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

TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor
#160401: Dec 4th 2016 at 12:01:46 PM

I'd argue that a majority of the people voting for the crime bill (even the Republicans, likely) honestly had good intentions, and it's problems didn't manifest until about a decade or so later at the turn of the millennium.

Even still, that shouldn't mean that only HRC should get shit for it's bad problems ESPECIALLY when she didn't vote for it.

New Survey coming this weekend!
Perian Since: Jun, 2016
#160402: Dec 4th 2016 at 12:02:07 PM

[up][up][up][up] It seemed to me that you were suggesting that he was targeting black people in particular with his 'sociopathic' remark. If that is not the case, I apologize, but I don't know why you would bring it up in the first place in that case.

[up][up][up] Fine, that's a fair point.

edited 4th Dec '16 12:02:32 PM by Perian

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#160403: Dec 4th 2016 at 12:02:22 PM

[up][up] I agree that Clinton shouldn't be judged harshly for supporting the bill, but neither should Sanders for the reasons we've discussed.

edited 4th Dec '16 12:02:27 PM by CaptainCapsase

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#160404: Dec 4th 2016 at 12:07:24 PM

[up][up]Saying he was deliberately targeting black people with that remark is about as fair as saying that Clinton was deliberately targeting blacks with the superpredators comment.

Clinton was talking about gang kids, referencing a popular pop-psychology idea of the day, which posited that immersion in gang culture turned kids from petty criminals and into permanent menaces to society. Now sure, you can argue that a majority of gang kids are members of minorities and that it's a dog whistle, but the problem with that is that a majority of people in prison are members of minorities, which makes Sanders' statement about sociopaths just as easily interpreted as a dog whistle.

Neither one of them emerges from that discussion looking brilliant.

edited 4th Dec '16 12:07:50 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

JulianLapostat Since: Feb, 2014
#160405: Dec 4th 2016 at 12:09:16 PM

The main thing which people who are skeptical of Sanders are afraid of is:

The worries that the Democrats will throw social justice under the bus. The reason they are worried is because it has happened before, the latest being The '90s, the whole superpredators issue we just mentioned above being a case in point.

This article mentions here:

The fear is not strictly a hypothetical. Throughout American history, the progressive party of the time has abandoned and neglected people of color after deciding they need to reach out to white voters.

New Yorker writer James Surowiecki gave a few examples in a series of tweets: when Republicans abandoned Reconstruction following the abolition of slavery, leaving black people to “fend for themselves” in the South; during the New Deal, when Democrats excluded predominantly black farmers and service workers from Social Security; and in the 1990s, when the Clinton administration and Democrats embraced “tough on crime” and anti-welfare rhetoric that led to criminal justice policies that disproportionately hurt people of color.

...

Privately, Sen. Elizabeth Warren has reportedly made similar comments, with Gabriel Debenedetti reporting for Politico that Warren told donors that “Democrats need to step up their economic appeal to everyday voters.” (Phrases like “everyday voters” and “working class” are often coded to mean “white.”)

It would be one thing if this were a mere shift in rhetoric. But in the past this kind of approach has led to real policy changes that disproportionately hurt people of color, such as “tough on crime” laws and welfare reform signed by President Bill Clinton in the 1990s.

And issues linked to identity politics need serious policy attention today, including criminal justice reform, immigration reform, and anything that addresses the racial gaps in wealth, income, and educational attainment. A Democratic Party that’s speaking less to these issues may be more likely to neglect them.

Listen in the entire history of America there was only one party that successfully and consistently campaigned for both social and economic justice, and that was the Communist Party of the USA (CPUSA). They were marginal but influential in the 30s, and they allied with FDR's Democrats. Come 1945, the Democrats and the Republicans teamed up to purge the Communists out of America and demonize and blacken their reputations and write them out of the history books. They have been remarkably successful at doing that.

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#160406: Dec 4th 2016 at 12:11:08 PM
Thumped: Please see The Rules . This is a warning that this post is the sort of thing that will get you suspended.
Perian Since: Jun, 2016
#160407: Dec 4th 2016 at 12:26:23 PM

@Ambar: Maybe Clinton's remarks are also understandable in context - I really don't know enough about the specific context, and don't feel the need to target Clinton anyway. But I don't like how Sanders, who I respect a lot, and his movement repeatedly get framed as sexist/racist/intolerant in any other way, which couldn't be further from the truth, in my opinion.

edited 4th Dec '16 12:27:23 PM by Perian

JulianLapostat Since: Feb, 2014
#160408: Dec 4th 2016 at 12:27:25 PM

The thing is Sanders doesn't control his movement. He has no party-organizing and community-organizing skills. You know who does...Obama.

And what the whole Sanders narrative in the media is spinning is not really for Sanders benefit. It's basically for opportunists to take command of the party and advance their own careers and interests. The Democrats have more than a few within the party who had issues with the strident anti-racist and social issues that are the party's themes, and they see that as marginal. Those guys have some political capital now, and Sanders suits their purpose to enter the breach.

