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

Wryte Since: Jul, 2010
#154676: Nov 13th 2016 at 1:15:00 PM

On winning over Trump supporters.

So Donald Trump gets to be President of the United States, which feels like something out of a bad parody but is in fact terrifyingly true. Set aside the awfulness of what he claims this week are his beliefs, and you're still left with the fact that the man is utterly unqualified - a largely failed, multiple-times bankrupt real estate swindler whose main claim to fame is being a sort-of rich guy who played a richer guy on a reality TV game show.

For me, that's the rubicon-crossing element right up front in this: That it's the exact sort of story we used to tell to make fun of how venal and trashy our public discourse had gotten, that a hackneyed B-list celebrity could run for high office and win. Now that it's happened, even if Trump is some kind of cultural anomaly who happened to be the guy occupying this role at the lucky point where there was an opening for his angle to work out... what's to stop the continuation of it? There's no longer a lack of precedent for fringe celebrities, pop-demagogues, other reality TV people etc to swoop into the political scene and do well enough to muck things up even further - and at this point they're pretty mucked up.

The whole spectacle has been making me physically sick since election night, but the fact is I'm more bothered by what inevitably comes next. Of all the problems with Trump, the most serious long-term is that his election-year persona is so cartoonishly awful that it has the effect of obscuring how base-level awful the "normal" state of the Republican Party is. The most ridiculous things Trump promised his supporters (a walled-off Mexican border, a ban on Muslim immigrants, mass-deportations, etc) are going to be difficult to enact legally even with Congress nominally on his side, and that's if you assume that he sincerely believes in such things and did not simply adopt whatever outlook tested best with his voters - the man is, after all, a charlatan.

The fact is, the most immediately damaging things that will come of a Trump presidency are the things that would have come had any Republican been elected: The Supreme Court will (at minimum) return to its largely deadlocked state or flip to nominally-conservative, which will imperil the Affordable Care Act and leave many without access health insurance - I'm not in that boat, but only because I live in a state with its own ACA-esque system, so now if I ever want to move I have to limit my options to places where I can actually afford to live with a chronic illness. It will also mean that Red State lawsuits aimed at taking power away from the EPA, "Affirmative Action" and other vital systems that effect both small and long-term systemic change. States that want to pass discriminatory laws against gay marriage, transgender bathroom access, etc will likely find themselves much less challenged to do so.

Even if, in a best-case scenario, Trump were to commit some impeachable offense (or simply get bored with pretending to be a politician - both of which are not implausible) his waiting replacement is Mike Pence, a religious zealot who actually subscribes life-long to most of the vile positions Trump seemingly acquired as a matter of political expediency. ANY Conservative becoming President at this crucial historical moment was going to be destructive on about the same level, Trump merely brings the added "bonus" of being embarrassing and incompetent at the same time.

Oh, and also that the few areas where he doesn't fit the mold of a traditional Republican, its uniformly for the worse: He wants to engage peacefully with brutal thug dictators like Putin, and he favors (or claims to favor) an "anti-globalism" isolationist trade policy of "America first" restrictions on jobs and outsourcing (lets see how long that lasts, though) and import/export tariffs that can only conceivably drive up consumer goods prices (at the minimum) and make foreign-made goods harder to acquire here even if they are superior to the domestic alternative.

And yet, so we're told, it's that last part that won the day and is supposed to make Trump voters more worth taking seriously. As the dust settles and the corporate media looks for a way to A.) not admit their ow wrongdoing in treating Trump "fairly" by breathless coverage of Hillary's myriad non-scandals and equivocation about his very real ones and B.) report on the next few years in a way that's not ratings-killing depressing, the narrative already taking shape is that the outright racists, misogynists, xenophobes etc that enthusiastically backed Trumpism were just a loud minority, and that the "real" reason he succeeded is because he tapped into the angrier, more proactive version of the "anti-establishment" groundswell that propelled Bernie Sanders in the Democrat primary. That the hangers-on of the blighted rust-belt, the apparently disenfranchise white working class - abandoned by Reaganomics in the 80s and ignored by "urban coastal elitist" liberals in the age of globalism - saw someone whose election could blow up "the system" and decided to do just that.

And on that point... Egh, I just don't know, folks.

