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

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#177151: Mar 7th 2017 at 2:44:44 AM

[up] There's no bringing back the Party of Lincoln or the Party of Teddy Roosevelt. At least, not without more people who share their redeeming qualities actually reaching positions of authority and influence within the GOP.

IMHO, the problem is that said people usually don't get further than local level politics. Which actually makes things worse, since they provide the face of legitimacy and act as a Mask of Sanity for the GOP to their voting constituents and neighbors.

edited 7th Mar '17 2:48:08 AM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#177152: Mar 7th 2017 at 4:18:44 AM

Well, it doesnt help that the Dems have been ignoring local politics for years now. Hopefully that's changing.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#177153: Mar 7th 2017 at 5:31:09 AM

I mean, it's not like the Republicans have been good policymakers for a while now. The meme of Republican interference with trade unions, dismantling of social security systems and deregulation goes back to the Hoover administration - and while they did have one competent President after that, the Republican ticket from 1930-onward has been a cavalcade of the very worst the United States has to offer. And Ike. Saying the Republicans need to go back to being a 'sane' party is rolling back the clock to before the Hoover days.

The Republican Party doesn't start to really degrade until Barry Goldwater steps onto the scene in 1964 when he tries to take advantage of the breach between the Southern Democrats aka the Dixiecrats and northern liberal Democrats.

I mean they've always been a pro-business party but fear of Communism pushed politicians to make big compromises with the workers so they wouldn't revolt. All things considering, both parties were pretty left-wing until the 70's with the election of Jimmy Carter and Reagan.

I mean we all talk about how Reagan really fucked the country over but honestly, Carter was proto-Reagan. The first neoliberal president was a Democrat that took the party to the right.

He was a right-wing born again Christian that brought the evangelicals back into national politics and race-baited to appeal to white voters. He peddled trickled down economics before it was even named that by Reagan.

He was the one who really switch foreign policy focus to the Middle East.

He increased military spending.

He began the dismantling of the New Deal.

Even Reagan wanted people to give Carter a chance. It's no surprise that Reagan just continued what Carter started but worse.

Reaganism could just as well be named Carterism.

Out all our neoliberal presidenst between Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush II and Obama, only Obama and Clinton were actually decent. Clinton was like a competent Carter. I'm not sure what to call Trump since he doesn't have a real ideology. He's not an actual neo-fascist. He's just a opportunistic and racist charlatan with totalitarian tendencies that says whatever he think sounds good or comes from his handlers.

I digress.

Anyways the current crop of Republicans are just a backlash to the Civil Rights movement. I don't think most right-wing people even have economic ideologies. Maybe they'll repeat what they heard from Fox News because they think it sounds good but there's no real thought put into it besides lazy Africans and foreigners taking advantage of their money. They're really just engaging in a culture war that their leaders are taking advantage of by forcing them to vote against their self-interests.

And then the inmates have took over the asylum once their leaders failed them and a black man became president.

It doesn't matter that he threw some ideas out there that Republicans would've approved of if it came from their side. Their voters hated him because he was black so they couldn't agree with him lest they get voted out which many of them did.

How many actual Republican moderates are left in the Senate? Mc Cain, Collins, Todd Young and Capito. All wimpy. I think only Collins actually voted against Devos. the goddamn Tea Party has an overwhelming 30 Senators on their side.

Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#177154: Mar 7th 2017 at 5:47:19 AM

And McCain isn't even a 'moderate' by any stretch.

DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#177155: Mar 7th 2017 at 5:47:46 AM

According to wikipedia "Carter created the United States Department of Education and United States Department of Energy, established a national energy policy and pursued civil service and social security reform.[1] In foreign affairs, Carter strongly emphasized human rights throughout his career." Not sure where one can find "proto-Reagan" in all that. Clinton, on the other hand, was, in many ways, Reagan lite.

Depending on what you mean by ideology, most ordinary voters on the right believe that their economic opportunities were taken away from them by a combination of NAFTA and other trade agreements, affirmative action, and tax policies that weaken employers. They believe that they are taxed to subsidize lifestyles that add nothing to economic productivity, and therefore show no return. They believe that the economy is inherently an arena of group competition in which there are few universal interests, and that therefore they are justified in supporting policies that protect the US and their own specific community from outside competition. They believe that material success is a sign of personal virtue. They have believed this basically since the Reformation, and the emotional underpinnings of conservative values may even be based on certain neurological differences (increased sensitivity to threat, decreased pleasure in novelty).

But I basically agree about Goldwater, and the backlash against the Civil Rights Movement. "Nixonland", and all that.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#177156: Mar 7th 2017 at 6:24:50 AM

According to wikipedia "Carter created the United States Department of Education and United States Department of Energy, established a national energy policy and pursued civil service and social security reform.[1] In foreign affairs, Carter strongly emphasized human rights throughout his career." Not sure where one can find "proto-Reagan" in all that. Clinton, on the other hand, was, in many ways, Reagan lite.

Doing some good things doesn't really mean he wasn't like Reagan. Reagan also gave amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. I mean it was a political move because he's been caught saying "Hispanics are conservatives. They just don't know it yet." Didn't work out because Republicans failed to capitalize on their gains.

I mean I saw some of that appeal to Hispanics in this primary with Rubio and Jeb. But Trump so another door closed.

Pretty sure I know who they're preparing to run eventually once Trump crashes and fails.

