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

MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#175901: Feb 25th 2017 at 3:35:54 PM

@rational Sanders kind of proved that wrong. Yes, he still lost but he was competitive.

All you need is enthusiasm for a candidate.

edited 25th Feb '17 3:36:12 PM by MadSkillz

math792d Since: Jun, 2011 Relationship Status: Drift compatible
#175902: Feb 25th 2017 at 3:35:57 PM

even a moderate shift to the left by the party would still give us a party that is to the right of Nixon.

Yes, a party to the right of the racist who won on the back of a silent majority of racists who thought civil rights had advanced too much.

For not electing the guy anointed by Saint Bernie, our Lord and Savior.

edited 25th Feb '17 3:36:08 PM by math792d

Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#175903: Feb 25th 2017 at 3:36:56 PM

[up][up][up] Well, you can, Sanders did in the primaries using a crowdfunding-esque model. (he was slightly ahead of Clinton at times and remained competitive until the very end) Taking corporate money means you are more or less powerless to take a stand against corporate interests (they'll pull the plug on you and fund your opponents if you go too strongly against them), and considering the extreme wealth inequality we're experiencing, that's something that really has to happen if we want to remain a functional democracy; the slow decay towards oligarchy was happening long before Trump, and would have continued had he not been elected, though probably at a slower pace.

edited 25th Feb '17 3:41:53 PM by CaptainCapsase

Perian Since: Jun, 2016
#175904: Feb 25th 2017 at 3:41:38 PM

Whether or not the 'Obama wing' did that doesn't mean that people attacking Perez aren't doing some bullshit 'purity test' things. When there's an argument over something stupid, anyone who refuses to drop it is being an idiot, no matter which side of said argument they're on.

They're not 'being an idiot', ignoring the fact that there were substantive, non-policy related differences between them (first and foremost Perez refusing to speak-out against lobbyist money), can you blame people when the DNC says 'we don't want you' for answering 'okay, then we'll leave'? If even Ellison, who had widespread mainstream support and was extremely qualified for the position, wasn't able to win this election, what hope can progressives ever have to be represented by the archaic instutions of the Democratic party? Of course, if people leave the Democratic party over this (and as I said, I'm sceptical about this), it will likely be a very small minority, seeing that there simply is no other choice for (sane) progressives.

MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#175905: Feb 25th 2017 at 3:41:54 PM

Yes, a party to the right of the racist who won on the back of a silent majority of racists who thought civil rights had advanced too much.

Actually yes. Isn't that sad?

Republicans weren't indoctrinated to vote against their complete self-interest until Reagan's time.

Mainstream democrats are fiscal neoliberal conservatives.

Nixon was a more liberal president than candidates like Obama and Bill Clinton.

Freaking Obama says he would've been a moderate Republican in Reagan's time.

edited 25th Feb '17 3:45:25 PM by MadSkillz

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#175906: Feb 25th 2017 at 3:42:31 PM

@Not taking corporate money: It worked for Sanders but not every Democrat can afford to do that sort of thing. Principles don't mean a damn thing if you can't get elected. That is the key thing the Berners don't realize.

edited 25th Feb '17 3:43:30 PM by Kostya

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#175907: Feb 25th 2017 at 3:44:19 PM

[up] I could care less about principles; the issue is the kind of policy changes that desperately need to happen (increased wealth distribution) aren't the kind of thing that major corporate backers of the democratic party will tolerate. They'll simply pull the plug and fund the GOP the moment serious steps towards meaningful reform are being talked about among democratic brass, so a democratic party that depends on corporate money won't dare to even go there unless things get so bad that an outright violent revolution is looking possible, which is what it took for moneyed interests to actually consent to major redsitributive policies back in the 30s.

edited 25th Feb '17 3:47:26 PM by CaptainCapsase

Gilphon (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#175908: Feb 25th 2017 at 3:47:15 PM

can you blame people when the DNC says 'we don't want you' for answering 'okay, then we'll leave'?

Absolutely. I can and will judge them quite harshly for a) reading it that way and b) leaving, and therefore enabling Trump.

edited 25th Feb '17 3:47:23 PM by Gilphon

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#175909: Feb 25th 2017 at 3:48:45 PM

Sanders ran a primary campaign without corporate donations. The DNC needs to run a party and hundreds of individual races.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor
#175910: Feb 25th 2017 at 3:48:52 PM

"Mainstream democrats are fiscal neoliberal conservatives."

Do you have any idea what any of those words mean?

I'm being completely serious.

New Survey coming this weekend!
Hodor2 Since: Jan, 2015
#175911: Feb 25th 2017 at 3:49:17 PM

Decided on a new avatar on account of the current political situation.

Regret that Ellison didn't win both because I like the guy and because I'm tired of how eager leftists are to sabotage the Democratic Party and maybe Ellison winning would have (depending on how you look at it) mended divisions/shut them up for a bit.

MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#175912: Feb 25th 2017 at 3:49:26 PM

@Not taking corporate money: It worked for Sanders but not every Democrat can afford to do that sort of thing. Principles don't mean a damn thing if you can't get elected. That is the key thing the Berners don't realize.

