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

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#155126: Nov 14th 2016 at 6:25:03 PM

[up][up][up] Don't get me wrong, I do understand the appeal and apparent need for something like the TPP these days. I'm just not crazy about the SOPA stuff in it. I'm also not comfortable with the concessions it grants to corporations. Frankly, big corporations have way too much power these days as it is. They are the East India Trade Company on steroids.

Stuff like this is exactly why President Obama has been criticized as being a corporatist.

edited 14th Nov '16 6:27:08 PM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
MonsieurThenardier Searching from Murika Since: Nov, 2016 Relationship Status: Getting away with murder
Searching
#155127: Nov 14th 2016 at 6:28:35 PM

Don't get me wrong, I do understand the appeal and apparent need for something like the TPP these days. I'm just not crazy about the SOPA stuff in it.
The worries about the TPP making corporations ultra-powerful was revealed as largely baseless fearmongering once the text of it came out.

Not that this was ever a big factor in its implementation or rejection. Only 18-29 year olds on the Internet really cared about that part. And, as I said earlier, 18-29 year olds on the Internet generally don't vote (speaking as a 18-29 year old on the Internet here). The important part was facilitating trade between various Asia-Pacific countries, which was projected to result in a net economic gain, particularly for the poorer members of the partnership like Vietnam.

They are the East India Trade Company on steroids.
Did Wal-Mart just assemble a private army and invade India? Why wasn't I informed?

Stuff like this is exactly why President Obama has been criticized as being a corporatist.
Everyone who enacts economically sensible policies is a corporatist/establishment scum to the far left, as so thoroughly proven during Bernie's campaign, where people were seriously and unironically backing the guy who said that having relevant experience in a profession (see his opinions on Obama's FDA appointments) makes you a corporatist and that farmers should sit on the Federal Reserve. Obama wisely chose to ignore them, just like how he ignored the far right saying that those same policies were proof that he was a Kenyan Muslim Globalist planning to sell our children to the Chinese.

Unfortunately it seems like Trump will wreck much of his legacy.

edited 14th Nov '16 6:35:54 PM by MonsieurThenardier

"It is very easy to be kind; the difficulty lies in being just."
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#155128: Nov 14th 2016 at 6:32:22 PM

I suppose the comparison was unfair. While I still think it's pretty bad, there's a big difference between a corporation suing a country and sending in mercenaries to beat them into submission.

Disgusted, but not surprised
MonsieurThenardier Searching from Murika Since: Nov, 2016 Relationship Status: Getting away with murder
Searching
#155129: Nov 14th 2016 at 6:34:43 PM

I suppose the comparison was unfair. While I still think it's pretty bad, there's a big difference between a corporation suing a country and sending in mercenaries to beat them into submission.
Why shouldn't a corporation be able to sue if a country passes a law that unfairly targets them specifically? The ISDS mechanism has existed for decades and works fine.

"It is very easy to be kind; the difficulty lies in being just."
Eschaton Since: Jul, 2010
#155130: Nov 14th 2016 at 6:37:15 PM

Depends on the definition of "unfairly."

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#155131: Nov 14th 2016 at 6:38:09 PM

[up][up] Eh, I'm reminded of the times Philip-Morris sued relatively small and poor countries when they tried to enact legislation such as putting visual warning labels on boxes of cigarettes.

edited 14th Nov '16 6:38:23 PM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
MonsieurThenardier Searching from Murika Since: Nov, 2016 Relationship Status: Getting away with murder
Searching
#155132: Nov 14th 2016 at 6:39:51 PM

[up] Eh, I'm reminded of the times Philip-Morris sued relatively small and poor countries when they tried to enact legislation such as putting visual warning labels on boxes of cigarettes.
Where? Are you talking about Norway and Uruguay?

"It is very easy to be kind; the difficulty lies in being just."
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#155133: Nov 14th 2016 at 6:41:12 PM

[up] Don't forget Togo, one of the poorest countries on Earth.

