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

Deadbeatloser22 from Disappeared by Space Magic (Great Old One) Relationship Status: Tsundere'ing
#241751: May 10th 2018 at 9:05:52 AM

"First time in ten years" conveniently means they can make it something to blame the Dems in general and Obama in particular for, whether it's true or not.

"Yup. That tasted purple."
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#241752: May 10th 2018 at 9:13:10 AM

[up][up] Heck, I'm sick of op-ed sections in general. CNN, New York Times...

Disgusted, but not surprised
megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#241753: May 10th 2018 at 9:29:44 AM

De Vos Moves to Loosen Restrictions on Federal Aid to Religious Colleges

WASHINGTON — Education Secretary Betsy De Vos, a lifelong advocate of Christian education, moved on Wednesday to loosen federal regulations on religious colleges and universities, after a Supreme Court decision that restricted states from denying some kinds of aid to religious institutions.

The measure is part of a sweeping deregulatory agenda for the Education Department announced on Wednesday by the White House budget office, which outlined several rules and regulations for the department to scrap or amend. Among those are rules that restrict faith-based entities from receiving federally administered funding.

“Various provisions of the department’s regulations regarding eligibility of faith-based entities and activities do not reflect the latest case law regarding religion or unnecessarily restrict religion,” said Liz Hill, an Education Department spokeswoman. “The department plans to review and to amend such regulations in order to be more inclusive.”

Education Department officials appear to be targeting regulations that would pose a legal risk after the Supreme Court ruled in June that states must sometimes provide aid to faith-based organizations. In the decision, Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia Inc. v. Comer, the court ruled that Missouri had engaged in unconstitutional religious discrimination when it denied a church-run preschool publicly funded tire scraps for its playground.

Additionally, Attorney General Jeff Sessions released a memo last fall in which he listed 20 principles that should guide agencies in enforcing federal laws.

“Except in the narrowest circumstances, no one should be forced to choose between living out his or her faith and complying with the law,” Mr. Sessions wrote. “Therefore, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, religious observance and practice should be reasonably accommodated in all government activity, including employment, contracting and programming.”

The administration may be adopting an expansive interpretation of the Trinity decision. The funding at issue in the decision was for a nonreligious activity. Last week the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the decision did not prohibit New Jersey from denying state aid to repair damaged sanctuaries because that would support religion.

That is not stopping Ms. De Vos. The department plans to review regulations, keeping an eye out for provisions that “unnecessarily restrict participation by religious entities” and “to reduce or eliminate unnecessary burdens and restrictions on religious entities and activities,” according to the department’s explanation of its proposals.

In the case of religiously affiliated colleges and universities participating in federal student aid programs, the department said that some provisions of the Higher Education Act may be “overly broad in their prohibition of activities or services that relate to sectarian instruction or religious worship,” or “in prohibiting the benefits a borrower may receive based on faith-based activity.”

A number of little-known religious prohibitions are cemented in federal law when it comes to higher education and other faith-based entities gaining access to federal funding.

For example, regulations prohibit work-study financial aid for work that involves “the construction, operation or maintenance of any part of a facility used or to be used for religious worship or sectarian instruction.” And a popular grant program called Gear Up, which funds tutors, mentors and other outreach efforts for at-risk youths, prohibits state education departments from pairing with institution that are “pervasively sectarian.”

Advocates for religious education cheered the Trinity decision, which they said bolstered the constitutional case for allowing taxpayer funds to pay for vouchers to religious elementary and secondary schools. But few observers saw implications for higher education.

Now they do.

“We appreciate Secretary De Vos’s commitment to ensuring students are able to obtain quality educations at the institutions of higher education that will best serve their needs, including religious colleges and universities,” President Shirley V. Hoogstra of the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities said in a statement. “Eliminating or revising regulations that impose undue and outdated restrictions on religious institutions is an important and welcome development.”

To the chagrin of Democrats and civil rights advocates, religious colleges and universities have made public their decisions to forgo federal funding, usually to be exempt from federal civil rights laws.

“It’s extremely disappointing to see Secretary De Vos doubling down on the Trump administration’s extreme anti-education agenda and is once again considering steps to roll back critical student protections,” Senator Patty Murray, the ranking member on the education committee, said in a statement.

