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

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#248176: Jul 2nd 2018 at 2:39:41 PM

It's not that fdr failed, on its own, it's that he failed in better conditions than we have now. What's different now vs them that makes our chances better instead of worse?

If I'm engaging in "Middle Ground Fallacy" it's because I sincerely value the middle/center over the edges. At least when both sides are sane, which I freely concede is not the case now.

Edited by sgamer82 on Jul 2nd 2018 at 3:45:37 AM

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#248177: Jul 2nd 2018 at 2:43:06 PM

I could see arguments both for chances being better or worse, really. With the way things are escalating, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Democrats and Independents wouldn't see it so much as a power grab, as something that needs to be done to keep Republicans making bigger power grabs than they already have/keep them from reversing things that most people agree on.

I wouldn't be surprised if polling firms actually start asking how people would feel about this if the Democrats get both the chance and opportunity to do it.

Edited by LSBK on Jul 2nd 2018 at 4:49:09 AM

Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#248178: Jul 2nd 2018 at 2:46:19 PM

[up]Exactly, it would be a mistake to act as if this is impossible and thus avoid discussing it.

If I'm engaging in "Middle Ground Fallacy" it's because I sincerely value the middle/center over the edges. At least when both sides are sane, which I freely concede is not the case now.
Yes and you haven't justified why the middle/center is worth being in.

Because as the Vox article above points out, there is legal precedent for the move (it has been done seven times historically) and if we don't a reactionary controlled supreme court will not only stop progress being made but will also actively roll back progress.

The damage of letting them going through with it would be incalculable.

So why exactly is the middle ground so beneficial?

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jul 2nd 2018 at 2:53:39 AM

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#248179: Jul 2nd 2018 at 3:05:07 PM

These aren't normal times anymore. We're seeing 'Abolish ICE' make its way into serious policy proposals, along with a Federal Jobs act. And you know what? Obama got healthcare reform done, something FDR never succeeded in.

His failures aren't ours. Let's start talking court packing, because we need to have the guts to do it or we risk the Supreme Court destroying progressive achievements for a generation or more even if we win two other branches.

Just to put it in perspective? Since 1992, Republicans have won the popular vote once, yet have had 3 terms in office. OF those terms, we will see 4 USSC justices appointed. We're taking the court back for what the people keep voting for, not rigging things.

Edited by Lightysnake on Jul 2nd 2018 at 3:07:43 AM

Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#248180: Jul 2nd 2018 at 3:08:11 PM

[up]Well said!

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#248181: Jul 2nd 2018 at 3:12:07 PM

Just to put this in further perspective? The Republicans already stole a Supreme Court seat. This is not hypothetical. They already pulled this trigger.

The only recourse is to fight back with the only ways we have that the system allows. There is no will to impeach Gorsuch or Comey Barrett or whoever he puts in, but we can cram in more judges.

CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#248182: Jul 2nd 2018 at 3:15:45 PM

My belief about this policy remains the same: the biggest problem here is everyone keeps focusing on the politics of it versus the actual criminal activity. More than anything we need simple reform that criminal activity in government be prosecuted. The actions here done are outrageous but they're illegal and the problem is they are acting above the law.

If everyone was removed from office who was engaged in criminal conspiracy, the need for more extreme measures would vanish.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#248183: Jul 2nd 2018 at 3:21:39 PM

The fundamental issue is culture. For instance, a new administration can leash ICE like Obama did, but the same bad acors will be there and the agency has an irredeemable culture. Some things need rebuilding

archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#248184: Jul 2nd 2018 at 3:39:15 PM

There’s an easy fix for ICE, just dissolve ERO. That wouldn’t even require major action like disbanding the whole agency would, it could be done essentially overnight.

We also need to end the policy of actively pursuing undocumented people in order to deport them, so some other enterprising agency doesn’t start doing that.

They should have sent a poet.
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#248185: Jul 2nd 2018 at 3:43:30 PM

~Fourthspartan 56

As far as justifying the middle ground goes, unless I've missed something, it seems to me that it's a hell of a lot better at getting things done and keeping them done. For better or worse, the few things recently that have gotten through without much incident are the bills with bipartisan support. They also seem the hardest ones to just flip once the other side gets a shot.

