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

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#244226: Jun 2nd 2018 at 1:56:26 PM

This is literally how Prohibition resulted in the mafia.

The difference being that Prohibition, whatever its myriad other failings, actually did reduce rates of alcoholism, liver cirrhosis, alcohol-related mental illness, etc. While as far as I know current laws against sex trafficking have failed to reduce trafficking at all.

fruitpork Since: Oct, 2010
#244227: Jun 2nd 2018 at 2:04:36 PM

Yeah before prohibition alcohol has been described as the crystal meth of its day. It also led to a lot of spousal abuse as factory workers (understandably) drank their troubles and then (not understandably) started beating their wives.

Lorsty Since: Feb, 2010
#244228: Jun 2nd 2018 at 2:05:58 PM

"We should declare war on any country that puts tariffs on us but the ***ing dems won't let us. Do you still think our president is the traitor here?"

Why yes Mr. Random Internet Dweller I found in reddit, I still do.

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#244229: Jun 2nd 2018 at 2:07:55 PM

Is said dweller aware that France and the UK could turn a decent portion of the US into radioactive craters?

Also, as bad as the GOP is right now, I don't see any of them calling for war with the rest of NATO.tongue

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
kkhohoho (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#244230: Jun 2nd 2018 at 2:09:10 PM

[up]x6

The current projection for job losses is what, 150k?

Try 2 million.

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#244231: Jun 2nd 2018 at 2:09:42 PM

Yeah before prohibition alcohol has been described as the crystal meth of its day. It also led to a lot of spousal abuse as factory workers (understandably) drank their troubles and then (not understandably) started beating their wives.

There was a drop in infant mortality too during Prohibition, simply because parents were less likely to be drunk while pregnant and/or looking after their children.

Prohibition gets a bad rap, much of it deserved, but it's worth remembering that, unlike some of its more modern equivalents, it was brought in due to a real problem, and while it might not have been the best solution to said problem, it did have an effect on it at least.

edited 2nd Jun '18 2:12:21 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

fruitpork Since: Oct, 2010
#244232: Jun 2nd 2018 at 2:12:42 PM

[up]Could also be due to fetal alcohol syndrome. It was a feminist issue, too; see the spousal abuse.

DeathorCake Since: Mar, 2016
#244233: Jun 2nd 2018 at 2:17:26 PM

[up][up][up]

Can I ask where you got that number from? I can only find this projection on a couple of different sites: https://qz.com/1293821/trump-trade-war-146000-us-job-will-be-lost-to-steel-tariffs/ plus an upper-end estimate of 470k on the BBC. Apparently the UK sells the US some fancy steel stuff that you use in your military, which is news to me but might mean we can sue you (well, the EU can) through the WTO for unlawful tariff imposition. Yeah, like that's going to work.

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#244234: Jun 2nd 2018 at 2:18:56 PM

Could also be due to fetal alcohol syndrome. It was a feminist issue, too; see the spousal abuse.

I figured FAS fell under the "drunk while pregnant" banner.

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#244235: Jun 2nd 2018 at 2:26:07 PM

@Ambar: Joking about Trump wanting to bang Ivanka is not the same as joking that Ivanka should bang Trump.

kkhohoho (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#244236: Jun 2nd 2018 at 2:27:40 PM

[up][up][up]Here you go.

edited 2nd Jun '18 2:28:01 PM by kkhohoho

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#244237: Jun 2nd 2018 at 2:31:16 PM

@Ambar: Joking about Trump wanting to bang Ivanka is not the same as joking that Ivanka should bang Trump.

Good thing that's not what the joke was about, huh? The joke is that to have any influence over her father, she'd have to play to his desire to bang her, because that's the shit she's chosen to be complicit in.

But sure, keep on trying to exaggerate the heinousness of Bee's joke, and hold her to standards no male comedian is held to.

CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#244238: Jun 2nd 2018 at 3:19:04 PM

My rebuttal is different to the Samantha Bee situation.

It was a shitty joke and not terribly funny or good social commentary.