Those passing up federal aid include Hillsdale College in Michigan, whose alumni include Ms. De Vos’s brother, Erik Prince, and which has benefited from large donations from the De Vos family. Ms. De Vos, who has repeatedly been questioned about her department’s commitment to defunding religious schools that discriminate, attended Christian schools all of her life and sent her own children to them.

In 2016, the Education Department published a database of colleges that received religious exemptions, particularly from rules prohibiting discrimination against gay, lesbian and transgender employees and students.

The De Vos administration had continued publishing the database, which lists 61 institutions that have requested exemptions, and has expanded it to include the correspondence between the department and the schools.

Advocates of a House Republican bill reauthorizing the Higher Education Act also say they hope to restore First Amendment rights that have been trampled under federal law. Under the House bill, called the Prosper Act, religious colleges would be able to bar same-sex relationships, and religious student groups could ban others who do not share their faith.

I go to a Catholic Liberal Arts College, that was originally founded by the Sisters of Mercy [1]. But I don't think that's what they mean when they say "religious colleges".

What they're really saying here is conservative religious colleges

edited 10th May '18 9:55:10 AM by megaeliz

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#241754: May 10th 2018 at 10:15:44 AM

[up] And yet she's doing jack shit about student debt.

Ugh.

Disgusted, but not surprised
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#241755: May 10th 2018 at 10:21:44 AM

Republicans; straining commitments to avoid midweek drinking everywhere.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
danime91 Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: Above such petty unnecessities
#241756: May 10th 2018 at 10:24:56 AM

Kudos to those still hanging on to that commitment. Pretty sure this administration has caused alcoholism rates in Democratic voters to skyrocket.

Raptorslash Since: Oct, 2010
#241757: May 10th 2018 at 10:24:59 AM

I imagine she's more talking about places like Liberty University.

(Seriously, what is it with Republicans and throwing patriotism/freedom/liberty imagery and language around? It was always irritating and after everything involving Russia it's downright hypocritical. I know Democrats use it, too, but not as much.)

edited 10th May '18 10:25:14 AM by Raptorslash

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#241758: May 10th 2018 at 10:26:04 AM

[up][up] Maybe they're trying to drive us to drink ourselves to death. Or at least make us too drunk to vote.

Disgusted, but not surprised
PhysicalStamina i'm tired, my friend (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
i'm tired, my friend
#241759: May 10th 2018 at 10:46:35 AM

Seriously, what is it with Republicans and throwing patriotism/freedom/liberty imagery and language around?

Their voters get off to it.

i'm tired, my friend
archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#241760: May 10th 2018 at 10:50:05 AM

[up] Democrats like it too, though not quite to the same degree. The US is surprisingly nationalistic across the whole political spectrum. We have an outsize degree of militarism as well.

They should have sent a poet.
Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#241761: May 10th 2018 at 10:53:42 AM

I'm reminded of a scene from a movie where a Republican running for reelection is asked by his chief of staff what he stands for. He replied:

"Freedom, Jesus, and America!"

The chief of staff asks what that means and the Republican answers scoffingly, "Shit, I don't know. But they love when I say it!"

PhysicalStamina i'm tired, my friend (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
i'm tired, my friend
#241762: May 10th 2018 at 11:35:19 AM

[up][up]You won't hear Democrats spewing it in every speech they give like they have a quota to meet or shoehorning it into every bill they propose, though.

edited 10th May '18 11:35:31 AM by PhysicalStamina

i'm tired, my friend
ElSquibbonator Since: Oct, 2014
#241763: May 10th 2018 at 11:38:23 AM

Now that we're out of the Iran Nuclear Deal, how long do you give it before it starts impacting Trump's approval? I read somewhere that 94% of US national security experts think withdrawing from it was the wrong thing to do.

FluffyMcChicken My Hair Provides Affordable Healthcare from where the floating lights gleam Since: Jun, 2014 Relationship Status: In another castle
My Hair Provides Affordable Healthcare
#241764: May 10th 2018 at 11:45:36 AM

M84: Maybe they're trying to drive us to drink ourselves to death. Or at least make us too drunk to vote.

You're close. See, they're actually trying to get us drunk enough to the point where they can then call up some favors from friends in places in order to lace the US' alcohol supply with Russian cocktail mixes.

edited 10th May '18 11:46:16 AM by FluffyMcChicken

tclittle Professional Forum Ninja from Somewhere Down in Texas Since: Apr, 2010
Professional Forum Ninja
#241765: May 10th 2018 at 11:50:47 AM

Guiliani abruptly resigns from his law firm, Greenberg Trarig, and said law firm immediately undercuts Guilani's words from earlier this week saying hush payments are common at said firm.