But this attitude leads to a resignation of a corporate run world where our government ends up a front for the will of corporations.

MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#175913: Feb 25th 2017 at 3:51:36 PM

"Mainstream democrats are fiscal neoliberal conservatives." Do you have any idea what any of those words mean? I'm being completely serious.

I should've changed it around. I'm on a phone and it makes typing hard sometimes. Fiscal conservatives and neoliberals. Happy?

And yes fiscal conservatism is the ideology of Third Way Democrats. Bill and Barack are both Third Way Democrats.

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#175914: Feb 25th 2017 at 3:52:12 PM

[up][up][up] The democratic party for its part seems rather unwilling to make meaningful changes to accommodate the left, which is the precise impasse that I was referring to with my earlier references to the rise of the Nazis, which was something that both the German left and center can be faulted for enabling.

edited 25th Feb '17 3:52:18 PM by CaptainCapsase

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#175915: Feb 25th 2017 at 3:53:00 PM

[up][up]So what is your alternative? Refuse to take any corporate money at all and pray to god that there are enough democrats in the US to fund every single race?

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#175916: Feb 25th 2017 at 3:56:53 PM

[up] The only other option is to let Trump run rampant and hope things get bad enough that a revolution starts looking seriously possible, because nothing short of the threat of being killed en masse by angry mobs backed by a significant faction of the military will get the economic elite to consent to major wealth redistribution.

All the scenarios likely result in the end of democracy in favor of an oligarchy of some sort, but my opinion is the "find another workable funding model for your elections" is the one in which our odds are slightly less hopeless than the others.

edited 25th Feb '17 3:58:21 PM by CaptainCapsase

Perian Since: Jun, 2016
#175917: Feb 25th 2017 at 3:57:37 PM

Absolutely. I can and will judge them quite harshly for a) reading it that way
So how do you think Perez's election, when I've heard no-one give a good reason why he's superior to Ellison (and while they're plenty of reasons to prefer Ellison), when he's an awful candidate for promoting unity, and when the White House explicitly said that they didn't want a Sanders democrat to take over the DNC, should be read otherwise?

PhysicalStamina i'm tired, my friend (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
i'm tired, my friend
#175918: Feb 25th 2017 at 3:58:33 PM

I dread to ask, but what exactly is so terrible about this Tom Perez guy that everyone is moaning about?

i'm tired, my friend
LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#175919: Feb 25th 2017 at 3:59:14 PM

Nothing, Bernie Bros are just upset because he's not "progressive"

Oh really when?
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#175920: Feb 25th 2017 at 3:59:38 PM

[up][up] Nothing against him as a person and relatively little against him ideologically, but there was absolutely no reason for him to be running in this election given Ellison had broad support from across the various wings of the party.

edited 25th Feb '17 4:00:40 PM by CaptainCapsase

Hodor2 Since: Jan, 2015
#175921: Feb 25th 2017 at 4:00:18 PM

Would one of the Berners in this thread be so kind as to provide a quote from someone connected to the Obama White House saying that Perez was put in to stop a Sanders choice from being selected?

I'm not saying that this is an illogical interpretation, but you have claimed that this was outright stated, and I'm extremely skeptical of that claim.

Edit- Also, what I find kind of weird about the idea that the spot was deserved by Ellison and was sabotaged by Perez is that a) this is exactly the same thing Sandersites accuse Hillary Clinton of expressing (and seem to be totally unaware of their hypocrisy) and b) even though those two were the frontrunners, there were several other people also running and I don't see any Sandersites saying any of those people shouldn't have run.

edited 25th Feb '17 4:02:22 PM by Hodor2

PhysicalStamina i'm tired, my friend (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
i'm tired, my friend
#175922: Feb 25th 2017 at 4:01:51 PM

[up][up]Apparently Perez had more.

i'm tired, my friend
Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#175923: Feb 25th 2017 at 4:01:56 PM

The thing the radical leftists tend to miss is that corporations are not inherently good or bad. It really depends on the ethics of who's running them. (A corporate entity, as a non-person, is inherently amoral but the people running the show can steer it toward doing good or ill.)

Idealy, corporate interests and politicians would negotiate with each other to come to a balance between regulation and libretarianisim (small-L). If they are ignored or pressured out, they can pick up their ball and leave. We want them on our side too.

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#175924: Feb 25th 2017 at 4:03:36 PM

@Physical: When it came to the incumbent party brass, yes, obviously. We'll have to see if the constituency feels the same way, but if the party wasn't out of touch with its base, voter turnout among key democratic constituencies wouldn't have collapsed last November and Trump wouldn't be President.

fruitpork Since: Oct, 2010
#175925: Feb 25th 2017 at 4:04:45 PM

...are we seriously saying that obama was less liberal than Nixon? The warmongering racist that spied on the dnc and exploited and extended the Vietnam war for political gain? You cannot be fucking serious.


Total posts: 417,856
Top