The thing of it is, my immediate instinct is to be introspective and wonder if there's truth in that. The fact is, as someone who is urban, coastal, liberal and frankly proud of the various ways in which I've been described as "elitist," it's not hard to see how maybe that COULD be the case: I'll be the first to admit that I don't generally given much thought to the supposed "victims" of the changes that the globalist, post-national economy have brought about in the world. I live on a safe blue coast as part pf a major city, so for me "globalism" is an almost entirely positive force: My tech/entertainment-adjacent job isn't going to be shipped overseas. My local infrastructure isn't crumbling because young people are fleeing to blue cities where the jobs are, it's being built up because it IS the blue city young people are fleeing to. Immigration has never meant more competition for scarce jobs for me, it's meant vibrant and diverse communities where a lot of my closest friends come from and the overall presence of which gives me a sense of connection to the ideal of a borderless, unified world. That diversity could be a threat to my identity would never even occur to me, because comfortably existing as a global person IS, in large part, my identity. And regardless of how arrogant this sounds, I believe that this outlook is really the only proper one for a person who hopes to exist happily in the 21st Century.

But, on the other hand, it's understandable that the opposite isn't true for everyone - particularly if you were born into the regional homesteads of what Trumpism calls "America's forgotten people" and aren't able (or interested in) uprooting yourself to the cities or remaking yourself as a 21st Century person. And in my angrier, more callous moments, I've been as guilty as anyone like me of looking askance at the economically blighted Red States and their complaining populace with abject contempt: "I'm a proud citizen of the society of the future, those places are the past, why are we wasting time and resources propping any of that up when everyone knows the action is here?" And no, the fact that I'm "right" in the macro-economic/societal-evolution sense doesn't make the dismissiveness less mean-spirited or callous in practice.

I struggle with a base impulse, born out of being mistreated and bullied by my peers for much of my upbringing, to dismiss whole swaths of humanity out of hand because, well... there's A LOT of bad in the world, and a lot of bad people; and when a subset of humanity seems to be giving me a good reason for that dismissal (say, by embracing backward politics, or hatred, or simply by being culturally vacant i.e. "nothing worthwhile comes from there") I tend to take it. Have in the past, probably will in the future. It's a personal failing - and so (probably) is the fact that most of the time deep down I still think I'm "right" and just need to be "nicer" about it.

Especially since, when I DO look past my own self-interest, what I see first are the morally-righteous net-positives of globalism: An increased secular social-liberalism that's made life immeasurably better for my gay, queer, transgender, etc, friends. A decreased power-base for white supremacy (in the form of white-as-default societal view) and increased opportunities for women to attain political, social and market power. A more diverse, interesting, enriching community to live in. If it's already easy for a "liberal coastal elitist" like me to casually dismiss the anti-globalist concerns of "Flyover Country," it gets even EASIER when you can point to people who've historically had to endure much, much worse than a downtick in local blue-collar factory jobs who're benefiting and say "No, you're demonstrably wrong, the way things are going is good because look at how much it's helping all of these worthy, awesome people." And in terms of broad cultural narrative, well... angry white guys versus marginalized women, LGBTQ folks, people of color, disabled persons, etc? Guess who's going to come off like the villain there even if they don't personally think themselves to be. Yeah, exactly.

So... yes, in the abstract, I "get" the concept of being someone who (correctly or not) feels like the transforming landscape of 21st Century America has left them behind and having a chip on your shoulder about it - even if my suspicion is still that there is a lot less actual "I did everything right and got screwed!" at play than there is "I'm mad because I'm not talented or clever enough to make it in a world that's no longer arranged for someone like me to just coast on perceived labor-force necessity and resent having to adjust." And I get (again, in the abstract) wanting to flip a symbolic bird or lob a symbolic brick at some vague idea of "the establishment" that you think was either actively out to get you or just didn't care about you. I get anger. I get lashing out. Even if I think the place it's coming from is utterly wrongheaded and grounded in unexamined-entitlement and ignorance... I get where that comes from.

That.

Having.

Been.

Said.

Here's what I don't get:

I don't get how, when confronted with an unprecedented mass of evidence and testimony that tells you, essentially: "Hey, if you throw that brick, it's a chain reaction that hurts good people who never did anything to you." Explain that to me.

I don't get how the unlikely possibility that backing out of NAFTA (not actually going to happen, by the way) might eventually lead to some kind of factory job maybe popping back up in your general area is still "worth it" when a gay person tells you "Hey, the guy you're electing President because you think he'll make that happen is going to create a Supreme Court that takes my marriage rights away and ruins my life." Explain that to me.

