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

DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#175726: Feb 24th 2017 at 3:30:06 PM

You cant really blame Reagan for Buckley vs. Valeo though.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#175727: Feb 24th 2017 at 3:32:11 PM

Even the FBI may be showing cracks. They have flip-flopped in backing vs defying the White House which I suspect means there are factions within that are fighting each other.

MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#175728: Feb 24th 2017 at 3:37:39 PM

Did Bush II really campaign on stepping back on America: World Police?

Because I'm unsure whether it's more accurate to say he lied about his intentions or that 9/11 caught everyone off guard and triggered a shift in priorities. Say what you will about his competence and the fact that Rumsfield and Cheney manipulated him, but by all accounts he took 9/11 personally and worked hard at being a leader through the aftermath. Even Obama likely recognized that: when Bin Laden was confirmed dead, Bush was the first person he called.

He lied about his intentions. Iraq was always a goal for Bush II

Look up The Project for the New American Century which was basically what America's policies under Bush and afterwards were. These are its stated goals:

"Develop and deploy global missile defenses to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world."

"Control the new 'international commons' of space and 'cyberspace,' and pave the way for the creation of a new military service—U.S. Space Forces—with the mission of space control."

"Increase defense spending, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually."

"Exploit the 'revolution in military affairs' [transformation to high-tech, unmanned weaponry] to insure the long-term superiority of U.S. conventional forces."

"Need to develop a new family of nuclear weapons designed to address new sets of military requirements" complaining that the U.S. has "virtually ceased development of safer and more effective nuclear weapons."

"Facing up to the realities of multiple constabulary missions that will require a permanent allocation of U.S. forces."

"America must defend its homeland" by "reconfiguring its nuclear force" and by missile defense systems that "counteract the effects of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction."

"Need for a larger U.S. security perimeter" and the U.S. "should seek to establish a network of 'deployment bases' or 'forward operating bases' to increase the reach of current and future forces," citing the need to move beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia to increased permanent military presence in Southeast Asia and "other regions of East Asia." Necessary "to cope with the rise of China to great-power status."

Redirecting the U.S. Air Force to move "toward a global first-strike force."

End the Clinton administration's "devotion" to the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty.

"North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or similar states [should not be allowed] to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies, or threaten the American homeland itself."

"Main military missions" necessary to "preserve Pax Americana" and a "unipolar 21st century" are the following: "secure and expand zones of democratic peace, deter rise of new great-power competitor, defend key regions (Europe, East Asia, Middle East), and exploit transformation of war."

According to the PNAC report, "The American peace has proven itself peaceful, stable, and durable. Yet no moment in international politics can be frozen in time: even a global Pax Americana will not preserve itself." To preserve this "American peace" through the 21st century, the PNAC report concludes that the global order "must have a secure foundation on unquestioned U.S. military preeminence." The report struck a prescient note when it observed that "the process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor."

Anyways here's Bush saying that it's not the role of the US to nation build:

edited 24th Feb '17 3:38:20 PM by MadSkillz

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#175729: Feb 24th 2017 at 3:39:38 PM

There's only 200 million registered voters. So 1/3 of America voted for him. And the other 1/3 didn't even bother trying to stop him.

You claiming that the people who can't vote don't qualify as Americans? Because it sure sounds like you are.

FDR had a pretty good opinion of Mussolini as did most of America's business leaders.

So did most democratic leaders worldwide. Your point? Churchill initially had a good opinion of both Mussolini and Hitler. Was he "flirting with fascism"?

And hell, we voted in the son and grandson of a man who helped the Nazis out. George Bush and George HW Bush.

George HW Bush was the youngest naval aviator in the American naval air arm at the time, and served bravely throughout the whole of WWII. I don't like the man's politics, but trying to associate him with Nazism is coming up on the actively libelous.

As for his father...Prescott Bush was one of the people who stood up to Joe McCarthy during the Red Scare. He was also an early supporter of Planned Parenthood and the United Negro College Fund, and helped pass most of Eisenhower's civil rights reforms. But sure, tar him as a Nazi supporter on the basis of a bank he had money in. That's not conspiracy theory style thinking at all.

The fascists are the people surrounding him namely Bannon and Miller but even then Bannon is just putting a racist coloring on neocon foreign goals. Clashing with China and the Muslim world.

