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

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
#244251: Jun 2nd 2018 at 5:30:29 PM

It depends on the goal, sanctioning Trump personally is how one gets Trump to back off, sanctioning states that vote for Trump is how one gets Trump and the Republicans out of office.

If the retaliatory sanctions cost the Republicans the Midterms than Congress can start acting as a check on Trump.

[up] It’s dirty but it’s doable, the Trump organisation is an organisation subject to government controls the same as any other, permits need aproval, visas needs authorisation, acquisitions need a sign off, ect...

edited 2nd Jun '18 5:32:06 PM by Silasw

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#244252: Jun 2nd 2018 at 5:43:04 PM

[up][up]I doubt US states could. Foreign governments could definitely make life hell for the Trump Organization.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#244253: Jun 2nd 2018 at 6:16:25 PM

Republican Senators are possibly coming up with a legislative option to stop Trump's tariffs.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/02/politics/corker-trump-tariffs-senate-republicans/index.html

I'll believe this will work when this goes into force, overriding Trump's veto, and not a moment sooner.

edited 2nd Jun '18 6:38:41 PM by Rationalinsanity

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
KazuyaProta Shin Megami Tensei IV from A Industrial Farm Since: Jan, 2015 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Shin Megami Tensei IV
#244254: Jun 2nd 2018 at 6:32:28 PM

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.

So, my literally childish rant about how alcoholic drinks should be destroyed actually had a point?

Amazing

edited 2nd Jun '18 6:32:49 PM by KazuyaProta

Watch me destroying my country
DingoWalley1 Asgore Adopts Noelle Since: Feb, 2014 Relationship Status: Can't buy me love
Asgore Adopts Noelle
#244255: Jun 2nd 2018 at 6:57:30 PM

After skipping it last year, Trump will host an Iftar Dinner at the White House sometime next week for Ramadan.

I'm surprised he's actually bothering to do it, considering he avoided it (and I think he avoided doing Jewish Holiday things, but I might be wrong there) last year, but it's at least a nice gesture (shame Trump is pretty much irredeemable at this point).

PhysicalStamina i'm tired, my friend (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
i'm tired, my friend
#244256: Jun 2nd 2018 at 7:01:22 PM

We all know he's gonna balls it up.

i'm tired, my friend
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#244257: Jun 2nd 2018 at 7:05:29 PM

[up]And his far-right supporters will whine on Twitter about how their God-Emperor has betrayed them.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
PhysicalStamina i'm tired, my friend (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
i'm tired, my friend
#244258: Jun 2nd 2018 at 7:07:21 PM

[up]For like five minutes.

edited 2nd Jun '18 7:07:27 PM by PhysicalStamina

i'm tired, my friend
megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#244259: Jun 2nd 2018 at 7:35:43 PM

I honestly think the only thing that will be effective is sanctioning Trump's business.

The reason he wanted to become president is to advance his own buisness interests, and can't be influenced by normal means of tarriffs as long as it doesn't effect his personal bottom line.

So I say, cut him off from that.

Imca (Veteran)
#244260: Jun 2nd 2018 at 7:53:56 PM

...Can someone please explain to me what the fuck is going on here? How did it go from "Moon is feigning shock at talks completely breaking down" and "Trump wrote a pissy response playing up the U.S.' arsenal" to "it's back"? The hell is happening here?

A day late, but its simple really....

The Koreans never quit discussing this, even though Trump through his temper tantrum, and tried to leave, expecting that without him every thing would stop.

Instead no, North and South Korea just went on like he was never there, only now surprise surprise, without America being at the bargaining table, nothing is being negotiated in Amercia's interest.

So Trump feels snubed, and wants back into the talks.... TBH I am more surprised then any thing that they LET him, they should have just said "you left already" and went about there day.

edited 2nd Jun '18 7:54:17 PM by Imca

RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#244261: Jun 2nd 2018 at 8:06:58 PM

So Trump feels snubed, and wants back into the talks.... TBH I am more surprised then any thing that they LET him, they should have just said "you left already" and went about there day.

Trump or not, it's still the world's largest military and integrally involved in the war.

Imca (Veteran)
#244262: Jun 2nd 2018 at 8:16:22 PM

But its also South Korea's country the US is currently based in, they could flat out tell them to leave, and they wouldn't have a choice in the mater.

Now obviously that's drastic, and due to the political consequences they wouldn't, but like it or not what America wants is irrelevant here, it is the Korean peninsula, there land, this is a negotiation between the Koreas.

edited 2nd Jun '18 8:17:04 PM by Imca

megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#244263: Jun 2nd 2018 at 8:17:27 PM

[up]x5. The only question is how would he react to this?

I imagine it would be a tantrum of epic proportions.

edited 2nd Jun '18 8:19:12 PM by megaeliz

RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#244264: Jun 2nd 2018 at 8:29:49 PM

[up][up] They could also randomly decide to take pictures of Trump into the streets and smear them in shit, that doesn't mean there's anything to be gained from doing so. The USA is massively involved in this, it's really not a good idea to continue on without them, particularly when they're the largest balancing factor against NK.

CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#244265: Jun 2nd 2018 at 8:31:31 PM

Well South Korea could eradicate the North and would easily win any conventional military fight.

It's just it'd be MAD because NK has a couple of nuclear bombs and chemical weapons aimed at civilians.

edited 2nd Jun '18 8:47:00 PM by CharlesPhipps

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Imca (Veteran)
#244266: Jun 2nd 2018 at 8:33:22 PM

[up] Is correct.

The United States isn't needed, even if war was to break out the result would be unchanged by there pressence.

South Korea "Wins" but millions of civilians die in the process.