I don't get how the momentary satisfaction of seeing Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Samantha Bee, John Oliver or whoever your "smug liberal who told mean jokes about my precious rural working class culture" target of choice is have to swallow the idea of four years under Trump is "worth it" when a Muslim person tells you "Hey, the guy you made President for the lulz wants to prevent the rest of my family from coming to live with me here because we're the wrong religion." Explain that to me.

I don't get how the prospect of maybe (maybe!) seeing it become slightly easier to pick up this or that job because the migrant labor force growth has been stalled is still "worth it" when someone tells you "Hey, the policies you THINK are going to cause that are ACTUALLY going to be used as pretext to turn away war refugees fleeing a situation a thousand times worse than the suffering you think you're enduring." Explain that to me.

I don't get how seeing this or that company (maybe!) put out one more "now hiring" sign is "worth it" when it happens because EPA regulations have been eased back and that company can now profit from poisoning the air and water that both you AND the "coastal elites" have to drink and breathe. Explain that to me.

I don't get how the prospect of your regional H.R. manager maybe (maybe!) offering a few more overtime hours because corporate is "worth it" when it comes from no longer being required to spend money offering health insurance coverage to employees suffering from chronic illness - meaning those people will get sick and possibly DIE. Explain that to me.

I don't get how showing resistance to the spread of an art/entertainment culture that isn't precisely your "thing" is somehow "worth it" when you are told, again and again, that it means mental and physical harm coming to the people and communities behind that culture. Explain that to me.

I don't get how casting a vote on behalf of buzzwords like "manufacturing jobs" (manufacturing what? For whom? At what cost? For how long?) is "worth it" next to the undeniable fact that gay and transgender youth who - I promise you - are living lives as harsh or harsher than yours despite the impression you may have formed from only seeing such people as idealized pop-culture fixtures on daytime chat shows are going to have psychological and physical violence inflicted on them by bullies and bigots who feel emboldened by the victory of a political movement you claim to support strictly out of "economic anxiety." Explain that to me.

I don't get how whatever you think Trump could conceivably bring to you, personally, is still "worth it" when you know (unless you are utterly oblivious) that his court appointments could mean that women nationwide will lose reproductive freedom and possibly their lives as a result of it. Explain that to me - unless your explanation involves some asinine superstition about the "personhood" of fetuses, in which case you and I had nothing to discuss way before Trump showed up.

Good, decent, wonderful people - people who matter, people who have value, people who bring good into the world, their communities and this country, people who have things just as rough and in most cases substantially rougher than you - told you "What you are voting to happen will cause harm to come to me"... and you did it anyway. How do you live with that? How do you face yourself? Explain that to me.

And just so we're clear: I'm not asking for an explanation because I don't know the answer. We all know the answer to every single item: "I am selfish and looking out for number one." I know it. You know. I just think that all the "Not racist, just ______!" Trump supporters should have to own up to it, if nothing else.

The thing that I don't get and REALLY don't know the answer to is where we go from here. While demographic math and the inexorable march toward post-national globalism (which, just so we're clear, is not actually going to stop - it's just going to have a bunch of red tape to manage at most) will still likely create an eventual political map where the people/regions who supported Trumpism this time will not be able to wield any significant political power... we aren't there yet. The hope was that it would get most of the way there, barely, with a Clinton win this time and then the joint policy-changing movements of a Democrat president and Democrat-dominated SCOTUS would hasten it into full bloom - but that's not going to happen now, and it's going to take longer and require more granular, gradual work.

So until then, yes, it's grudgingly true that liberals in the blue city strongholds and the blue coasts will have to at least TRY to take "Flyover Country" at its word that the open racists and misogynists aren't truly representative and, if "reached out to" in some way, some of the supposedly disenfranchised working class "economic anxiety" voters can be peeled off to support liberal candidates who offer actual solutions to their problems...

But how does that work out, now?

Here's the thing: Regardless of whether Trump follows through on anything he's proposed, he proposed it and "Flyover Country" voted for him. They voted for taking marriage rights away from gays. They voted for mass-deportation of immigrants. They voted for a Muslim ban. They voted for the wall. They voted for "gay conversion therapy" (that one's on Pence - who is, explicitly or implicitly, your actual President in terms of the work. Just watch.) They voted for abortion restrictions. They voted for breaking bread with Putin. They voted for white nationalism. They voted for isolationism. They voted for America to back out of NATO. They voted to tank the economy by trying to force an unviable manufacturing-sector revival that can't be accomplished and an "America first" trade policy that corporations will weasel out of easily while passing any actual costs onto consumers.

