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

KarkatTheDalek Not as angry as the name would suggest. from Somwhere in Time/Space Since: Mar, 2012 Relationship Status: You're a beautiful woman, probably
Not as angry as the name would suggest.
#248801: Jul 10th 2018 at 11:10:10 AM

So what, the past 12 days or so were entirely for show?

Oh God! Natural light!
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
#248802: Jul 10th 2018 at 11:20:56 AM

North Carolina is still trying to sea-lawyer its way around the Supreme Court slapdown they got, now by mandating a certain amount of early voting hours to bankrupt Democratic districts.

    Full article text 
Emphasis mine.
Since the 2013 Supreme Court decision overturning parts of the Voting Rights Act, North Carolina has been in the vanguard of legislative voter suppression. First, Republicans in the state passed a huge law containing five different provisions aimed at discouraging voting, from limiting early voting hours to excluding certain forms of identification used disproportionately by black voters. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the measure in 2016 because it “target[ed] African Americans with almost surgical precision.”

Since then, the state GOP has succeeded in pursuing further rollbacks of early voting and in purging thousands of voters from the rolls. Republican legislators have also managed to get a constitutional amendment put on the ballot this November that would require voters to show ID at the polls. If it passes, the measure would likely “block the Democrat-controlled state Supreme Court from striking down any voter ID requirement,” the former counsel for the North Carolina Legislature told Huff Post.

Given that impersonation fraud is essentially nonexistent, that proposed constitutional amendment is clearly an attempt to suppress turnout among likely Democrats by making voting harder. Although the North Carolina GOP has never been very good at hiding the intent behind its voting proposals, a pernicious new law just passed by the legislature suggests that might be changing. The statute, which passed over the Democratic governor’s veto, claims to expand access to voting but is likely to have the opposite effect. “It looks like another attempt to surgically target African Americans,” said Courtney Patterson, chairman of the Board of Elections for Lenoir County.

The new measure, which will take effect for the upcoming midterm elections, requires every early voting site in the state to stay open 12 hours a day each weekday (in addition to any weekend hours). By mandating such a large number of hours, the new rule will make it prohibitively expensive for some counties to operate early voting locations. Because the law was passed very late in the legislative session, after many counties set their election budgets, many smaller counties will likely be required to close early voting locations so they don’t overspend. “This bill came out of nowhere. County officials weren’t told about it,” said Tomas Lopez, the executive director of the civil rights group Democracy North Carolina. “It’s making it much more expensive to actually conduct an early voting program that reaches as many voters as possible.”

Lenoir County, a rural area of about 60,000 people near Raleigh, offers one telling example. In 2016, the county operated six early voting sites for a total of 600 hours. The law will require them to double the total number of hours, entailing an additional expense of around $20,000 in a county in which the total elections budget is only $600,000. “We’re going to have to request more money from the county … chances are they’re going to say that additional funding is not available,” Patterson, the county’s Board of Elections chairman, told me. If that additional money isn’t on offer, Lenoir County may have to reduce its early voting sites by half. “It will wind up, in many counties, cutting access to early voting,” Patterson said.

Dallas Woodhouse, executive director of the North Carolina Republican Party, contends that Democrats gamed the flexible schedules of polling places by keeping sites in heavily Democratic neighborhoods open for longer hours. Woodhouse says the new law is an effort to prevent those practices and make voting hours fair. “We are going to follow the letter and spirit of the court order,” Woodhouse wrote in an emailed statement, referring to the 4th Circuit’s 2016 ruling that blocked an earlier GOP attempt to cut early voting in the state from 17 days to 10. “The costs to the local counties were not a concern by the leftist groups when they sued us, so they can’t be a concern now.”

Despite Woodhouse’s claims that the law is intended to make voting hours uniform, it’s clear it was passed with partisan aims. For one thing, Woodhouse is no stranger to efforts to control turnout: Prior to the 2016 election, he wrote a memo to county election boards urging them to close and cut hours at as many early voting sites as possible. One of the clearest signs this bill is intended to suppress turnout is that it specifically forbids early voting sites from opening on the Saturday before the election. According to civil rights groups, nearly 200,000 people voted that day in 2016, and those who cast ballots were disproportionately black. Another bill passed a few days later restored access to the polls on that Saturday, but only for the 2018 elections; Friday will be the last early voting day in subsequent election cycles.