The US isn't a balancing factor, if any thing at the moment there an agitator.

edited 2nd Jun '18 8:34:18 PM by Imca

RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#244267: Jun 2nd 2018 at 8:36:26 PM

Balancing in the sense of making the resultant casualties even more lopsided, I mean.

CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#244268: Jun 2nd 2018 at 8:46:33 PM

I tend to imagine South Korea wishes there was a kind of James Bond-esque operative who could identify where the nukes are so they could be targeted.

But, sadly, are smart enough to know intelligence mistakes like that aren't worth the risk.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#244269: Jun 2nd 2018 at 9:14:38 PM

Trump’s Lawyers, in Confidential Memo, Argue to Head Off a Historic Subpoena

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s lawyers have for months quietly waged a campaign to keep the special counsel from trying to force him to answer questions in the investigation into whether he obstructed justice, asserting that he cannot be compelled to testify and arguing in a confidential letter that he could not possibly have committed obstruction because he has unfettered authority over all federal investigations.

In a brash assertion of presidential power, the 20-page letter — sent to the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, and obtained by The New York Times — contends that the president cannot illegally obstruct any aspect of the investigation into Russia’s election meddling because the Constitution empowers him to, “if he wished, terminate the inquiry, or even exercise his power to pardon.”

Mr. Trump’s lawyers fear that if he answers questions, either voluntarily or in front of a grand jury, he risks exposing himself to accusations of lying to investigators, a potential crime or impeachable offense.

Mr. Trump’s broad interpretation of executive authority is novel and is likely to be tested if a court battle ensues over whether he could be ordered to answer questions. It is unclear how that fight, should the case reach that point, would play out. A spokesman for Mr. Mueller declined to comment.

“We don’t know what the law is on the intersection between the obstruction statutes and the president exercising his constitutional power to supervise an investigation in the Justice Department,” said Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor who oversaw the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel during the Bush administration. “It’s an open question.”

Hand-delivered to the special counsel’s office in January and written by two of the president’s lawyers at the time, John M. Dowd and Jay A. Sekulow, the letter offers a rare glimpse into one side of the high-stakes negotiations over a presidential interview.

Though it is written as a defense of the president, the letter recalls the tangled drama of early 2017 as the new administration dealt with the Russia investigation. It also serves as a reminder that in weighing an obstruction case, Mr. Mueller is reviewing actions and conversations involving senior White House officials, including the president, the vice president and the White House counsel.

The letter also lays out a series of claims that foreshadow a potential subpoena fight that could unfold in the months leading into November’s midterm elections.

“We are reminded of our duty to protect the president and his office,” the lawyers wrote, making their case that Mr. Mueller has the information he needs from tens of thousands of pages of documents they provided and testimony by other witnesses, obviating the necessity for a presidential interview.

Mr. Mueller has told the president’s lawyers that he needs to talk to their client to determine whether he had criminal intent to obstruct the investigation into his associates’ possible links to Russia’s election interference. If Mr. Trump refuses to be questioned, Mr. Mueller will have to weigh their arguments while deciding whether to press ahead with a historic grand jury subpoena.

Never mind that existing case law, United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), days otherwise.

fruitpork Since: Oct, 2010
#244270: Jun 2nd 2018 at 9:15:36 PM

There's no way sanctions on the president's businesses would pass this congress.

ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#244271: Jun 2nd 2018 at 9:20:32 PM

[up]

The sanctions would come from other countries, not domestically.

As for the SESTA/FOSTA debate, it's a bit of a double-edged sword. As this Reuters article points out, "The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has told Congress that nearly three quarters of the cases submitted to the center relate to ads posted on [Backpage.com]". That turned out to be a double-edged sword because, while it meant that people looking to exploit children had an easier time of doing so, it also means (as the Rolling Stone article points out) that it was also easier for those interested in helping them to make contact.

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#244272: Jun 2nd 2018 at 9:20:39 PM

[up][up] We can't, since it's an American Company.

What could possibly happen though, is Canada and the EU could sanction people like Jared Kushner, Donald Trump Jr, Ivanka, and Manafort, under their versions of the Magnitsky Act, or otherwise targeting the Trump organization.

(Basically laws that allows countries to impose sanctions on foriegn individuals for deep corruption or Human Rights abuses. The reason we call it the Magnitsky Act is to honor a Russian lawyer who was tortured and killed for exposing corruption.).

edited 3rd Jun '18 5:31:03 AM by megaeliz

Wariolander Since: Nov, 2017
#244273: Jun 2nd 2018 at 10:17:15 PM

[up] The irony of using a law named after a Russian to damage Trump...

Gilphon (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#244274: Jun 2nd 2018 at 10:43:55 PM

I mean, while I can support the general cause of sanctioning Trump's corruption, I'd argue that it would be ineffectual for the specific case of fighting the Tariffs- if the retaliation is, on paper, about something other the tariffs, you can't unring that bell if he backs down from that; if that makes him say 'okay, okay, no more Tariffs', it doesn't make much sense to then go 'well in that case, I guess you're not acting corrupt anymore.'

So that's probably not how he would react. Hitting him with that particular stick strikes me as more likely to get him to hit back with a larger one.

DeathorCake Since: Mar, 2016
#244275: Jun 3rd 2018 at 3:35:12 AM

[up]

He's probably going to hit back anyway, which is darkly hilarious because if he carries on as is he's going to throw millions of Americans out of work to do what? Drive down the profit margins on what little steel we make in the UK? I have no idea how badly it will hit Canada and China, though.

Sanctioning his stuff is only going to work if we get extremely concrete evidence he worked with Russia and we can find a pretense beyond "hey fuck you", because we have to keep our moral high ground. Probably a waste of time, although I doubt many people will be approaching the US for an international agreement in the next fifteen years. It took this guy what, eighteen months to remove everything Obama did apart from parts of Obamacare that now lack important structural support?


Total posts: 417,856
Top