Disgusted, but not surprised
MonsieurThenardier Searching from Murika Since: Nov, 2016 Relationship Status: Getting away with murder
Searching
#155134: Nov 14th 2016 at 6:42:54 PM

[up] Don't forget Togo, one of the poorest countries on Earth.
So you were then. From what I can see, Morris decisively lost the attempted suits against Norway and Uruguay (and the lawsuits were about a lot more than cigarette packaging, including taxes). Morris was subsequently ordered to pay $7 million for what was judged as an unjustified suit against Uruguay, in addition to all fees and expenses of the Tribunal.

I'm not seeing a problem here.

edited 14th Nov '16 6:44:21 PM by MonsieurThenardier

"It is very easy to be kind; the difficulty lies in being just."
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#155135: Nov 14th 2016 at 6:47:40 PM

I wonder if one of the things Obama will try to do while he's holding Trump's hand with getting ready for the presidency (since Trump doesn't know jack shit about the job he just won) is to convince him that the TPP needs to happen.

Disgusted, but not surprised
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#155136: Nov 14th 2016 at 6:53:52 PM

[up][up] Why exactly should we be passing the TPP though?

Trade deals aren't magical, despite what neoliberals try to assert; yes there's some marginal economic gains, but tarries are already low enough that it barely makes a difference on that front. A lot of jobs end up being shifted around though, and while the net change in available jobs is close to zero, spoiler warning: particularly stateside, a lot of people really don't like losing their jobs to outsourcing, and while it was assumed these people would retrain and find comparable jobs, this doesn't appear to be happening anywhere close to the rate prominent neoliberal economists projected it would.

It's not apocalyptic, but neither is it a panacea, and passing more trade deals will almost certainly exasperate the backlash against globalism that is sweeping through the west. That's not even getting in to the IP provisions, which I find quite odious, and will do quite a bit to stifle innovation.

edited 14th Nov '16 6:55:28 PM by CaptainCapsase

PotatoesRock Since: Oct, 2012
#155137: Nov 14th 2016 at 6:58:22 PM

It's not apocalyptic, but neither is it a panacea, and passing more trade deals will almost certainly exasperate the backlash against globalism that is sweeping through the west.
One of which may have been responsible for electing the most recent President of the United States. [Looks over to the Rust Belt slowly]

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#155138: Nov 14th 2016 at 6:59:17 PM

[up] Thanks Obama. tongue

Disgusted, but not surprised
MonsieurThenardier Searching from Murika Since: Nov, 2016 Relationship Status: Getting away with murder
Searching
#155139: Nov 14th 2016 at 7:01:11 PM

I wonder if one of the things Obama will try to do while he's holding Trump's hand with getting ready for the presidency (since Trump doesn't know jack shit about the job he just won) is to convince him that the TPP needs to happen.
Probably not. Let him destroy TPP for the sake of publicity while keeping the actual important trade agreements untouched. TPP has received attention disproportionate to its significance. The USA won't lose much from abandoning it, bar political capital in East Asia.

Millions of Vietnamese peasants are screwed in that case, but you know. Neither the far right nor the far left care about that.

[up][up] Why exactly should we be passing the TPP though?
Because it results in more wealth for everyone (projected $300 billion increase for the partnership members), and also has political significance re:relations with Vietnam, Japan, and China. More importantly, it's a precursor to something much larger. The real prize is the FTAAP, which has strong government support from the non-TPP economies such as China.

Trade deals aren't magical, despite what neoliberals try to assert; yes there's some marginal economic gains, but tarries are already low enough that it barely makes a difference on that front. A lot of jobs end up being shifted around though, and while the net change in available jobs is close to zero, spoiler warning: particularly stateside, a lot of people really don't like losing their jobs to outsourcing, and while it was assumed these people would retrain and find comparable jobs, this doesn't appear to be happening anywhere close to the rate prominent neoliberal economists projected it would.
Because it generates more wealth for everyone involved and there's no reason at all not to? It results in a net gain of wealth for all involved countries and a net gain in jobs. Particularly better ones than those we had before.

I also like how you're referring to them as "neo-liberal economists", rather than just "economists". Free trade being good is the consensus among actual professionals. It has been for quite a while. The objections we're hearing to globalism today are the exact same ones being raised in the 19th century.