Until elections officials finalize their plans for the midterms, it’s impossible to know how many early voting sites will be closed because of the new rules. Since early voting is disproportionately used by black voters (60.4 percent and 64.0 percent of black North Carolina voters cast their ballots early in 2008 and 2012, respectively, compared to 44.5 and 49.4 percent of white voters), any reduction in the number of sites will likely result in a discriminatory impact. In 2016, thanks in part to local cuts in access to early voting urged by Woodhouse, black early voting turnout declined by almost 9 percent in North Carolina, or more than 65,000 votes. In other Southern states, meanwhile, early turnout among black voters increased.

What makes this law so devious is that, unlike previous efforts to curtail voting on the basis of voter fraud or impersonation, it is cloaked in technical language that appears to promote voting rights. “The state has put this forward in kind of masked terms,” said Emily Seawell, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s North Carolina chapter. Despite the subterfuge, the end result likely won’t differ from previous outcomes orchestrated by the North Carolina GOP: It will shut down early voting and prevent black voters from casting ballots.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw
TerminusEst from the Land of Winter and Stars Since: Feb, 2010
#248803: Jul 10th 2018 at 11:28:27 AM

Trump’s Supreme Court pick: ISPs have 1st Amendment right to block websites

President Trump's Supreme Court nominee argued last year that net neutrality rules violate the First Amendment rights of Internet service providers by preventing them from "exercising editorial control" over Internet content.

Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele
PushoverMediaCritic I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out. from the Italy of America Since: Jul, 2015 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out.
#248804: Jul 10th 2018 at 11:34:21 AM

That is the stu- that is one of the stu- that is among the stu- that is a really stupid thing that I have heard.

CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#248805: Jul 10th 2018 at 11:35:53 AM

Well, no surprises that Kennedy actually knows how to run a proper fucking Government Conspiracy unlike Trump.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
DrDougsh Since: Jan, 2001
#248806: Jul 10th 2018 at 11:37:03 AM

Pay for America's army? Yeah, no. It's not like Europe's making America spend as much on military as they do. Spending ludicrous amounts of money on military concerns is very much part of the GOP manifesto, NATO or no NATO. They're not spending all that money out of obligation to Europe. They'd be spending even more money if NATO didn't exist.

If Trump were making the argument that they could lower military spending if their NATO allies increased theirs in turn, it'd be fairly sensible. But lowering military spending one iota flies in the face of everything, well, Trump.

I actually do want Europe to increase military spending, but only because I no longer trust America with unchecked military dominance over the West. So I guess in that way Trump has made his point, albeit for totally wrong reasons.

archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#248807: Jul 10th 2018 at 11:46:25 AM

[up] I'll point out that the whole reason Europe doesn't have to spend that much on its militaries is because the US spends so much. Our defensive posture is NATO's defensive posture, and vice versa.

Despite Trump's best efforts it's also pretty much impossible to alter that arrangement at this point in time.

They should have sent a poet.
TheWanderer Student of Story from Somewhere in New England (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
Student of Story
#248808: Jul 10th 2018 at 11:48:24 AM

Source familiar tells NBC that Justice Kennedy had been in negotiations with the Trump team for months over Kennedy’s replacement. Once Kennedy received assurances that it would be Kavanaugh (his former law clerk) Kennedy felt comfortable retiring.

If this is true, (something that we sometimes forget to take into account) then if nothing else it makes Kennedy’s resignation letter to Trump make a lot more sense. IIRC, said letter kissed Trump’s ass a whole lot, which is exactly the sort of ego stroking detail I can imagine Trump insisting on.

| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#248809: Jul 10th 2018 at 11:50:42 AM

Honestly I don't view that as a bad thing, if Kennedy was vetting his replacements then clearly he was concerned with his legacy. Which IMO is a rather clear good sign, he may be Conservative but that doesn't mean he can't be pragmatist and want to avoid insane picks that ruin the Court's prestige.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#248810: Jul 10th 2018 at 11:54:36 AM

Anyone else concerned that Trump's pardoning of those rancher lunatics might further embolden other far-right/militia/"patriot" type groups to push the envelop?