Even if that wasn't why they voted for him (or why they THOUGHT they voted for him) ...they knew it about it and voted anyway. Which can only means two things: They wanted to inflict deliberate harm on their fellow countrymen, or they wanted something else and figured that getting it was worth inflicting that same deliberate harm. No matter what's to be gained... how can ANYONE from the "harmed" part of that equation be reasonably asked to build bridges and heal rifts? How do you get there?

Oh, I can imagine the Democrat PARTY getting there: Gearing up a gaggle of their best "relatable white guy" stable ("On Bernie! On Biden! On Kaine and O'Malley!") and "Blue Dog" Senate candidates and dispatching them to the rusted-out hinterlands on the pretext of "Okay, when the Union lunchpail vote was a thing, it was OUR thing - let's get it back!" Sure. That's probably Strategy #1 for the 2018 midterms. What I can't imagine is the ACTUAL power-base coalition of 21st Century liberalism - Blue State/Blue State-aspirant Millennials, LGBTQ people, people of color, immigrants, religious and cultural minorities, women, people with disabilities, etc - going along with it. Why should they? How can that be reasonably expected of them?

This isn't that fucking Black Jeopardy sketch. This isn't a matter of differences of opinion about regional economic priorities and mutual pop-culture acumen. Asking current loyal, active liberals to shake hands and find common ground with theoretically-persuadable Trump voters is not asking Hank Hill and Cleveland Brown to agree on a movie night pick. It's asking them to "make nice" with people who just proved that they AT BEST were willing to see them suffer and possibly die in exchange for the vague possibility that someone MIGHT turn "The Plant" or The Old Steel Mill back on at some point in the near future. And it won't be The Democrats trying to mediate common ground between the two: It will be The Democrats shoving marginalized, imperiled people with actual problems in front newly-emboldened white people with largely imagined/exaggerated problems and asking the marginalized people to swallow not just their pride but their basic sense of self worth and convincingly ask: "What can I do to make my life worth protecting to you?"

Forget not knowing how anyone summons the will to do that - I don't even know how you ASK someone to so much as TRY to do that.

Someone, please.

Explain that to me.

AlleyOop Since: Oct, 2010
#154677: Nov 13th 2016 at 1:19:12 PM

Something I'm legitimately terrified about is the possibility of Trump considering MICHAEL SAVAGE in charge of the NIH. That would be a disaster for scientific research and funding. If there was any person who wasn't fit for that position it'd be him. They may as well name Jill Stein or Deepak Chopra in charge. Fuck, all my friends in academia will be legit screwed and millions will die because of our inability to make progress in the medical sciences.

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#154678: Nov 13th 2016 at 1:21:36 PM

NIH?

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#154679: Nov 13th 2016 at 1:22:19 PM

National Institute of Health.

I know feel more and more vindicated that I'm looking for work in my (molecular biology) field in the private sector.

edited 13th Nov '16 1:22:48 PM by CaptainCapsase

AlleyOop Since: Oct, 2010
#154680: Nov 13th 2016 at 1:23:12 PM

National Institute of Health, in charge of biomedical research and providing funding to labs, colleges, and institutes around the nation.

[up] As am I (oncology with a specialization in informatics).

edited 13th Nov '16 1:24:09 PM by AlleyOop

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#154681: Nov 13th 2016 at 1:24:00 PM

This Michael Savage? Well, no wonder. Exactly the sort of vermin that the evil dog would fish.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
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
#154682: Nov 13th 2016 at 1:25:13 PM

[up]X7 Carson has already been proposed for education hasn't he?

edited 13th Nov '16 1:25:58 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
carbon-mantis Collector Of Fine Oddities from Trumpland Since: Mar, 2010 Relationship Status: Married to my murderer
Collector Of Fine Oddities
#154683: Nov 13th 2016 at 1:25:53 PM

[up][up]Part of me wouldn't doubt he'd do it, considering Trump has been holding meetings with Andrew Wakefield.

edited 13th Nov '16 1:26:04 PM by carbon-mantis

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#154684: Nov 13th 2016 at 1:30:31 PM

[up][up] Or Secretary of Health. Honestly, putting him in charge of the NIH instead of savage would be tolerable at least, since despite being a complete buffoon in other fields, Carson actually knows his subject.

edited 13th Nov '16 1:31:38 PM by CaptainCapsase

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#154685: Nov 13th 2016 at 1:32:26 PM

Optimistic me (yes, really) says that if either of them gets the post some 3rd world healthcare crisis will strike in some time.

