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

Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#160426: Dec 4th 2016 at 1:33:34 PM

I forgot where it was posted but there was an article about how Trumps team might have spent "smarter, not harder" using modern targeted advertising techniques.

Plus, well, all that free media coverage.

edited 4th Dec '16 1:34:56 PM by Elle

JulianLapostat Since: Feb, 2014
#160427: Dec 4th 2016 at 1:33:55 PM

Statistics need context. Hillary raised funding and campaign finance because she didn't have vast private funds to campaign on. Yes she earned some money making speeches and the Clinton Foundation but that's for charity and its unethical to do that.

Raising money from fundraising and donations is how campaigns are run these days. I don't agree with it entirely but that's how it is.

[up] Jared Kusner's Forbes Article

edited 4th Dec '16 1:35:03 PM by JulianLapostat

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#160428: Dec 4th 2016 at 1:35:02 PM

[up] Sanders actually outraised Clinton in the primaries by a small margin despite relying solely on small donors, and not having significant personal capital to fall back on. It can be done, and this election demonstrated as much.

[up][up] That doesn't changed the fact that he was ouspent by a huge margin by Clinton. He ran a much stronger social media campaign, and manipulated the media into covering him almost non-stop.

edited 4th Dec '16 1:38:38 PM by CaptainCapsase

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
#160429: Dec 4th 2016 at 1:46:59 PM

Trump's private funds weren't spent directly on the campaign, he loaned private funds to his campaign and as such they were courted amonegst the contributions.

The only arguments for Trump not being out spent is if you count all free advertising done by news networks as effective spending, then Trump might lead as he got a lot more free advertising than Clinton did.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
JulianLapostat Since: Feb, 2014
#160430: Dec 4th 2016 at 1:53:02 PM

He's a master embezzler and conman, fond of getting stuff for free and not paying too much.

I think the crucial part of that statment, "I'm gonna build a wall, a big, beautiful wall, and the Mexicans will pay for it." The key statement is not the boast but that other people will pay for it.

That's basically his modus operandi. Other people will pay for my success, spend for me.

Aprilla Since: Aug, 2010
#160431: Dec 4th 2016 at 1:54:56 PM

Let's be perfectly clear about the social psychology being demonstrated here. His shuffling and relocating of funds is a cause for celebration among his supporters rather than a cautionary tale of how a man with mercenary intentions can easily work with Loophole Abuse. It also feeds into the feigned machismo that he and Putin use to their ideological advantage, which brings me to my central point about how the eye rolling over social justice was unwise in retrospect. Yes, toxic masculinity is a valid concept, and it can be and is used in situations like the one we're seeing now where a billionaire of questionable entrepreneurial competence can make himself look like a total badass to his fanbase and laugh about trigger warnings and safe spaces while, nanoseconds later, having a temper tantrum on Twitter because he feels like Saturday Night Live is bullying him.

edited 4th Dec '16 1:55:27 PM by Aprilla

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#160432: Dec 4th 2016 at 1:55:00 PM

[up][up] And? He was smarter spending his money, had a message that appealed to the correct demographics, and had a good amount of luck. That's why he and not Hillary Clinton is President-Elect. Considering the many cases of him overcharging the campaign with his own businesses, that puts him even further behind in terms of fundraising.

edited 4th Dec '16 1:55:47 PM by CaptainCapsase

JulianLapostat Since: Feb, 2014
#160433: Dec 4th 2016 at 2:01:41 PM

[up]Are you listening to yourself? You are sounding, almost like a Trump supporter, saying he's smart for playing the system.

And all of this is to make an issue about Clinton's fundraising and campaign while ignoring how Trump was an exception to the system. And remember Hillary won the popular vote by a whopping large margin, so you can't say the fundraising entirely failed.

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#160434: Dec 4th 2016 at 2:07:05 PM

[up] There's no such thing as an exception to the system; Trump's campaign has changed the rules of the game in regards to political fundraising and campaign strategy. It doesn't matter that he lost the popular vote, because the popular vote doesn't determine the outcome of American elections.

In beating the system, Trump's campaign becomes the new system. Future presidential campaigns will undoubtedly take lessons from the Trump campaign's adverting strategy and their social media strategy, much like they did when Bill Clinton rewrote the rules of the game during the 90s.