[[note]]

President Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, abruptly resigned from his law firm, Greenberg Traurig, the firm announced on Thursday, then promptly undercut his recent statements defending the president.

Mr. Giuliani had taken a leave of absence last month from the firm, one of the nation’s largest, to represent Mr. Trump. But the firm said in a statement that he no longer worked there.

Firm partners had chafed over Mr. Giuliani’s public comments about payments that another of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Michael D. Cohen, made to secure the silence of a pornographic film actress who said she had an affair with Mr. Trump. The president has denied her allegations.

Mr. Giuliani suggested that such payments were common at his firm, even without the knowledge of the clients. “That was money that was paid by his lawyer, the way I would do, out of his law firm funds,” he said on Fox News. He added, “Michael would take care of things like this like I take care of this with my clients.”

The New York Times asked Greenberg Traurig about those remarks early this week. Shortly after Mr. Giuliani’s resignation was announced, the firm responded.

“We cannot speak for Mr. Giuliani with respect to what was intended by his remarks,” said a spokeswoman, Jill Perry. “Speaking for ourselves, we would not condone payments of the nature alleged to have been made or otherwise without the knowledge and direction of a client.”

Mr. Trump has publicly denied knowing about the payments as they were made. Mr. Giuliani said the president reimbursed Mr. Cohen for them, an arrangement he said was routine. Mr. Giuliani had to walk back many of his comments.

In the statement, Greenberg Traurig said that Mr. Giuliani had resigned effective Wednesday. “After recognizing that this work is all consuming and is lasting longer than initially anticipated, Rudy has determined it is best for him to resign,” said the firm’s chairman, Richard A. Rosenbaum.

Mr. Giuliani said in the statement that it “is in everyone’s best interest that I make it a permanent resignation” so he can focus on the special counsel’s investigation.

Lawyers at Greenberg Traurig are sensitive about their public image. In 2005, one of its lobbyists, Jack Abramoff, was implicated at the center of a wide-ranging corruption scandal that shook Washington.

Firm members bristled in 2016 when Mr. Giuliani played an aggressive, pit-bull-style surrogate role on Mr. Trump’s behalf during the presidential campaign. After Mr. Trump’s inauguration, when it became clear that Mr. Giuliani would not get the job he wanted — secretary of state — he kept a relatively low profile at the request of his colleagues.

But Mr. Giuliani has enjoyed the public-relations work he has been doing for Mr. Trump, according to three people who have spoken with him. Much like his client, Mr. Giuliani, a former New York mayor, prefers being untethered, they said.

And despite Mr. Trump’s grousing about Mr. Giuliani’s gaffes, the president has also told people that Mr. Giuliani is putting out information that the president wants to be part of the public conversation, particularly about the special counsel inquiry.

What’s more, Mr. Trump’s team functions better as a collection of free agents as opposed to major names tied to a big firm, which imposes strong restrictions, according to one person familiar with the situation.

One person close to Mr. Giuliani said that his serving in the administration in some role eventually was a possibility and had been the subject of informal conversations he had with the president.

Many of the country’s top law firms have resisted the prospect of their lawyers representing the president. As Mr. Trump tried to rebuild his legal team this spring, firms told their top lawyers that if they wanted to represent the president, they would have to resign.

The firms were concerned about Mr. Trump’s longstanding history of ignoring his lawyers’ advice and apparent failure to pay his bills, and backlash from employees who did not want to work for a firm that was representing Mr. Trump.

[/note]]

"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."
TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#241766: May 10th 2018 at 12:00:32 PM

The Fairness Doctrine doesn't need to be brought back. It requires broadcasters to discuss controversial issues of public interest, and to give equal time to both sides of said issues. If you note, that means global warming denialism, trickle down economics, and all manner of right-wing BS would get presented as equal.

As opposed to now, in which global warming denialism, trickle down economics, and all manner of right-wing BS are given the entire platform to present their views as the absolute, undeniable truth.

Right-wing propaganda thrives in the absence of the Fairness Doctrine, because it means that you can say things like "Climate change is a Chinese hoax," and then just repeat those messages over and over on your platform without ever even suggesting that someone disagrees with it, and that's considered legitimate reporting.