Or more likely, that the Senate will deny confirmation.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
PotatoesRock Since: Oct, 2012
#154686: Nov 13th 2016 at 1:36:23 PM

That requires the Republicans don't go flat out roughshod and go "Nuclear Option, Democrats have no say in Government, we're passing all bills by 51 votes, nyah."

Though I get the feeling ramrodding is only going to make their approval ratings tank even harder into the negatives at this rate.

tclittle Professional Forum Ninja from Somewhere Down in Texas Since: Apr, 2010
Professional Forum Ninja
#154687: Nov 13th 2016 at 1:40:13 PM

Trump names Reince Priebus as his Chief of Staff.

"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."
Jetyl The Dev Cat from my apartment Since: Jan, 2013 Relationship Status: Shipping fictional characters
The Dev Cat
#154688: Nov 13th 2016 at 1:41:32 PM

so I'm curious. I know there are protests going on in New York, and some other places, over Dumpf's winning. how common is that, for the results of presidential elections? are there usually protests?

I'm afraid I can't explain myself, sir. Because I am not myself, you see?
Bat178 Since: May, 2011
#154689: Nov 13th 2016 at 1:42:34 PM

[up] There have been some, but never as big as this.

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#154690: Nov 13th 2016 at 1:43:03 PM

In a hotly contested election, there's pretty much always protests. When an incumbent president coasts into a second term, not so much.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Karkadinn Karkadinn from New Orleans, Louisiana Since: Jul, 2009
Karkadinn
#154692: Nov 13th 2016 at 2:05:47 PM

Regarding that Moviebob blog post and that 'white guy stable.'

There is this continuing idea that shifting your campaign strategy to be more inclusive somehow means abandoning the minority bases you previously cultivated, and I don't get where that's coming from. It's not a zero sum game where you can only get more straight people to vote for you by abandoning your previous pro-gay policies, or more men by abandoning feminism.

People are just selfish and want to know what's in it for them. Or, to put it more nicely, it's hard to care about a kind of pain you don't understand because you haven't personally gone through it. Personally, I cannot even imagine a world so different from this one that most people voted for a thing purely based on whether or not it was the morally right thing to do. No one's completely untainted by self-interest, we merely do the best we can struggling against it.

And, you know, if you're wondering how to have a polite conversation with someone whose views you consider morally degenerate, you might also want to ask yourself how Democrats and Republicans meet together every day without trying to kill each other when many of them believe the other's policies are straight-up murder. Shaking hands with the devil is what politics is, and we have Obama's example on it.

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.
RBluefish Since: Nov, 2013
#154693: Nov 13th 2016 at 2:30:05 PM

Jesus H. Christ. So a racist, anti-Semitic domestic abuser now holds a key position in the White House.

People have said that we need to just give Trump a chance. Well, chance's up.

The more I think, the sicker I feel, because this is looking more and more like the rise of genuine fascism in the world's foremost superpower.

"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."
vandro Shop Owner from The little shop that wasn't Since: Jul, 2009
Shop Owner
#154694: Nov 13th 2016 at 2:35:49 PM

On Moviebob's post. I just have to link this;

TerminusEst from the Land of Winter and Stars Since: Feb, 2010
#154695: Nov 13th 2016 at 2:38:08 PM

[up]

That thing is making the rounds it seems.

Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele
Bat178 Since: May, 2011
#154696: Nov 13th 2016 at 2:45:20 PM

[up][up][up] At this point, Civil War might be a better option than a Trump presidency. Or at least hope some of those cabinet members get eliminated.

edited 13th Nov '16 2:45:51 PM by Bat178

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#154697: Nov 13th 2016 at 2:46:42 PM

War Is Hell. Think really hard whether you want one for anything.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Bat178 Since: May, 2011
#154698: Nov 13th 2016 at 2:47:46 PM

[up] America will become Hell anyways with people like that in charge.

Wryte Since: Jul, 2010
#154699: Nov 13th 2016 at 2:52:21 PM

@Karkadinn: I believe the point he was making wasn't that the Democrats can't try to appeal to both groups at once. The point he's making is that it's asking the people who are being most screwed over by Trump, people who may literally lose their lives or those of people they love under his administration, to make nice with the people who voted in favor of those deaths on the slim chance that a factory might reopen.

vandro Shop Owner from The little shop that wasn't Since: Jul, 2009
Shop Owner
#154700: Nov 13th 2016 at 2:54:44 PM

They should have reached out to those people before the election.


Total posts: 417,856
Top