It's not fair, it's not just, and it's certainly not democratic. But it's the reality we have to live with as long as we lack the power to change it.

edited 4th Dec '16 2:11:35 PM by CaptainCapsase

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
#160435: Dec 4th 2016 at 2:26:21 PM

The fact that someone saying Trump did something successfully immediately makes people claim the first person sounds like a Trump supporter is rather disturbing.

One can note that Trump is a successful low-budget con man without being a supporter of him, it's absurd that I even need to spell that out.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
JulianLapostat Since: Feb, 2014
#160436: Dec 4th 2016 at 2:36:04 PM

The fact that someone saying Trump did something successfully immediately makes people claim the first person sounds like a Trump supporter is rather disturbing.

That. Is. Disturbing.

Seriously. That. Is. Disturbing. Not. The. Fact. That. Trump. Is. In. The. White. House.

The fact that Trump, his millionaire network and Jared Kushner's Social Tech L'il bro used social media campaigning well is nothing to praise. We might as well praise Leni Reifenstahl which even film critics don't do anymore.

Trump won on luck. That you can praise, since luck is an amoral virtue. Actually its not even a virtue, its just something you have or you don't. It wasn't his campaign that won him, it was the free advertisement on the network (since most Trump voters consume traditional media), it was the fake news, it was the media failure...and it was the Republicans Smear Campaign on Hillary. Nothing else.

edited 4th Dec '16 2:37:29 PM by JulianLapostat

Kayeka (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#160437: Dec 4th 2016 at 2:41:09 PM

[up]You left out Russian involvement.

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
#160438: Dec 4th 2016 at 2:44:35 PM

That strawman is so big I think I might take it down to my parents tomorrow and offer it to the farmer for his crop field.

Look Julian if your not going to debate in good faith what's the point of you being here? I mean honestly, you're going to pretend that I haven't spend pages talking about how disturbed I am by Trump because you want to get a win over me?

“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
#160439: Dec 4th 2016 at 2:46:29 PM

[up][up][up] I am not normalizing Trump. But I am done underestimating him. People keep dismissing him as lucky, and he keeps on defying expectations again and again. There's a nonzero chance this is all luck, but that's one hell of a coincidence, so I'm inclined to think that he's making his own luck.

edited 4th Dec '16 2:49:51 PM by CaptainCapsase

JulianLapostat Since: Feb, 2014
#160440: Dec 4th 2016 at 2:50:11 PM

Because you cannot give the slightest legitimacy to Trump, if you say his voters ignored racism and voted for economy you are saying fascism is a valid ideology to economic travails. Everybody suffered under neoliberalism, the wealth drawn by the few and trickle-down economics is an issue in blue states as it is in red states and yet the majority did not support fascism.

edited 4th Dec '16 3:28:53 PM by JulianLapostat

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
#160441: Dec 4th 2016 at 2:50:14 PM

I'd drop it Capsase, Julian isn't interested in a good faith discussion so it's not worth bothering.

[up] The fact that you're unable to differentiate between analysing something and legitimising it is your problem, I advise you address it.

edited 4th Dec '16 2:51:48 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
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#160442: Dec 4th 2016 at 2:55:27 PM

[up][up] I am not speaking in favor of Trump's platform. I am simply dissecting his strategy, and undoubtedly the countless seasoned campaign managers and data analysts who scoffed at him are as doing the same using far more refined methods than my own spitballing.

To paraphrase Buddhism "Your enemy is your greatest teacher."

edited 4th Dec '16 2:59:55 PM by CaptainCapsase

JulianLapostat Since: Feb, 2014
#160443: Dec 4th 2016 at 3:01:35 PM

I am not normalizing Trump. But I am done underestimating him. People keep dismissing him as lucky, and he keeps on defying expectations again and again. There's a nonzero chance this is all luck, but that's one hell of a coincidence, so I'm inclined to think that he's making his own luck

Who says anything about underestimating Trump? There is indeed a great deal to fear, far greater to fear, from a man with that kind of luck than if he was somehow competent. Because the latter makes the guy human, while the former does not. Adolf Hitler was a phenomenally lucky man, almost Reality Warper luck. And Trump has similar luck.

And if there is anyone who made his own luck less than Trump I am yet to come across it. Trump created nothing, is lazy, is entirely without virtues in his own profession and his person, and he is an Entitled Bastard. His entire life and career is all about luck. The kind of business failures and losses and corruption that would come to lesser beings has escaped him while it has hurt other people. Jared Kushner's dad went to jail for one minor technicality simply because Chris Christie wanted to take down a major Democrat donor. Trump did worse s—t than that and got sent to the White House.