If it were a choice between that or a bill that provides more but would be under constant fire to both pass and keep, I'll go the bipartisan route.

In this specific instance, with Trump in general and court packing in particular, yeah, we're probably past the point where a middle ground solution is any more feasible than I think court packing or electoral college reform are. But, given the choice, I'd prefer not to fall into the "THEIR SIDE BAD!" mindset set that so poisons politics these days any more than I can help and I fear solutions like this stand to do more harm than good

You may consider that thinking fallacious, naive, or even plain wrong. I'm not convinced it isn't. Not in general, at least.

Edited by sgamer82 on Jul 2nd 2018 at 4:49:50 AM

PresidentStalkeyes Eats moldy bread and flies into windows from United Kingdom of England-land Since: Feb, 2016 Relationship Status: Do you like me? (Yes ⎕ Definitely ⎕ Absolutely!!! ⎕)
Eats moldy bread and flies into windows
#248186: Jul 2nd 2018 at 3:53:33 PM

So, about the Muller investigation (I'm sure this question has been asked before but I don't feel like trawling back through the thread to find it :V). Supposing that Muller turns up airtight proof that Trump has essentially been a Russian puppet this entire time (a pipe dream, but not completely impossible, I s'pose). How would Republican voters react, do you reckon?

This is taking into account all the different kinds of Republican voter; I can easily imagine Trump's die-hard fanbase either dismissing the results as FAKE NEWS or somehow trying to rationalize being manipulated by Russia as a positive quality for him to have; but what about those I mentioned before, the loyalists who vote for literally every Republican candidate regardless of anything, who care less for the man himself and more for just preventing Democrats from getting elected, no matter what. Would they realize that perhaps supporting Trump might hurt their party's chances of re-election in the future? (I realize they haven't already realized this so far, but I feel Trump being proven to be a Russian puppet would cross a line even for them, given how full of Patriotic Fervor they doubtlessly are).

Those sell-by-dates won't stop me because I can't read!
Grafite Since: Apr, 2016 Relationship Status: Less than three
#248187: Jul 2nd 2018 at 3:56:39 PM

Well, if they were to go ahead and pack two judges, then people here won't have any right to complain when, in the future, the GOP intead fills it with fifty of the most reactionary judges and caps the number at that.

It would rightly be called an authoritarian power grab, but if done in favour of the Democrats, it's suddenly okay or "rightful retribution". That line of undemocratic thinking is dangerous.

Edited by Grafite on Jul 2nd 2018 at 12:12:12 PM

Life is unfair...
megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#248188: Jul 2nd 2018 at 3:57:31 PM

[up]x4That actually could be doable, if we get a Democratic administration in.

Alan Dershowitz wrote an op ed, about how the the “liberal high society” of Martha’s Vineyard from their social life. [1]

But that is not good enough for some of my old friends on Martha's Vineyard. For them, it is enough that what I have said about the Constitution might help Trump. So they are shunning me and trying to ban me from their social life on Martha's Vineyard. One of them, an academic at a distinguished university, has told people that he would not attend any dinner or party to which I was invited. He and others have demanded "trigger warnings" so that they can be assured of having "safe spaces" in which they will not encounter me or my ideas. Others have said they will discontinue contributions to organizations that sponsor my talks.

This is all familiar to me, since I lived through Mc Carthyism in the 1950s, when lawyers who represented alleged communists on civil libertarian grounds were shunned. Some of these lawyers and victims of Mc Carthyism lived on Martha's Vineyard. I never thought I would see Mc Carthyism come to Martha's Vineyard, but I have. I wonder if the professor who refuses to listen to anything I have to say also treats his students similarly. Would he listen to a student who actively supported Trump? What about one who simply supported his civil liberties?