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
PushoverMediaCritic I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out. from the Italy of America Since: Jul, 2015 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out.
#248811: Jul 10th 2018 at 12:01:32 PM

I'm sure Trump is hoping for exactly that.

DrDougsh Since: Jan, 2001
#248812: Jul 10th 2018 at 12:05:48 PM

[up][up][up][up][up] Maybe, but the US is not spending all that money on military out of obligation to NATO. If NATO ceased to exist, I highly doubt the US would start spending less money.

archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#248813: Jul 10th 2018 at 12:08:48 PM

[up] Someone is going to spend that money, and honestly I'd rather it be the US. If NATO disappeared tomorrow we'd still be interested in global stability.

They should have sent a poet.
Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#248814: Jul 10th 2018 at 12:40:34 PM

Is it actually a misconception that the US military spending has anything to do with NATO. If you want to be glib, the number of military spending of the US (other than what it puts into the budget, which is, btw, disproportional low if you compare it with the seize of the US) is zero.

And yes, I know, the US had soldiers in Rammstein and other bases in Europe. But those bases are important strategically for the US fights in other countries. But even if you count the forces the US has directly in Europe as "military spending for Nato", this is way WAY less than 2%.

Before someone points to the US playing world police: This has NOTHING to do with NATO. Nill. NATO is a defence pact, it is not about meddling in other countries. And frankly, so far the actions of the US have created more problem than they solved.

Also for the record, there has been one instance so far in which NATO members were actually forced to fight for another member...after 9/11. The soldiers of NATO states have died for the US. NOT the other way around.

Let's assume that the US removes all its troops from European soil...what would happen? I suspect, not much. Because even without the US, Germany, France and the UK alone easily outspend Russia in defence. The only reason for EU countries to step up the defence spending would be either to be internationally more active (something most EU countries don't want) or to protect itself from the US. So, yeah, you should actually be nervous when the EU countries step up their spending. It says "we don't trust you".

LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#248815: Jul 10th 2018 at 12:48:27 PM

It's not as simple as spending.

England no longer has an effective navy, France no longer has the industrial capacity to arm it's own troops, and at this point a majority of Germany's armored vehicles, aircraft, and small arms are inoperable.

The main members of NATO are protected pretty much solely by MAD and the US at this point.

Also it's worth remembering that all Russian defense industries are owned by the state. All Russian procurement occurs at cost and raw numbers are not necessarily a valid comparison.

Edited by LeGarcon on Jul 10th 2018 at 3:58:13 PM

Oh really when?
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
#248816: Jul 10th 2018 at 12:54:01 PM

Anyone else concerned that Trump's pardoning of those rancher lunatics might further embolden other far-right/militia/"patriot" type groups
I'm sure he's trying to reassure the Angry White Racist that he's still got their backs. Every person killed by a spree shooter is another NRA million in his re-election fund.
If NATO ceased to exist, I highly doubt the US would start spending less money.
Under anyone but Trump, it would probably have to increase drastically, because I would expect Russian troops on Poland's border in a matter of days after NATO dissolved.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw
archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#248817: Jul 10th 2018 at 1:02:44 PM

[up][up][up] First off, the US actually does contribute money directly to NATO. The US directly finances about 20% of NATO's budget. NATO's yearly budget itself is rather small, only USD 2.8 billion per year, so the fact that the US puts in the most money but pays a small percentage is really only a function of the size of the US economy, not a lack of spending. The US also exceeds the percentage goal required for NATO members, which many states do not. That's on top of indirect contributions, like the military bases you pointed out and things like training which the US typically foots the bill for.

The US has committed forces to NATO in the past, notably the naval and aerial cordons around Bosnia during the war there and the counter-piracy and relief missions around Africa. The war in Afghanistan was the only time Article 5 was invoked, but it's far from the only use of force by NATO.

And finally, while the EU does spend more on defense than Russia they also don't have a particularly confidence-inspiring level of military readiness. They don't have a credible nuclear deterrent either. Whether Europe could actually defend itself is a matter of some question, and the continued calls from Eastern European countries for additional US forces make it clear that the US plays a large part in their defensive posture.