That is possibly the most overly simplistic reading of any version of American foreign policy that I've ever encountered. If you think there isn't a major difference between Bannon's active desire to whiten the world, and standard American foreign policy, even standard neocon foreign policy, you are not paying attention.

edited 24th Feb '17 3:47:48 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#175730: Feb 24th 2017 at 3:52:41 PM

You claiming that the people who can't vote don't qualify as Americans? Because it sure sounds like you are.

Well then you have to re-read what I said because I didn't imply that. I'm not counting American children because they don't really have formed political opinions and neither can they vote. And there isn't a measurable way for us to see which way the people that weren't registered would've voted.

So did most democratic leaders worldwide. Your point? Churchill initially had a good opinion of both Mussolini and Hitler. Was he "flirting with fascism

I mean Churchill was a racist imperialist that would've probably preferred to team up against Stalin with Hitler than the other way around so yes.

As for his father...Prescott Bush was one of the people who stood up to Joe Mc Carthy during the Red Scare. He was also an early supporter of Planned Parenthood and the United Negro College Fund, and helped pass most of Eisenhower's civil rights reforms. But sure, tar him as a Nazi supporter on the basis of a bank he had money in.

I mean it goes farther than that.

That is possibly the most overly simplistic reading of any version of American foreign policy that I've ever encountered. If you think there isn't a major difference between Bannon's active desire to whiten the world, and standard American foreign policy, even standard neocon foreign policy, you are not paying attention

I didn't say that wasn't a major difference though. I probably downplayed it too much by saying racist coloring. It's just that it's the only big difference in reality. Clashes with China and the Muslim world and global American hegemony is within the neocon playbook.

edited 24th Feb '17 3:54:12 PM by MadSkillz

Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#175732: Feb 24th 2017 at 4:00:20 PM

The blacklisting was a very bad idea on his part. All of them have no reason not to dig into what exactly is going on with Trump and Russia now. And you really don't want the BBC to be overtly opposed to you, if only because they're everywhere.

DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#175733: Feb 24th 2017 at 4:00:32 PM

Technically, Trump and co aren't fascists, they are authoritarian populist demagogues. Trump may have encouraged and inspired some neo-fascist types, but I haven't seen the man himself endorsing that kind of extreme hyper-nationalism. It may sound like I'm splitting hairs, but I believe its important to make careful distinctions, because things can always get even worse, if we dont know what to watch for.

edited 24th Feb '17 4:00:56 PM by DeMarquis

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#175734: Feb 24th 2017 at 4:08:00 PM

I mean Churchill was a racist imperialist that would've probably preferred to team up against Stalin with Hitler than the other way around so yes.

Then you have no idea what you're talking about. There's a long, long way from imperialism to outright fascism, and while Churchill's track record on race and colonialism is hardly good it's also far more nuanced than any sort of fascist descriptor would allow (see, for example, his active condemnation of British war crimes in the Mahdist War).

To try and suggest that FDR or Churchill "flirted with fascism" is inane. They held relatively positive opinions of fascist leaders prior to fascism's true colours being fully displayed. They both turned to a condemnation of fascism and fascist movements after Hitler and Mussolini began violating the rights of other nations, starting with the Abyssinian War and continuing from there.

I mean it goes farther than that.

And are you going to elaborate in any way on how it goes farther than that? A statement that something is so does not make it so, and you'd better have some serious evidence to back it up.

Clashes with China and the Muslim world and global American hegemony is within the neocon playbook.

And...? You're really downplaying the scale of what Bannon wants in an effort to try and present him as a normal part of American politics.

Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#175736: Feb 24th 2017 at 4:28:52 PM

[up]Add one to the "when even they are saying this crap is whack" pile.

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
#175737: Feb 24th 2017 at 4:31:14 PM

You know your position against immigrants and refugees is weak when not even Homeland Security can't support it.

Inter arma enim silent leges
Pseudopartition Screaming Into The Void from The Cretaeceous Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
Screaming Into The Void
#175738: Feb 24th 2017 at 4:45:07 PM

Heard someone today suggest that it's not a coincidence that Trump announced a crackdown on states that have legalized marijuana at about the same time the administration came out in support for private prisons.

It's entirely possible they're counting on prisoners to do all of the below minimum wage labour after they kick out as many immigrants as possible. Great.

StarOutlaw Since: Nov, 2010
#175739: Feb 24th 2017 at 4:50:38 PM

Sounds like a great way to legalize slavery in all but name.