And if Sanders, and Jon Stewart, keep spouting crap about Trump voters not being racist...then it's going to make things worse. The Democrats were always a hypocritical party that's main virtues were that it was not Republicans and it could win. Abandoning social issues means that it will not have that.

If the rust belt slips permanently out of democrat's grasp (let's say Trump runs a bread and circuses economy and continues his backroom dealing with manufacturers so as to at least slow the rate of job loss), it's going to be very difficult to win without abandoning the social justice platform to appeal to the religious right, or conversely embracing Reaganomics (which themselves are very harmful to minorities) in an effort to get conventional Republicans on board.

They can win by going for the "Obama coalition" and the Hillary Majority and focusing on the undecided and appealing to youth voters. Demographics not being destiny cuts both ways. This election is no permanent placement into pedestal of the white working class...and considering the suicide rate among white people in this area...it will become less of an issue.

And besides as I have said constantly as TNC and others said, social justice is economic justice. Economics-First will benefit only whites whereas social justice benefits the economic prospects of everyone in society. African-American rights are tied intimately to America's economic growth. The working class is 40% minority, and they work for less and get paid less than the white working-class (which means they work harder than the white working class). Remember the right-wing loves to sneer and project their own failings...they are the truly lazy ones here, the one who feel they are entitled to stuff, and yet they slander minorities and others who work twice-as-hard and achieve success on merit as being "entitled".

[up]

Bernie Sanders himself said Planned Parenthood was part of the establishment. You know that organization was targeted by American terrorists and on which the GOP have declared jihad on since time immemorial, an organization that provides services to the poor women and poor LGBT.

That is itself dog-whistle sexism, reminiscent of Ralph Nader's "gonadal politics". It's basically patrician leftists not taking the issues of women's movements seriously.

edited 4th Dec '16 12:30:55 PM by JulianLapostat

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#160409: Dec 4th 2016 at 12:29:47 PM

[up] Youth voters are concerned about their future and about the economy, which isn't surprising since their (our) formative political experience was the worst economic crisis since the great depression. Which is one part of why Sanders won every youth demographic, albeit with a fairly small margin when it came to African Americans.

I'd also like to note that "establishment" wasn't always used in a negative sense by Sanders (in contrast to Trump); his position was that the democrats need to seriously rethink some of their positions, as the political establishment is failing a large sector of the population, not that the establishment is evil. He also said a fair amount in favor of planned parenthood and argued against defunding it when that became a thing. Sure supporters of his went with that angle, but supporters of any candidate do moronic things.

edited 4th Dec '16 12:37:13 PM by CaptainCapsase

JulianLapostat Since: Feb, 2014
#160410: Dec 4th 2016 at 12:45:14 PM
Thumped: Please see The Rules . This is a warning that this post is the sort of thing that will get you suspended.
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#160411: Dec 4th 2016 at 12:45:31 PM

Which direction the Democratic Party takes will depend on which problems get worse in the next year or two under Trump: racism or economic collapse. Of course, since both are probably going to be YUUGE bigly problems thanks to our new POS POTUS, the Democratic Party should aim to alleviate both.

[up] Thank you for pointing out one of the glaring problems with Sander's "free college" idea. [tup]

edited 4th Dec '16 12:47:48 PM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#160412: Dec 4th 2016 at 12:49:48 PM

[up][up] Julian, you do realize anybody without at least a bachelor's degree is going to be obsoleted in the next decade or two? We really, really need more college education, as much as possible because anyone without it will be left behind in the gutters in a manner far worse than the treatment the manufacturing workforce is currently getting. Sure college education will be devalued, but the alternative is the complete disappearance of the middle class, which is essential to having a functioning modern democracy.

Moreover, as far as campaign finance goes, Sanders was doing fine funding wise without any need to turn to big money, and Trump beat Clinton despite being massively outfunded. Not wanting to unilaterally disarm is either an excuse or a rationalization.

edited 4th Dec '16 12:57:24 PM by CaptainCapsase

Aprilla Since: Aug, 2010
#160413: Dec 4th 2016 at 1:02:50 PM
Thumped: Please see The Rules . This is a warning that this post is the sort of thing that will get you suspended.
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#160414: Dec 4th 2016 at 1:07:27 PM

[up] On the last part, black turnout was down. A lot. So were other parts of the Obama coalition.

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
#160415: Dec 4th 2016 at 1:09:08 PM

Statistically not voting for Trump and voting for Clinton are not the same thing, likewise turnout varies, there was a noticeably drop in minority turnout, however that's most likely due to voter suppression.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#160416: Dec 4th 2016 at 1:11:03 PM

[up] Without clear evidence that voter suppression occurred on a scale significantly greater than what occurred in previous cycles, claiming voter suppression is no better than the GOP claiming mass voter fraud. The less conspiratorial explanation is that turnout dropped because it wasn't Obama people were voting for.

edited 4th Dec '16 1:12:30 PM by CaptainCapsase

Gilphon (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#160417: Dec 4th 2016 at 1:14:49 PM
Thumped: Please see The Rules . This is a warning that this post is the sort of thing that will get you suspended.
RBluefish Since: Nov, 2013
#160418: Dec 4th 2016 at 1:15:58 PM

On a different topic, a rare bit of good news (assuming it's all true): I'm seeing people say that the Dakota Access Pipeline has been stopped! I can't find any official articles on the subject yet, since it's a brand-new development, but if what I'm seeing is to be believed then Obama has blocked the project.

