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

Mio Since: Jan, 2001
#160876: Dec 7th 2016 at 1:25:12 PM

[up][up][up][up]Well, if you wanted to pay every adult in the United States $1,000 a month (which is essentially a poverty wage), it would cost about 3 trillion dollars, which is only somewhat less then the cost of the whole federal budget today.

In actuality there probably is enough money to be able to do that, but it existing and actually acquiring it is something else entirely.

There is a reason why many otherwise leftist people oppose UBI, because the scheme can be simultaneously too expensive and not generous enough (since UBI is often characterized as a replacement far all welfare, which if you ask me it really can't be).

edited 7th Dec '16 1:25:19 PM by Mio

TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor
#160877: Dec 7th 2016 at 1:27:59 PM

Exclusive: Trump chooses pro wrestling magnate Linda McMahon to head SBA

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump plans to nominate professional wrestling magnate and former Senate candidate Linda Mc Mahon as his choice to head the Small Business Administration, transition officials told Reuters on Wednesday.

Two members of our goverment's highest administration will have been in a Wrestlemania main event and kicked Vince Mc Mahon in the nuts for money

Lawd. This is our new reality.

New Survey coming this weekend!
LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#160878: Dec 7th 2016 at 1:29:04 PM

Stop making that sounds cooler than it is.

Oh really when?
Geostomp In the name of the POWER, I will punish you! from Arkansas, USA Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: What is this thing you call love?
In the name of the POWER, I will punish you!
#160879: Dec 7th 2016 at 1:30:01 PM

At what point does this man become enough of a freakshow that even the idiots who voted for him start to worry?

"When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all" Futurama, Godfellas
RBluefish Since: Nov, 2013
#160880: Dec 7th 2016 at 1:31:57 PM

Post-fact society, remember? So long as we have the Internet spreading misinformation, Breitbart spreading alt-Reich propaganda, and Trump spewing his distinctive brand of bullshit all over the news, I'm not optimistic for any sudden Heel Realizations from his base.

"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."
JulianLapostat Since: Feb, 2014
#160881: Dec 7th 2016 at 1:34:41 PM

Matt Yglesias comes up with a way to talk to Trump supporters:

The marginal Trump voter — and the median American — already doesn’t like him. He was able to win in 2016 thanks to a combination of third-party voting, Clinton’s unpopularity, and the quirks of the Electoral College. Under the circumstances, keeping up a drumbeat of criticism that “Trump supporters don’t care about” is actually a perfectly reasonable strategy.

There’s no particular need to find a magic formula to lift the scales from the eyes of Trump’s biggest supporters or to shatter his stranglehold and Republican Party loyalists. Democrats don’t necessarily need to convince a single Trump fan to stop liking him. What they need to do is find a way to convince the people who don’t like Trump to support their nominee instead.

Draghinazzo (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I get a feeling so complicated...
#160882: Dec 7th 2016 at 1:35:41 PM

They've already started to worry.

The human mind has a fascinating capacity for denial, so many people will never wake up, but some people are capable of realizing they've been duped, even if it takes a long time.

RBluefish Since: Nov, 2013
#160883: Dec 7th 2016 at 1:39:04 PM

The concerning thing there is, half of them seem upset at the prospect that he might not be quite as tyrannical and despicable as he promised he would be. (And it's far too early to tell one way or the other, but that's neither here nor there.) Look at the number of people who are yelling at him for saying he might not lock up Clinton after all.

These people aren't going to suddenly flip and go Democratic next time. They're just going to rally behind the next Trump to come along. And the next one will almost certainly be even worse.

"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."
Jasaiga Since: Jan, 2015
#160884: Dec 7th 2016 at 1:39:34 PM

This all goes back to Gringrich in '94. He started this whole partisan bullshit. 25 years ago, your political affiliation was really low on the list of things you identified with (i.e like race, gender, religion, etc)

Nowadays, you have a less than 5%(IIRC) chance of even dating someone with opposite political views, let alone marrying and associating with.