These childish efforts to shun me because I refused to change my position on civil liberties that I have kept for half a century discourages vibrant debate and may dissuade other civil libertarians from applying their neutral principles to a president of whom they disapprove. But one good thing is that being shunned by some "old friends" on Martha's Vineyard has taught me who my real friends are and who my fairweather friends were. From a personal point of view, I could not care less about being shunned by people whose views regarding dialogue I do not respect.

I don’t care that you didn’t invite me so much that I wrote a rambling editorial about how much I don’t care!

Edited by megaeliz on Jul 2nd 2018 at 6:59:46 AM

DeathorCake Since: Mar, 2016
#248189: Jul 2nd 2018 at 4:02:26 PM

[up][up][up][up]

If there was any kind of broad bipartisan consensus between the Republicans and the Democrats at the moment I might agree with you, but there's so much clear water between the two parties that anything you come up with as a compromise would be at least somewhat underpowered and then be demonized as some evil commie big government overreach by the next election anyway. See: Obamacare, which was pretty similar to that Romneycare plan in several respects but has still attracted 60+ votes to repeal it and a sustained battering by the courts.

Edited by DeathorCake on Jul 2nd 2018 at 11:05:05 AM

Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#248190: Jul 2nd 2018 at 4:13:38 PM

Only because 'Romneycare' is more the product of Massachusetts liberals who kept passing the damn thing over Governor Mitt's eight vetoes.

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#248191: Jul 2nd 2018 at 4:14:33 PM

You'd think that part would get brought up more often.

Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#248192: Jul 2nd 2018 at 4:21:59 PM

There is a very annoying habit of well meaning people to try to 'prove' the ACA is really Republican.How often do you hear it's like the Heritage Plan even when it isn't at all?

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#248193: Jul 2nd 2018 at 4:22:51 PM

[up][up][up] I sincerely didn't know that part of it.

Blueeyedrat Since: Oct, 2010
#248194: Jul 2nd 2018 at 4:37:01 PM

Y'know, despite all of the administration's attempts to denigrate CNN, his supporters don't seem to mind trying to air their propaganda on the channel. I just caught a commercial talking about how Neil Gorsuch is a Fair And Reasonable Justice™, and how the president has a chance to appoint Yet Another Great Justice™ to the Supreme Court, and also about how the Extremist Democrats™ are going to try and block his appointment.

Edited by Blueeyedrat on Jul 2nd 2018 at 4:40:13 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
#248195: Jul 2nd 2018 at 4:39:58 PM

As I said FDR was working with a much less partisan Supreme Court and Congress, so court packing was harder for him.

As for a new voting rights act, I don’t see it being allowed by a GOP Supreme Court, same with the expansion of healthcare.

If the court doesn’t get packed we’re looking at abortion once again being outlawed in multiple states, voting rights requiring a constitutional amendment, gerrymandering continuing and citizens united requiring a constitutional amendment.

That’s before we get to the very real risk of the Supreme Court once again cheating the Republicans to an electoral victory. That’s the nightmare scenario, Russia hackers put several thousand fake votes for a Republican candidate and cause them to ‘win’, the Supreme Court then demands that the fake votes be counted as valid because they want to see Republicans win.

There’s also one other option, Congress can pass any law it likes about the Supreme Court right? What’s to stop a more benign packing, pass a law that states that should a president be impeached and convicted all Supreme Court nominees they made must be re approved by the senate in light of the new information. If they are entirely reproved than the seat becomes vacant.

That’s a reasonable idea even for a possible situation where a Democrat gets impeached and convicted.

Edited by Silasw on Jul 2nd 2018 at 11:46:13 AM

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
rmctagg09 The Wanderer from Brooklyn, NY (Before Recorded History) Relationship Status: I won't say I'm in love
The Wanderer
#248196: Jul 2nd 2018 at 4:50:34 PM

Bystanders To Fatal Overdoses Increasingly Becoming Criminal Defendants:

Alexis Santa Barbara is a 39-year-old mother of three from a working-class suburb of Philadelphia.

Santa Barbara's addiction story follows a familiar course: she had been prescribed Percocet years ago to treat back pain. When the drug became unavailable, she turned to heroin. And she became hooked — not long after getting laid off from her job at a local deli.