It's not apocalyptic, but neither is it a panacea, and passing more trade deals will almost certainly exasperate the backlash against globalism.
I'm sure that the invention of automobiles caused quite a backlash from horse breeders.

edited 14th Nov '16 7:04:33 PM by MonsieurThenardier

"It is very easy to be kind; the difficulty lies in being just."
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#155140: Nov 14th 2016 at 7:02:43 PM

[up][up] Yeah. A lot of people here are optimistic about President Obama's legacy, I have a bad feeling he'll end up associated with whatever woes a Trump presidency brings, having handed him a greatly empowered executive branch and a massive surveillance state that he not only did not dismantle in the wake of the Bush era, but expanded, and which will now be turned against the democrats.

[up] Neoliberal economists being the ones who try to pretend free trade is magical and has no negative or potentially unwanted consequences depending on the circumstances. Yes there's a net gain in wealth, but it's fairly small compared to the number of workers who need to find new jobs (even though the number of jobs remains the same, being displaced isn't fun), and virtually nonexistent for particular sectors of the working class, and its these same people, the losers of globalization, who are pushing the far right into power.

As far as the comparison to industrialization, it's an apt one, because much of the insanity of the late 19th and early 20th century has its roots in the breakdown of traditional society caused by the industrial revolution. I would hope people would be intelligent enough not to repeat history, but "history repeats" is an extremely common adage for the same reason "common sense" is a buzzword.

My opinion on this matter is fairly similar to the one expressed by Paul Kruggman; I just don't feel like the TPP is really worth it.

edited 14th Nov '16 7:11:10 PM by CaptainCapsase

PotatoesRock Since: Oct, 2012
#155141: Nov 14th 2016 at 7:03:19 PM

Because it generates more wealth for everyone involved and there's no reason at all not to? It results in a net gain of wealth for all involved countries and a net gain in jobs. Particularly better ones than those we had before.
Except then you get outvoted 10-20 years down the line by extremely bitter voters who got hosed by Trade Deals allying with Racists to vote in crazy political whack jobs across the board. This is a thing that's been happening because of the ripple effects of Trade Deals.

Ogodei Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers from The front lines Since: Jan, 2011
Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers
#155142: Nov 14th 2016 at 7:33:04 PM

Anti-Clinton investigations will just be seen as poor sportsmanship at this point. When there was a chance for her to be President, you could at least argue that it made good sense to subject her to scrutiny. Now that her career is over, dragging her back is just cruel.

Not a value statement, mind, i'm thinking how it will play with the general public. We're tired of hearing about the damn emails and that is *especially* true if they're the emails of private citizen Hillary Clinton. If the committees are thinking to use her scandals to distract from Trump...

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#155143: Nov 14th 2016 at 8:04:01 PM

So Breitbart is basically going to become the US Russia Today?

Lovely.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Karkadinn Karkadinn from New Orleans, Louisiana Since: Jul, 2009
Karkadinn
#155144: Nov 14th 2016 at 8:04:03 PM

Something tells me that Hillary Clinton is never going to know any peace until a majority of Americans unsubscribe from cable and stop watching mainstream news, the great enabler of all these 'scandals' that have hounded her. Ratings at any cost, apparently. The price we pay for letting Fox and the would-be centrists monkey with people's heads for decades without a compelling counterbalance.

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.
TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor
#155145: Nov 14th 2016 at 8:17:18 PM

If I were Hillary Clinton, I"d just sit back and fucking chill, not giving a fuck anymore.

She's clearly earned it.

New Survey coming this weekend!
nightwyrm_zero Since: Apr, 2010
#155146: Nov 14th 2016 at 8:19:26 PM

After the giant middle finger America gave her, I could see Hillary not giving a fuck anymore.

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#155147: Nov 14th 2016 at 8:24:12 PM

Tobias: You say a social movement can't stop things as if the Civil Rights movement wasn't a social movement. The people in power then had to be made and convinced to vote a certain way once in power, or people who supported those positions got voted into power. Social movements and what Congressional representatives do are not, somehow, magically divorced from each other. Social movements inevitably affect what they do, one way or another. This will take time and constant reminders, but it can, in fact, be done.

Social movements can and do influence change because they are issues that affect people's lives on an intimate level. People can't let them go because they are constantly hurt by them. Feminism gained power because the issues it was fighting against were constantly relevant to someone's life, every single second of every day. There was a steady flow of people passionate about the issue because there was always someone being harmed by it.