"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."
Aprilla Since: Aug, 2010
#160419: Dec 4th 2016 at 1:16:16 PM

[up][up][up]Indeed it was. Much of this is tied to the fact that only 30 percent of the general voting-eligible public actually goes to the polls, so that 94 percent of black women is those who showed up rather than those who didn't want to vote at all, voted for Trump (a sliver, really) and the vast pools of blacks who can't vote due to felony convictions and incarceration status. Or as another black person put it when we were chatting, we've being shot, lynched, demonized and thrown behind bars under both Democrats and Republicans. A lot of black people understandably didn't see the point in voting.

It's also been explained that the extent of HRC's popularity during the race might have been overstated or otherwise miscalculated relative to Trump's popularity for psychological reasons rather than ones based on calculus. Social desirability bias could explain how Trump supporters seemingly sprouted overnight during the initial tally because it's (rightfully) not socially acceptable to support Trump's policy platform. Basically this might have happened at the polls:

"Are you voting for Trump? I'm not voting for Trump."

  • Goes to booth. Votes for Trump.

"Who'd you vote for?"

"I didn't vote for Hilary, that's for sure." ("I voted for Trump, but I kinda don't want you to know that.")

See also: the Bradley effect.

edited 4th Dec '16 1:47:25 PM by Aprilla

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
#160420: Dec 4th 2016 at 1:18:00 PM

The voting rights act was struck down in 2013, so it makes sense that we will have seen an increase is voter suppression compared to 2012.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#160421: Dec 4th 2016 at 1:22:17 PM

[up] It's very much possible, but it's a bit disingenuous to assume that's the only reason turnout dropped.

[up][up] The "shy Trump voter" wasn't very apparent based on polling. There were a large number of people who were uncertain about who to vote for, and uncertain voters broke towards Trump.

edited 4th Dec '16 1:23:03 PM by CaptainCapsase

Aprilla Since: Aug, 2010
#160422: Dec 4th 2016 at 1:23:07 PM

But, well, I don't think anyone was saying black women were the reason HRC lost the election.

That wasn't my point?

Without clear evidence that voter suppression occurred on a scale significantly greater than what occurred in previous cycles, claiming voter suppression is no better than the GOP claiming mass voter fraud. The less conspiratorial explanation is that turnout dropped because it wasn't Obama people were voting for.

The two scenarios weren't mutually exclusive. I admittedly don't have the reports on hand, but intimidation tactics from white nationalists are believed to have at least caused a disruption on minority-led Democratic turnout. The voter suppression/fraud argument isn't really one to be equivocated mainly because suppression is easier to deploy along various channels than fraud.

On the latter point about Obama, I agree. The "black people would vote him for a third term" meme was popular among us for a good reason.

[up] For the record, I'm not arguing that's the only reason voter turnout was lower. There are other factors such as the longstanding argument that economic stressors and Tuesday/workday voting have a deleterious effect on democratic participation.

edited 4th Dec '16 1:27:07 PM by Aprilla

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#160423: Dec 4th 2016 at 1:24:30 PM

[up] I agree that it's probably both the lack of Obama and the Court decision regarding the voter's rights act, though Silas phrased his post as if it was just voter suppression.

JulianLapostat Since: Feb, 2014
#160424: Dec 4th 2016 at 1:30:13 PM

Moreover, as far as campaign finance goes, Sanders was doing fine funding wise without any need to turn to big money, and Trump beat Clinton despite being massively outfunded.

Trump is a f—king billionaire as is his son-in-law Evil Chancellor Jared Kushner, and Stephen Bannon his Rasputin is also deeply rich (he invested in Seinfeld and got a cut of the royalties, perfect American story, make money out of other people's hard work). These guys started out with a greater amount of private resources and funds then a normal political campaign without those resources do. The former can afford to spend less and do without heavy funding while a normal political campaign cannot do that.

So let's not do inane lopsided comparisons, especially since it creates the whole underdog image that the Trumpsters are selling. And let's not forget that Trump's finances is a huge question mark since the man doesn't put out his taxes and has huge conflict of interests. There was probably a lot of corruption and embezzlement in his campaign, I mean the guy got Secret Service to pay for his flight expenses as he jetted around USA. He used government money for his own ends despite never holding private office and being a f—king civilian.

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#160425: Dec 4th 2016 at 1:31:05 PM

[up] Trump is a billionaire, but FEC reports don't lie; Clinton did vastly better than him in terms of fundraising and in terms of spending, and unless you can provide evidence that those reports were falsified, that's a fact whether you like it or not.

edited 4th Dec '16 1:31:59 PM by CaptainCapsase


Total posts: 417,856
Top