Across the street from her, her neighbor, identified just as "J.M." in court papers, was also in the grip of an opioid addiction.

How the two of their lives intersect next dramatically altered their connection, from two people in the same community dealing with the same sickness to something else: an alleged victim and a perpetrator, cast that way because of a drug transaction that took a deadly turn.

One evening in late March, that neighbor handed Santa Barbara $10 and asked if she'd score him a fix of heroin.

"He just asked her to grab it, so she did," said Emily Mano, Santa Barbara's 18-year-old daughter. "She doesn't always do stuff like that. It was just a favor. She'd never mean to harm someone. Never."

To prosecutors, it wasn't just a favor. It was crime. Authorities say Santa Barbara obtained heroin, and whether she knew it or not, the batch was laced with the powerful and often deadly synthetic drug, Fentanyl. Shortly after, court records show, Santa Barbara texted her neighbor: "Are you OK??"

He wasn't.

"His wife comes home and finds him collapsed on the floor of a bedroom," said George Yacoubian, Santa Barbara's defense lawyer.

Emergency responders pronounced the neighbor dead on the scene. Santa Barbara is now in jail awaiting trial on third-degree murder charges. Before she turned herself in, she revealed to her daughter the scourge of addiction that she had managed to long keep out of her view.

"She sat me down and she said that something bad happened. She said that she would be getting into trouble," Mano said.

The definition of drug dealer

More and more, trouble is following fellow drug users, friends and relatives of those dying from overdoses. With the country's opioid crisis widening – having killed more people in 2016, for instance, than the deadliest year of the AIDS epidemic – bystanders to fatal overdoses are increasingly becoming criminal defendants.

Pennsylvania prosecutors in Delaware County who are pursuing the case against Santa Barbara declined an interview request. But among the criminal charges they are pressing against her is drug delivery resulting in death, a first-degree felony carrying the maximum punishment of 20 to 40 years in prison.

In Pennsylvania, the number of people charged with this version of third-degree murder from an accidental overdose went from 15 in 2013 to 205 last year.

In roughly the same period, news reports of such cases tripled nationwide, according to the Oakland-based nonprofit Drug Policy Alliance. Twenty states have drug-induced homicide laws on the books that criminalize helping someone obtain drugs. And in recent months, the alliance found that 13 additional states have created or beefed up drug-induced homicide laws.

"It really misplaces the blame for their loved one's death on another person who really has no more culpability than the one who died," LaSalle said.

Many of the laws, according to the alliance, were passed during the crack epidemic in the 1980s to combat dealers and major distributors. Now, the laws are being revived as law enforcement officials search for new ways to curb the opioid-driven overdose crisis, which claimed the lives of more than 63,000 people the U.S. in 2016

But the Alliance's LaSalle says prosecutors are stretching the definition of dealer to include almost anyone tied to drug use.

"You are often charging someone who themselves was using or sharing with the person who died, and with a different twist of fate, it could've been that person who died and the other person being charged," she said.

Edited by rmctagg09 on Jul 2nd 2018 at 7:52:21 AM

Hugging a Vanillite will give you frostbite.
Hylarn (Don’t ask)
#248197: Jul 2nd 2018 at 5:05:17 PM

On court packing, I think people are under-estimating how damaging it would be to attempt. This would look awful to the average, apolitical voter (because right-wing media would bitch about it endlessly) and then the Republicans would do something much worse once they got a chance, without much backlash because the norm had already been breached

What I'd suggest is term limits. Have a justice cycle out, say, every two years

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#248198: Jul 2nd 2018 at 5:08:21 PM

That. The only reason the GOP has not packed SCOTUS is because they do not need to-it has been in their control for 40 years, and that is not going to change unless the Democrats pack the court or impeach the GOP rubber stamps. If/when that happens, the GOP knows they can do the same thing, now without consequences since the Democrats went there first. Even considering those options is all or nothing-either the Democrats do it and stack the deck to make sure they never lose control of any branch of government to the GOP ever again; or they do it and fail to stack the deck, meaning the GOP claws its way back into power and does the same to the Democrats.