CenturyEye Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign? from I don't know where the Yith sent me this time... Since: Jan, 2017 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign?
#175740: Feb 24th 2017 at 5:01:12 PM

Slavery is legal, international law aside. The 13th amendment reads "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted..."
Penal labor made some of the old city furniture in Atlanta. (It certainly doesn't feel like its made with love when you plant on it.) And that's still a step up from chain gangs. Prisons have long been the great loophole.

edited 24th Feb '17 5:04:48 PM by CenturyEye

Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our lives
Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#175741: Feb 24th 2017 at 5:24:14 PM

It's not necessarily bad to have labor as part of incaceration IF the justice system is functional and fair and IF the prisons are regulated to not fall afoul of "cruel and unusual punishment". (In some cases it can be used as part of rehabilitation program if you work skills training into it).

Nothing gives me faith that any of that applies here.

edited 24th Feb '17 5:26:10 PM by Elle

DingoWalley1 Asgore Adopts Noelle Since: Feb, 2014 Relationship Status: Can't buy me love
MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#175743: Feb 24th 2017 at 5:29:54 PM

Then you have no idea what you're talking about. There's a long, long way from imperialism to outright fascism, and while Churchill's track record on race and colonialism is hardly good it's also far more nuanced than any sort of fascist descriptor would allow (see, for example, his active condemnation of British war crimes in the Mahdist War).

I'm not making the argument that Churchill was trying to imitate a bunch fascists.

To try and suggest that FDR or Churchill "flirted with fascism" is inane. They held relatively positive opinions of fascist leaders prior to fascism's true colours being fully displayed. They both turned to a condemnation of fascism and fascist movements after Hitler and Mussolini began violating the rights of other nations, starting with the Abyssinian War and continuing from there.

That's kind of my problem. That they didn't oppose fascism from the outset is disturbing to me.

And are you going to elaborate in any way on how it goes farther than that? A statement that something is so does not make it so, and you'd better have some serious evidence to back it up.

Here ya go.

And...? You're really downplaying the scale of what Bannon wants in an effort to try and present him as a normal part of American politics.

Well I edited my last post. Like I said, I did downplay it a little too much but I'm not really sure what else Bannon wants in foreign policy aside from white American overlordship of the world and beating China and the Muslim World into submission which are again common neocon goals.

Does he want to create minority death-camps? Enslave all the colored people of the world? Does he just want a permanent serf caste based on color? I haven't seen him elaborate on this.

CenturyEye Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign? from I don't know where the Yith sent me this time... Since: Jan, 2017 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign?
#175744: Feb 24th 2017 at 5:37:18 PM

We're rather far removed from that history, but social darwinism, racism (even othering between white Slavs and white Teutons), militarism, and other classical hallmarks of Nazism weren't. They were the culture of the day. The Nazis took them to their logical/insane extreme and directly hastened the downfall of those ideas.
So, FDR and Churchill buddying up with rising fascists (before the war) wouldn't have been too out there, even if wasn't realpolitik.

With Bannon, I wouldn't search for a manual hidden in his laptop. He has plenty of past we can deduce his wants from plus power in the White House and no sense of responsibility. Though, if his testimony is worth anything, I'd expect more of juche with an internal caste system than, well, Oceania.

edited 24th Feb '17 5:49:18 PM by CenturyEye

Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our lives
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#175745: Feb 24th 2017 at 5:58:19 PM

That's kind of my problem. That they didn't oppose fascism from the outset is disturbing to me.

...You're mad at them for not opposing an ideology whose true colours had yet to be revealed in any meaningful way? Really? You're projecting your modern knowledge of the horrors of fascism back onto people who had next to none of the information that you have to work with?

Prior to his invasions of Ethiopia and Albania, Mussolini hadn't done anything to mark himself out as a threat to world peace. They were supposed to what, hate him for suspending Italian elections? Churchill and FDR were both born into states that were on friendly terms with Czarist Russia, the least democratic of all the nineteenth century Great Powers.

As for Hitler, once again, what had he done before he started annexing his neighbours (the point at which both Churchill and FDR turned on him)? Answer: not much. Even after WWII began, the serious work of the Holocaust didn't get underway until 1941 and 1942, by which point both Churchill and FDR were doing everything they could to get rid of him.