The same is true of the Civil Rights Movement. Rosa Parks didn't sit on that bus because she heard about some black people being hurt three years ago. She did it because she was actively suffering under an unjust system that was making new victims every moment.

The Electoral College doesn't have that omnipresence. It only matters one time every four years and more often than not it goes unnoticed during that time. People who are upset about it today are not going to be able to retain that frustration for four straight years. Outrage just doesn't last that long. Without constant booster shots of injustice, the rage burns out. People stop caring.

Go ahead and have your "End the EC!" rallies if you want, but don't be surprised as attendance flickers out and dies because people in 2017 have more pressing matters on their plate than some logistical mumbo-jumbo they only ever half-understood in the first place.

And so? Why does it matter the reason it got brought up as long as it's brought up? It doesn't invalidate the argument itself. Hell, the first attempt to get rid of the thing happened after Nixon's very narrow victory in the popular vote. It wasn't exactly sour grapes that brought that up.

It matters because so long as the only reason anyone stops to care about the EC is because they lost, then we will always be in a position where the only people who care about the EC are the ones with no power to change it.

Until the day that it's the people who won the EC calling it bullshit, nothing's ever going to happen.

Frankly, the idea that this is merely sour grapes and the idea should be abandoned for that reason is idiotic. It's incidents like this that show us where something is broken and needs improvement. And you can damn well bet the Republicans would be wailing about the same damn thing if it had happened to their candidate. And as relieved as I'd be, they'd be right to do so. And they would be right to pursue the end of the EC. This system, in the end, is unfair to everybody.

Sure. And if the Republicans were wailing because the EC had cost them the White House, they would be howling into an abyss with no power to change it just like the Democrats are doing now.

The losing side doesn't get to create or abolish laws in order to secure a victory next time. Only the winners do.

It still wouldn't help. We need to get rid of it altogether.

Which means we need Congress to agree with the idea. And most of them are not Democrats. Now, if most of them dislike Trump, there's a far bigger chance of that working. Since their bias can help swap the final decision of getting rid of it or not.

We would also need a President willing to sign into law the bill that undermines his or her Presidency. Or enough of a supermajority in Congress that we can override a veto.

When Obama won the electoral vote, he won the popular vote too. Nobody cared then. When Trump won the electoral vote, his popular vote count was greatly outnumbered by Hillary's. And her numbers are climbing faster than his. That's why people are complaining: The electoral result doesn't line up with the popular one.

Exactly. And when Obama won the electoral vote and the popular vote, eight years had passed since George W. Bush slid into office with an electoral win but losing the popular vote - just like Trump has done here. Eight years later, everyone had long since forgotten that they were outraged against the EC.

Because you don't get new reasons to be angry every other day with election law.

edited 14th Nov '16 8:24:23 PM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
TropesForever God forbid women do anything from wait where is she Since: Sep, 2016 Relationship Status: I wanna be your dog
God forbid women do anything
#155148: Nov 14th 2016 at 8:39:49 PM

Speaking of electoral reform, are preferential voting and compulsory voting things that are commonly discussed in America, or are they considered goddamn Commie plots, or do people never even think about them?

thebeatles.com/careers
TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#155149: Nov 14th 2016 at 8:43:35 PM

Commie plots. America is "the land of the free". We don't like the word "compulsory".

You could have "compulsory breathing" or "compulsory playing with kittens" or "compulsory getting to have sex with your favorite celebrity" and Americans would still ravenously oppose it.

The thing about the U.S. is that much of our politics have nothing to do with actual issues and everything to do with the Myth of America. We make decisions based not on the benefits a thing would provide to us but on how it interacts with our view of what the nation's soul.

edited 14th Nov '16 8:44:32 PM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
AngelusNox Warder of the damned from The guard of the gates of oblivion Since: Dec, 2014 Relationship Status: Married to the job
Warder of the damned
#155150: Nov 14th 2016 at 8:44:48 PM

If you think people fuck up with their vote with voluntary vote, just wait until compulsory vote becomes a thing.

Inter arma enim silent leges

Total posts: 417,856
Top