Political Polarization+Southern Strategy+Fake News+GOP voters being able to hold their nose and voting for their guy despite his flaws+Social media Bubble=Donald Trump is President.

Take one of those away and he would've been toast

RBluefish Since: Nov, 2013
#160885: Dec 7th 2016 at 1:41:05 PM

Don't forget voter suppression, crosscheck, and probably Russian meddling.

"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."
Draghinazzo (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I get a feeling so complicated...
#160886: Dec 7th 2016 at 1:42:09 PM

That's a valid observation, BUT if there are enough of these people (I don't necessarily trust a series of anecdotes to represent all of Trump's supporters) it means that there could be a lower turnout for Trump in 2020, as people become disillusioned with his false promises and a potential failure to improve the economy.

The long-term prospects of Trump being elected are indeed pretty horrible, though.

[up][up]If I might ask, could you be more specific about Gingrich's role in all this? What did he do exactly?

edited 7th Dec '16 1:43:25 PM by Draghinazzo

RBluefish Since: Nov, 2013
#160887: Dec 7th 2016 at 1:44:13 PM

True, and I'll keep my fingers crossed. But as I've said before, when it comes to 2020, I'm actually less concerned with who's going to run and who's going to vote for who, as I am with "thanks to systemic voter suppression only getting worse and worse in the years to come, will it matter."

"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."
TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor
#160888: Dec 7th 2016 at 2:05:39 PM

Yes, Gingrich bares the brunt of the political polarization, though I'd argue that Reagan planted the seeds, but that didn't mean Newt had to water the damn garden.

Anyhow, up until the 1994 midterms, the Democrats had controlled the House of Representatives for 72 years and in those years, the GOP had only control two times for a total of four years, due to Southern Democrats not abandoning the party, ticket-splitting, and light gerrymandering.

It's a long story, but Newt spent 16 years planning the House takeover for the GOP, and he swept in 94 midterms with 54 new seats. He was rewarded with this by becoming Speaker of the House, and thus, Third in the Presidential succession.

It was immediately clear to President Clinton and other big time Democrats in Washington at the time that something was very very VERY wrong the minute Newt was sworn in as Speaker. One very overlooked fact in his Speakership was that Newt started the trend of centralizing power in party leadership. In other words, all of those important committee chairmanships like Means and Ways, Intelligence Committee, Budget, etc, he could appoint those chairmanships himself. This allowed him to tightly control the agenda and sideline dissident factions in his party in a way that EVERY Speaker since has exploited.

He also shut the Congressional workweek to three days, which at the time he argued it was for more contact with constituents, but in reality it was more so he and other party members could fundraise tons of money and it advertedly cut down on how much time both sides spent together outside of work. Tip O'Neil and Reagan were infamous in their time they spent together despite being diametrically opposed politically. Gingrich changed all of that. Gingrich emphasized winning than good governance. And because of the rapid rise of C-SPAN (which Newt took advantage of) a lot of Americans saw this split with their own eyes, and there was a growing sense of tribalism. Not enough to make a difference at the Presidential level (yet, that'd wait until 9/11 when it REALLY took off and never looked back)

Adding into those factors was President Bill Clinton who had basically demolished (hyperbole, yes) H.W and some GOP members took the lost personally, because after a generation, there was a sense of entitlement tot he Presidency, because outside of Carter (who was a lightweight let's be honest, if a good man) there was as sense of entitlement to the White House. So they tried to take down both Bill AND Hillary simultaneously because of Newt's personal greed and ambition for power and control, which clashed with Washingtonian norms he had upended without a care in the world. It had gotten so bad that they had investigated the Clintons over Christmas Cards. No, I'm completely serious.

All together, Gingrich’s emphasis on partisan warfare über alles sped the demise of the comity that is essential to the functioning of Congress. If the parties refuse to work together, little can be achieved without super-majorities, and/or getting rid of the filibuster.

It's a sad state of affairs, and our country is worse off for it.