What you're afraid of is already happening ten times worse. It's the reason the Republicans abolished the thing in the first place, because it means they are now allowed to define reality in the eyes of their viewers through the simple practice of presenting a distorted perspective as absolute truth. We will never be able to combat the Right's propaganda until people like the Most Watched News Network in America can be held to account for what they're feeding the Most Watchers.

Seriously, what is it with Republicans and throwing patriotism/freedom/liberty imagery and language around?

Their entire platform is built on nationalism. "AMERICA, F*CK YEAH!!!" is one of the ways they keep people so emotionally invested in their message that they don't even bother looking at its content.

The Republicans have built their brand around the idea that they are awesome dudes and you should vote for them because everything they say feels right, in the sense that it's satisfying to here. They're the "Good Guys" in the never-ending battle against terrorists, baby-murderers, and all the other sinister forces conspiring to take your guns and eat your children.

edited 10th May '18 12:03:54 PM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#241767: May 10th 2018 at 12:05:40 PM

[up] Under a reinstated Fairness Doctrine, every non-Fox news network would be required to give equal time to the idea of global warming being a Chinese hoax if they wanted to discuss climate change.

You're right that we need to combat the spread of misinformation, the Fairness Doctrine just isn't the way to do it. It's basically institutionalized bothsiderism. We need something a little more robust than that.

Having basic editorial standards required by law for broadcast news would be a start.

They should have sent a poet.
CrimsonZephyr Would that it were so simple. from Massachusetts Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
Would that it were so simple.
#241768: May 10th 2018 at 12:15:12 PM

The problem isn't the loss of the fairness doctrine, which would simply mandate that Alex Jones be given equal time as experts. The problem is that fake news, genuinely fake news, not the Trumpian doublethink kind, is big money. What we need is more robust funding for public broadcasting, more stringent standards for factchecking and editorializing, possibly even restrictions on campaign speeches ending up on news broadcasts (like, for example, only a maximum of 10% of the total speech can be broadcast continuously and multiple sentences must be broadcast together, rather than as soundbites).

edited 10th May '18 12:19:04 PM by CrimsonZephyr

"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."
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
#241769: May 10th 2018 at 12:17:19 PM

How feasible would it be for the FCC to apply a finenote  to news programs for anything that could be proven factually wrong in court?

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw
CrimsonZephyr Would that it were so simple. from Massachusetts Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
Would that it were so simple.
#241770: May 10th 2018 at 12:20:04 PM

Impossible since the FCC board is mandated to have a 4-3 split. Anything implemented by one administration would be struck down the second the executive changes hands to the opposite party.

edited 10th May '18 12:20:18 PM by CrimsonZephyr

"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."
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
#241771: May 10th 2018 at 12:29:39 PM

If Fox got bankrupted for lying than the changes of the Republicans taking control of the executive again go down dramatically.

Also as I’ve pointed out before, the fairness doctrine doesn’t require equal time, it requires balance and accuracy as defined by the FCC, which depending on who controls the FCC could mean balance based on evidence and connectivity to reality, or it could mean balance in the way Trump defines it (the false and self serving way).

FCC control really shouldn’t be up for election every 4 years.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Raptorslash Since: Oct, 2010
#241772: May 10th 2018 at 12:39:19 PM

Same. With the FCC constantly yo-yoing between the party in control, who has that influence over what's "fair" could change, and we'd have net neutrality killed every time we had a Republican in office.

The FCC isn't a neutral player.

megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#241773: May 10th 2018 at 12:50:03 PM

[up][up] Agreed.

So what should it look like instead?

Larkmarn Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Hello, I love you
#241774: May 10th 2018 at 12:58:50 PM

[up] Legislation.

Now that we're out of the Iran Nuclear Deal, how long do you give it before it starts impacting Trump's approval? I read somewhere that 94% of US national security experts think withdrawing from it was the wrong thing to do.

94% is a genuinely surprising number. Because frankly it seems low for an honest number, but too high for any reported number. Because frankly, I'm pretty sure that 100% of informed experts believe it's bad. So I'm surprised that only 6% have gone down the rabbithole to say "yeah nah, it's good."

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
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
#241775: May 10th 2018 at 1:06:53 PM

You can legistlate for the FCC to become either non-partisan or have the chair not change every time control of the White House changes.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

Total posts: 417,856
Top