1st Apr '18 5:31:14 PM by megaeliz

RedSavant Since: Jan, 2001
#237196: Apr 1st 2018 at 5:25:52 PM

Ah, that's a damn shame. Reminds me of the time my sisters and I nearly got into a shouting row with our lesbian cousin, who for some reason thought Mitt Romney was the pro-LGBT candidate in 2012.

It's been fun.
Deadbeatloser22 from Disappeared by Space Magic (Great Old One) Relationship Status: Tsundere'ing
#237197: Apr 1st 2018 at 5:29:40 PM

Like how Trump holding a rainbow flag (upside down) for a photo-op proved he was the only pro-LGBT candidate in 2016?

I'm still trying to get my head around the logic people used to reach that conclusion.

"Yup. That tasted purple."
RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#237198: Apr 1st 2018 at 5:31:14 PM

There's a right way up?

Deadbeatloser22 from Disappeared by Space Magic (Great Old One) Relationship Status: Tsundere'ing
#237199: Apr 1st 2018 at 5:36:58 PM

The red stripe generally goes at the top.

"Yup. That tasted purple."
megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#237200: Apr 1st 2018 at 5:38:43 PM

And he's a dad to a seven year old daughter.

I know he's a kind, compassionate, loving person, who's better than this.

edited 1st Apr '18 5:45:42 PM by megaeliz


Total posts: 417,856
Top