So with that in mind, what in the name of God are you talking about?

Here ya go

I knew it would be that article in The Guardian. I read The Guardian. I like The Guardian. But I'm fully aware that they are prone to some pretty grand hysterics and histrionics, especially if they think they can link someone to Nazism. These are the people who once condemned a book for talking about how bad Stalin was because "Eastern European nationalists might use it to defend collaborating with the Nazis".

Here's a counterpoint. Written by one of Bush's harshest critics no less.

, I did downplay it a little too much but I'm not really sure what else Bannon wants in foreign policy aside from white American overlordship of the world and beating China and the Muslim World into submission which are again common neocon goals.

Tell you what—go do an archive binge at Breitbart. Or, you know, look at what Trump has been doing. Tell me, is undermining NATO a standard neocon goal? Is allying with Russia to destroy the EU a standard neocon goal? Is trying to provoke an actual trade war with China—as opposed to talking tough—a standard neocon goal?

No, it's not.

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#175746: Feb 24th 2017 at 6:02:37 PM

Hell, FDR himself (not the American political establishment as a whole) wanted war with Germany and Italy very early.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#175747: Feb 24th 2017 at 6:09:58 PM

People seem to forget that the modern distaste for dictatorship is, well, modern. Now I think it's a really good thing, but that doesn't mean we should project it backwards. Churchill, FDR, and pick-your-democratic leader were prepared to tolerate the fascist states the same way they'd tolerated the Russian and Austro-Hungarian Empires. Because why wouldn't they have been?

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#175748: Feb 24th 2017 at 6:11:59 PM

Hell, the US openly accepted help from France and Spain (who were even less democratic/more abolitionist than Great Britain) during the Revolution. Tolerance of undemocratic states is standard practice, in any democracy.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Antiteilchen In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good. Since: Sep, 2013
In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good.
#175749: Feb 24th 2017 at 6:16:23 PM

[up][up]Because they weren't prepared to tolerate communist regimes either.

But property rights were always more important to the ones in power than the rights of people.

edited 24th Feb '17 6:16:39 PM by Antiteilchen

MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#175750: Feb 24th 2017 at 6:19:49 PM

...You're mad at them for not opposing an ideology whose true colours had yet to be revealed in any meaningful way? Really? You're projecting your modern knowledge of the horrors of fascism back onto people who had next to none of the information that you have to work with?

I'm not mad. Just disturbed.

Prior to his invasions of Ethiopia and Albania, Mussolini hadn't done anything to mark himself out as a threat to world peace. They were supposed to what, hate him for suspending Italian elections? Churchill and FDR were both born into states that were on friendly terms with Czarist Russia, the least democratic of all the nineteenth century Great Powers.

I acknowledge that.

As for Hitler, once again, what had he done before he started annexing his neighbours (the point at which both Churchill and FDR turned on him)? Answer: not much. Even after WWII began, the serious work of the Holocaust didn't get underway until 1941 and 1942, by which point both Churchill and FDR were doing everything they could to get rid of him.

Hitler made his aims pretty clear in Mein Kampf. Yes, he did try to downplay it after he became Chancellor but I'm sure it should've been enough to give FDR and Churchill pause.

I knew it would be that article in The Guardian. I read The Guardian. I like The Guardian. But I'm fully aware that they are prone to some pretty grand hysterics and histrionics, especially if they think they can link someone to Nazism. These are the people who once condemned a book for talking about how bad Stalin was because "Eastern European nationalists might use it to defend collaborating with the Nazis". Here's a counterpoint. Written by one of Bush's harshest critics no less.

Noted.

Tell you what—go do an archive binge at Breitbart.

I would if it meant it giving them views.

Or, you know, look at what Trump has been doing. Tell me, is undermining NATO a standard neocon goal? Is allying with Russia to destroy the EU a standard neocon goal? Is trying to provoke an actual trade war with China—as opposed to talking tough—a standard neocon goal?No, it's not.

Well that's different. We're talking Trump now not Bannon.

I mean you could say those goals are Bannon's goals too because Trump is his puppet but I think Trump had those ideas cooking in his head before he hooked up with Bannon.

I didn't relate Trump's complete foreign policy to neocons. I merely said that increasing military spending so no one will mess with the US again (global military American hegemony), beating ISIS and forcing countries to accept American overlordship is standard neocon stuff.


Total posts: 417,856
Top