New Survey coming this weekend!
MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#160890: Dec 7th 2016 at 2:15:17 PM

schadenfreude

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#160891: Dec 7th 2016 at 2:21:14 PM

How little Congress meets these days has started to get some attention; here's to hoping that one trend, at least, can be reversed. Republicans seem intent on making sure they meet as little as possible, though. Aside of fundraising needs I can't imagine what that accomplishes since it just makes them look lazy as hell.

iflewaway someone from somewhere Since: Dec, 2016
someone
#160892: Dec 7th 2016 at 2:28:03 PM

[up] I doubt most Republican voters will care.

something
blkwhtrbbt The Dragon of the Eastern Sea from Doesn't take orders from Vladimir Putin Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves me
The Dragon of the Eastern Sea
#160893: Dec 7th 2016 at 3:39:32 PM

Hey, if Republicans all happen to be on vacation when Congress meets, can Congress pass bills?

Not that I recommend taking such a course of action, of course

Say to the others who did not follow through You're still our brothers, and we will fight for you
pwiegle Cape Malleum Majorem from Nowhere Special Since: Sep, 2015 Relationship Status: Singularity
Cape Malleum Majorem
#160894: Dec 7th 2016 at 3:54:11 PM

[up]Yes. A vote doesn't require all legislators to be present to be legally binding. If they snooze, they lose.

Shortly before the outbreak of the Civil War, as Secessionists resigned their seats in the Senate and the House, those remainingnote  were able to pass bills for projects that had been blocked by Southern Senators before the war.

And if some Representative or Senator is absent when a vote is called, I don't think there's any method of casting a ballot if they're not physically there. They gotta show up for work, just like the rest of us.

edited 7th Dec '16 5:45:38 PM by pwiegle

This Space Intentionally Left Blank.
RedSavant Since: Jan, 2001
#160895: Dec 7th 2016 at 4:05:32 PM

Relevant to that question. Basically, a lot of Senators' terms will be expiring on the 3rd, and there's a petition going around asking the Senators who will be seated - 34 Dems to 30 Republicans, with two independents - to recognize Merrick Garland.

I wonder if it'll work, or if we're going to have more traitor Democrats...

edited 7th Dec '16 4:06:51 PM by RedSavant

It's been fun.
blkwhtrbbt The Dragon of the Eastern Sea from Doesn't take orders from Vladimir Putin Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves me
The Dragon of the Eastern Sea
#160896: Dec 7th 2016 at 4:06:15 PM

hmmmm. The Right is generally more ritualistic in their religious beliefs right? Maybe if the Democrats met on religious holidays to get stuff passed surreptitiously...

Oh but wait.

President Trump.

Hm. Maybe we just need a way to word things that make them sound conservative but have liberal effects... This will all come down to who can manipulate Trump better.

[up] OOOOOoooooOOOOOooooOOOOOOoooooooooooh!!!!!!!

edited 7th Dec '16 4:08:54 PM by blkwhtrbbt

Say to the others who did not follow through You're still our brothers, and we will fight for you
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#160897: Dec 7th 2016 at 4:24:07 PM

There's no way the GOP is actually going to let that happen right?

RedSavant Since: Jan, 2001
#160898: Dec 7th 2016 at 4:26:33 PM

If the Democrats actually hold a united front, there isn't much the Republican Senators can do about it going off the numbers that article gives.

It's been fun.
Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#160899: Dec 7th 2016 at 4:40:10 PM

I saw that proposal a few days ago but was reluctant to pass it around. Which is more important, getting Garland confirmed or preserving the filibuster? Because if they pulled this off, you can be sure the GOP would nuke the filibuster or worse.

edited 7th Dec '16 4:41:11 PM by Elle

TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor
#160900: Dec 7th 2016 at 4:47:13 PM

The Filibuster is gone regardless.

You KNOW the GOP would do this in a goddamn heartbeat if the situation was reversed.

I dare anyone to say otherwise.

New Survey coming this weekend!

Total posts: 417,856
Top