Trump should have lost this election. It should not even have been close. He should never have gotten past the primaries. He achieved all that because a good number of Americans really are racist and stupid enough to buy into his lies.

AlleyOop Since: Oct, 2010
#160444: Dec 4th 2016 at 3:02:05 PM

Look Julian, I know how big "being smug should not be seen as a crime when you're the liberal elite" is with you but that's not an excuse to violate the civility rules on this forum, and you'd do best to heed them. Just because you think it's your moral prerogative to talk down to other people because they're the plebs doesn't mean you should.

Anyways back to topic, regarding the whole "economic vs SJ" debate I think you're misconstruing or ignoring a lot of what most of us are saying.

You claim that emphasizing economics by necessity marginalizes our ability to discuss social justice based on historical precedent. That's a very fatalistic way of looking at things, and it should be pointed out, Clinton did make economics a part of her platform. The problem is regardless of who was at fault, it was buried beneath her more SJ-focused talk. But the fact that it was there, and it was never in conflict with her social justice rhetoric, it just failed to gain the appropriate momentum. Obama was able to unite these two more effectively in his 2008 campaign. It's clear to me that what took place here was a failure of applied marketing rather than it being the result of an irreconciliable ideological conflict.

Likewise. I agree with Caspase that it's possible to make economics a part of the universal platform while retaining minority rights on the micro level. Or to simply have economics issues coexist alongside minority rights in their rightful place on the progressive platform after a brief period of absence. To use an analogy, given a room with a limited volume, we're filling a hollow vacuum in a partially-empty room, rather than squeezing another issue out to make space because it's already completely filled. The issues are in the details, and with smart planning we can do so without marginalizing minority rights in the process.

Draghinazzo (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I get a feeling so complicated...
#160445: Dec 4th 2016 at 3:03:04 PM

I don't necessarily think it's contradictory to assess that Trump's rise as a political force in general isn't an accident or a stroke of luck, but him winning this specific election was close enough that if things had been just a bit different it would not have come to pass. Hillary winning the popular vote by 2 million isn't a coincidence either.

Eschaton Since: Jul, 2010
#160446: Dec 4th 2016 at 3:05:13 PM

Honestly, acting like it's irresponsible to say Trump did anything right seems ridiculous to me, because HE WON.

Now, I will agree with you that is a massive fucking problem, because it lends credence to incredibly dangerous rhetoric where hate wins.

But that's nothing new, and it's the responsibility of the opposition to prove there is another, better way.

JulianLapostat Since: Feb, 2014
#160447: Dec 4th 2016 at 3:07:30 PM

I am not speaking in favor of Trump's platform. I am simply dissecting his strategy, and undoubtedly the countless seasoned campaign managers and data analysts who scoffed at him are as doing the same using far more refined methods than my own spitballing.

He is a racist. That was his strategy. The data analysts scoffed because they thought that surely America isn't that racist to elect him. I can't blame anyone, or hold anyone back for having that assumption.

Likewise. I agree with Caspase that it's possible to make economics a part of the universal platform while retaining minority rights on the micro level. Or to simply have economics issues coexist alongside minority rights in their rightful place on the progressive platform after a brief period of absence. To use an analogy, given a room with a limited volume, we're filling a hollow vacuum in a partially-empty room, rather than squeezing another issue out to make space because it's already completely filled.

Here's a better analogy...Go to the back of the bus...

Honestly, acting like it's irresponsible to say Trump did anything right seems ridiculous to me, because HE WON.

There's no virtue in winning, especially when he nabbed 30% of the electorate and won by undemocratic means.

edited 4th Dec '16 3:09:32 PM by JulianLapostat

AlleyOop Since: Oct, 2010
#160448: Dec 4th 2016 at 3:11:45 PM

Knowing you I can't tell if that's an ad hominem or an attempt at legitimate discussion (or both), but it seems like you really are convinced economic and social justice issues are fundamentally a zero-sum game going by that metaphor. As long as you make that clear so we're debating on fair terms.

edited 4th Dec '16 3:12:28 PM by AlleyOop

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#160449: Dec 4th 2016 at 3:13:45 PM

I'm also not talking about the economic versus social justice debate when I'm talking about Trump's campaign strategy. I'm talking about the nuts and bolts; what types of ads he used (he used a lot of online advertising), what parts of the conventional ground game he dispensed with, that kind of stuff.

TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor

Total posts: 417,856
Top