Re: Prohibition

I think the problem with that reasoning is basically the same with the War on Drugs. Many drugs do have horrifying addiction rates and are poison to the body that leaves people in serious jeopardy but the war against them have exhausted the police as well as killed tens of thousands of people.

edited 2nd Jun '18 3:21:46 PM by CharlesPhipps

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#244239: Jun 2nd 2018 at 3:35:30 PM

I think the problem with that reasoning is basically the same with the War on Drugs. Many drugs do have horrifying addiction rates and are poison to the body that leaves people in serious jeopardy but the war against them have exhausted the police as well as killed tens of thousands of people.

Point was over there, you missed it. No one's defending Prohibition. We're saying it did a better job of accomplishing its goals than current anti-sex trafficking laws did. We're not defending the former, we're bashing the latter.

CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#244240: Jun 2nd 2018 at 3:42:55 PM

I was just saying that's an interesting point to bring up with a related subject.

When (not if) drugs are legalized, shit will hit the fan in certain areas.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#244241: Jun 2nd 2018 at 3:51:01 PM

Of course. Private prisons will have to downsize because they won't be able to mass-charge the black population with intent to sell. Think of the unemployment.

CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#244242: Jun 2nd 2018 at 3:51:40 PM

I can see Trump saying that straight-faced.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
MorningStar1337 The Encounter that ended the Dogma from 🤔 Since: Nov, 2012
The Encounter that ended the Dogma
#244243: Jun 2nd 2018 at 3:59:10 PM

And I can see Trump unironiclay being a fan of The Dukes of Hazzard. Fitting too because he's both racist, a Duke in a sense and a definite hazard.

edited 2nd Jun '18 3:59:36 PM by MorningStar1337

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#244244: Jun 2nd 2018 at 4:05:00 PM

I mean, haven't people unironically argued that changing drug laws would be bad because it would put a lot of people who work in prisons out of work? I'm sure somehow was supposed to be taken seriously has said something like that.

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
#244245: Jun 2nd 2018 at 5:15:38 PM

There a reason we're suddenly holding Bee to a higher standard?

A lot of it seems to be because she used the word cunt, aparently that realy set people of.

Nobody else seems to get this level of shtishown over making jokes about Ivanka and Trump fucking, even though there’s the uncomfortable undercurrent that it might actully have happened and as such Ivanka could be a case of sexual grooming by Trump and as such a victim of him.

It may also come down to the fact that Bee is a women though.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#244246: Jun 2nd 2018 at 5:18:02 PM

Again, I'm reminded of when Bill Maher called Sarah Palin that word. How was the reaction then? I don't know if he apologized, but he seems much less the type to do so anyway.

megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#244247: Jun 2nd 2018 at 5:19:10 PM

More about possibly Sanctioning Trump's companies.

Trade sanctions against America won’t work. Sanctioning Trump himself might.

French President Emmanuel Macron, who entertained President Trump with pomp, circumstance, and backslaps could not prevent him from abandoning the Paris Agreement. Germany’s persuasive Chancellor Angela Merkel could not stop him from undermining NATO. And our own government’s exhaustive diplomatic campaign has failed to protect us from the punishing steel tariffs announced today in Washington.

For Canada and the western allies, diplomatic success in the era of Trump has only meant delaying the inevitable. Eventually, with the inexplicable exception of Russia, Trump punches everyone in the nose.

We are fighting back. Within hours Prime Minister Trudeau announced that we would be adding duties to imported American paper products, among many other things. Likewise, Mexico has promised targeted tariffs, hoping to inflict retaliatory pain on those states which are considered the most politically important to the President.

These efforts, like the diplomatic strategies before now, will not work. If Trump revokes the tariffs, or begins to support NATO, or returns to the Paris Accord, it will not be because our diplomats became more persuasive, our offers more generous, or our tariffs more painful. That is not how this President operates.