And that's just it. Like you said: once we go down that road, either we do something to utterly destroy the Republican party as an institution or we risk them doing the same to us. Either way, democracy is dead and the people in power are relying on telling people who to vote for in order to retain that power.

This is the same rhetoric we've heard a thousand times since 2016. "In order to stop the Republicans from destroying our democracy, the Democrats must destroy it FIRST! It's a race to dismantle the United States government, but that's okay because my guy will be the one holding the crowbar!"

This is how democracies turn into dictatorships. This exact process. In the race to win, both sides start cheating until they've so thoroughly destroyed the system that there's no seats left to compete for. Only a throne.

McConnell and the Republicans need to be held accountable for what they did, but they need to be accountable to the American people. Not to King George.

Edited by TobiasDrake on Jul 2nd 2018 at 6:11:04 AM

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
tclittle Professional Forum Ninja from Somewhere Down in Texas Since: Apr, 2010
Professional Forum Ninja
#248199: Jul 2nd 2018 at 5:09:56 PM

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Chavez-Mesa v. US as it's first court case post-Kennedy retirement in the fall, to consider whether the double-jeopardy clause in the fifth amendment bars states and the federal government from trying a person separately for the same offense.

This case will more than likely have an effect on Trump's impeachment.

    Article 
The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear a case in the fall to consider whether the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment bars states and the federal government from separately trying the same person for the same criminal offense. The double jeopardy case stems from the prosecution of Terance Martez Gamble, who was pulled over by police in 2015 for a broken tail light. Marijuana paraphernalia and a firearm were found in the car during the stop. "Current precedent allows such prosecutions by 'separate sovereigns.' If the court overrules its prior precedent, it could make it more difficult for a state to try someone who has been pardoned by the federal government if trial proceedings had already begun for the federal offense," said Stephen Vladeck, CNN's Supreme Court analyst and a law professor at the University of Texas School of Law. Gamble was previously barred from owning a firearm in relation to a robbery, and he served a year in prison after the state of Alabama convicted for illegal possession after he was pulled over in 2015. The federal government also charged Gamble for the same crime, and he's currently serving time in a federal facility.

The court's decision to consider the case comes a day after the end of the court's summer session, which was capped by the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy. Many states, including New York, prohibit the trial of individuals who have been convicted for the same offense by the federal government.

Edited by tclittle on Jul 2nd 2018 at 7:12:20 AM

"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#248200: Jul 2nd 2018 at 5:30:17 PM

And that's just it. Like you said: once we go down that road, either we do something to utterly destroy the Republican party as an institution or we risk them doing the same to us. Either way, democracy is dead and the people in power are relying on telling people who to vote for in order to retain that power.

This is the same rhetoric we've heard a thousand times since 2016. "In order to stop the Republicans from destroying our democracy, the Democrats must destroy it FIRST! It's a race to dismantle the United States government, but that's okay because my guy will be the one holding the crowbar!"

This is how democracies turn into dictatorships. This exact process. In the race to win, both sides start cheating until they've so thoroughly destroyed the system that there's no seats left to compete for. Only a throne.

Mc Connell and the Republicans need to be held accountable for what they did, but they need to be accountable to the American people. Not to King George.

And yet Supreme Court adjustment for partisan reasons has been done seven times in the past so I am highly skeptical that it will destroy democracy.

Furthermore this is a highly fallacious usage of the slippery slope fallacy, once we have a Democratic Congress+Presidency+Supreme Court we can push for the necessary electoral reform to bolster our democracy, not to mention all the other improvements we can make.

The idea that "the American people will hold them accountable" is some kind of response to reactionaries dominating the Supreme Court is a bizarre non-sequitur, what exactly are the American people supposed to do? In a hypothetical Democratic Congress+President they would've already have spoken, and yet you want to stop us from actually doing something to allow progress to continue.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jul 2nd 2018 at 5:33:37 AM

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang

Total posts: 417,856
Top