Edited by archonspeaks on Jul 10th 2018 at 1:04:55 AM

They should have sent a poet.
Raptorslash Since: Oct, 2010
#248818: Jul 10th 2018 at 1:09:47 PM

Something I've noticed is that there seems to be, on average, an equal or greater right-leaning presence on most social media sites than a left-leaning presence. The right on You Tube and Reddit, for example, are very loud, have large communities, and are active in recruitment. The "skeptic" community (Sargon of Akkad, The Amazing Atheist, TL;DR, and Armoured Skeptic, to give a few examples) are very influential there.

What is it that gives the right an edge on social media that we don't seem to have yet?

Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#248819: Jul 10th 2018 at 1:10:42 PM

[up][up] I was mentioning the Budget. Like I said, it is tiny and the US puts disproportional little into it, especially considering what it gets out of it.

Also, no nuclear deterrent? WHUT? What exactly do you think France is? In case you didn't notice, it is a nuclear power, well known for poisoning the world with their nuclear weapons tests. (Not to mention that the US has actually stored it's nuclear weapons on German soil, thank you for that, it is really great to serve as a target without any control over the weapons which makes you a target in the first place….)

[up][up][up][up] Well, if you count in the other EU countries, the spending is even higher...not to mention the level of soft power.

[up] I think Shawn has an excellent Youtube video regarding the tactics of the Alt-right. Basically they use bots aso to broaden their presence.

Edited by Swanpride on Jul 10th 2018 at 1:12:23 AM

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#248820: Jul 10th 2018 at 1:10:50 PM

Doesn't France/the UK have a sufficient submarine based deterrent, or at least enough to reduce Western Russia to radioactive rubble if a conflict escalates?

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#248821: Jul 10th 2018 at 1:16:54 PM

[up][up] The US puts a little over 3% of its GDP into NATO. That exceeds the recommended percentage for member states of 2%, and most states don't even meet that. That's on top of indirect contributions, which like I mentioned are numerous from the US. As far as the NATO budget itself, again like I mentioned the US pays the largest share of any country there as well. I'm not sure which budget you're referring to.

France has nuclear weapons, yes, but their umbrella simply can't cover all of Europe like the US can.

They should have sent a poet.
Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#248822: Jul 10th 2018 at 1:18:25 PM

[up] It pays the largest share because it is the largest country with the largest GDP. Compared to population and seize that share is tiny.

And where do you get the 3% from? The NATO budget is NOT a fixed number. It is something which is decided again and again for every budget run.

The 2% which is thrown around is what the NATO states are supposed to spend on their OWN MILITARY in a few years. That is not a rule, btw, it is a voluntary commitment those states made after Obama asked them to.

Also, how many nuclear weapons do you need? Frankly, as terrifying as nuclear weapons are, it is not like you won't reach a similar effect through fire bombing or other tactics in terms of immediate losses.

Edited by Swanpride on Jul 10th 2018 at 1:21:26 AM

Raptorslash Since: Oct, 2010
#248823: Jul 10th 2018 at 1:23:50 PM

IIRC, the Russian economy's fairly weak and they aren't as powerful as they're trying to make themselves look. Not that they aren't a threat - that's why they're using sabotage, Putin-friendly candidates, and social media to weaken our soft power and edge countries toward isolationism - but they aren't in the position yet to launch full-scale invasions of multiple coutries and risk a war with Europe.

Does Russia actually have the money and hard power to actively start invading countries like Poland or Finland? I'd think it would be the Baltics who would be most at risk.

Imca (Veteran)
#248824: Jul 10th 2018 at 1:24:17 PM

Nuclear weapons aren't there to be used, as ironic as it sounds.

There there as a threat, and fire bombs don't threaten near as much because there much easier to stop.

archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#248825: Jul 10th 2018 at 1:25:16 PM

[up][up][up] Yes...that's how percentages work. I'm not really sure what you're even getting at.

As for the stats on percent GDP, you can see charts going back to 2010 here. [1] If you want to know about direct contributions to NATO itself, here's the percentage breakdown of that from NATO itself. [2]

"Firebombing" isn't really something we could do on a large enough scale for it to be an effective deterrent, and as Imca mentioned it's not really an effective deterrent anyways.

Edited by archonspeaks on Jul 10th 2018 at 1:28:00 AM

They should have sent a poet.

Total posts: 417,856
Top