As I’ve pointed out before, the President can be successfully engaged, and countries like Ukraine, China, and Qatar have demonstrated this. When they want something from the United States, they skip the State Department, and even the White House staff. Instead of approaching their problem state-to-state, they go state-to-man. These countries focus on what Trump wants on a personal level – to enrich his family. So Beijing granted Ivanka trademarks, Qatar invested in one of Jared’s office towers, and Ukraine, with Slavic candor, simply wired half a million dollars to the President’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen.

For the most part, the western allies understand that if we want the U.S. to do something we must negotiate with the man himself. What we have not grasped yet is, as strange as it sounds, the President of the United States is more concerned about promoting his interests than defending America’s.

Consider that Trump refuses to censure Russia for interfering in the election, because while it may have hurt America, it helped him. And even though these new tariffs will likely cost the U.S. over 140,000 jobs (according to the conservative Heritage Foundation), he will not repeal them because they make him look strong to his base. Other countries that have figured this out have begun to openly bribe the President to get the foreign policy decision they need.

America’s erstwhile allies must also recognize that the President has adopted previously unimaginable new rules, and play accordingly. But, instead of bribing him with personal carrots, I would suggest we consider applying personal sticks. Instead of asking ourselves how we can help the President or his family, we should ask: How can we hurt him? And, Trump has already given us an answer.

Until this President, every previous modern occupant of the White House divested their assets upon assuming office. This eliminated the possibility personal business interests might benefit from political decisions. Conversely, it prevented others from threatening the President by attacking those assets. Trump, by refusing to give up his businesses, and by flagrantly violating the emoluments clause, has inadvertently handed us the perfect stick.

I propose that instead of taxing the import of American serviettes, we tax Trump. In the spirit of the Magnitsky Act, Canada and the western allies come together to collectively pressure the only pain point that matters to this President: his family and their assets. This could take the form of special taxation on their current operations, freezing of assets, or even sanctions against senior staff. Canada could add a tax to Trump properties equal to any tariff unilaterally imposed by Washington. The European Union could revoke any travel visas for senior staff in the Trump organization. And the United Kingdom could temporarily close his golf course.

Arguably, the legislation to do so already exists. Canada’s Special Economic Measures Act and the Foreign Corrupt Officials Act permit us to sanction public officials who are “complicit in ordering, controlling or otherwise directing acts of corruption”. In the case of Trump, we already have several open examples of this and the various ongoing criminal investigations (of his own government) are expected to produce many more.

I recognize this column has the stench of bad satire about it. I am sane enough to know this proposal does not sound sane. But I also know we are confronting an unprecedented crisis and one that would have sounded insane if we’d been warned of it just three years ago: the President of the United States is dismantling the entire liberal international order we have spent a century building, and he is completely focused on promoting his own interests, at the expense of American allies, and at the expense of Americans themselves.

Our attempts to use traditional diplomatic strategies to deal with this crisis are failing. If we do not ask ourselves now, “How do we hurt Trump?”, I predict we will reach that point in the not too distant future. In this case, then, delaying the inevitable will not be a failure, not a success.

[down]Oh sorry, here it is: https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/trade-sanctions-against-america-wont-work-sanctioning-trump-himself-might/amp/

edited 2nd Jun '18 5:24:32 PM by megaeliz

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#244248: Jun 2nd 2018 at 5:21:40 PM

[up]Care to name the author and give a link?

And while sanctioning Trump directly is certainly an option, counter-tariffs are an absolute must until Trump backs off/Congress stops him.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#244249: Jun 2nd 2018 at 5:28:07 PM

[up] I was following up on an earlier post mentioning the idea.

This is in a lot of ways, absolutely genius. The only thing he cares about is himself and his people, so the best way to send a message is by going after that.

PhysicalStamina i'm tired, my friend (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
i'm tired, my friend
#244250: Jun 2nd 2018 at 5:29:23 PM

How would we even go about sanctioning Trump, though? Could we?

edited 2nd Jun '18 5:33:10 PM by PhysicalStamina

i'm tired, my friend

Total posts: 417,856
Top