Meet their Latino golden boy. Son of Jeb. George P Bush.

Depending on what you mean by ideology, most ordinary voters on the right believe that their economic opportunities were taken away from them by a combination of NAFTA and other trade agreements, affirmative action, and tax policies that weaken employers. They believe that they are taxed to subsidize lifestyles that add nothing to economic productivity, and therefore show no return. They believe that the economy is inherently an arena of group competition in which there are few universal interests, and that therefore they are justified in supporting policies that protect the US and their own specific community from outside competition. They believe that material success is a sign of personal virtue. They have believed this basically since the Reformation, and the emotional underpinnings of conservative values may even be based on certain neurological differences (increased sensitivity to threat, decreased pleasure in novelty).

I know what you're saying but they're repeating things that Fox News handed to them. I don't think many of them are actually ideological in terms of the economy because if Fox News told them the opposite, they'd go with it just as long as they fan the flames of hate for foreigners somehow.

Being seen as real American men, pushing out the darkies, shutting up the the eggheads, keeping their guns, holding onto traditional values and having jobs are what they actually care about.

You could probably get them to vote for left-wing policies if you can do the optics right. I mean most of the Republican based loved welfare until Ronald Reagan convinced them they were being cheated by lazy minorities.

Like nothing in US history has been more true today than this quote from Lyndon B Johnson:

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

Also trivial:

Funnily enough, NAFTA is George HW Bush's baby not Bill's (although he did sign it). And Reagan signed proto-NAFTA. But Democrats are awful at messaging so it's never squashed into people's minds.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#177157: Mar 7th 2017 at 6:28:39 AM

And NAFTA didn't "kill jobs". But try explaining that to someone raised on Fox News.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
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?
#177158: Mar 7th 2017 at 6:28:40 AM

I'm not sure what to call Trump since he doesn't have a real ideology. He's not an actual neo-fascist. He's just a opportunistic and racist charlatan with totalitarian tendencies that says whatever he think sounds good or comes from his handlers.
I don't know about neo-fascists since they seem to have coherent beliefs, but that's the essential characteristic of the fascists of the 30s. There's a reason the ideology is so hard to define—well, besides almost no one wants the label. note .

Anyway, GA's bravely standing up to hate speech.
In SB 1, Georgia may have its first hate-crime bill — but of a different sort

Georgia has its first “hate crime” bill in the works – that is, a measure that raises the ante on a crime based on the motivations inside the head of the accused.

Senate Bill 1, which safely passed the Senate last week and is now in the bosom of the House, would refine the definition of “domestic terrorism.”

Although they have in the past resisted spotlighting crimes that are based on racial antipathy, or those that target gays and lesbians, lawmakers have added at least one new measure to “domestic terrorism”: I.e., whether the criminal act “is intended to advance, further, or effectuate any ideology or belief whether committed alone or as part of a command structure involving an identifiable set of other individuals.”

The Georgia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has taken issue with the legislation. A note from Andrea Young, executive director of ACLU Georgia, includes this:

In addition to our overall concerns with the bill’s expansion of the government’s surveillance and security apparatus, we are especially troubled by its apparent attempt to target political expression, which is protected by the First Amendment. The ACLU of Georgia will oppose any effort to curb the First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of speech and expression.

Since the election of President Trump, Republican lawmakers in at least 18 states have introduced or voted on legislation to curb mass protests in what civil liberties experts are calling “an attack on protest rights throughout the states.”

From Virginia to Washington state, legislators have introduced bills that would increase punishments for blocking highways, ban the use of masks during protests, indemnify drivers who strike protesters with their cars and, in at least once case, seize the assets of people involved in protests that later turn violent. The proposals come after a string of mass protest movements in the past few years, covering everything from police shootings of unarmed black men to the Dakota Access Pipeline to the inauguration of Trump.

Is it 2020 yet?

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
math792d Since: Jun, 2011 Relationship Status: Drift compatible
#177159: Mar 7th 2017 at 6:49:49 AM

The Republican Party doesn't start to really degrade until Barry Goldwater steps onto the scene in 1964 when he tries to take advantage of the breach between the Southern Democrats aka the Dixiecrats and northern liberal Democrats.

Something was rotten in the Republican Party even before then - see the Hoover and Coolidge administrations and the disaster of a financial system that would lead to the Clutch Plague.

They weren't the modern Republican 'we basically eat babies' levels of evil. But they were, at best, ruthlessly pro-business and married to the civil rights status quo, and at worst were actively working to smash the progress made by the progressive wing of the Republican Party in the 1910's. They were only really saved by picking a war hero as their next ticket, and there's a reason we have the phrase 'Eisenhower Republican.' Dude picked the Republicans because he thought the American people needed some variety after 20 years of Democrats in the White House.

Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.
IFwanderer use political terms to describe, not insult from Earth Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
use political terms to describe, not insult
#177160: Mar 7th 2017 at 7:20:21 AM

This Reddit comment has links to many tweets dissecting the new Republicare bill. And in a reply there's mentions that it includes a tax break for insurance companies whose CE Os are paid over $500,000.

1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KV
MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#177161: Mar 7th 2017 at 7:28:28 AM

Something was rotten in the Republican Party even before then - see the Hoover and Coolidge administrations and the disaster of a financial system that would lead to the Clutch Plague.

That's fair. The Old Right's slogan of "America First" is an inspiration for Trump's base.

But you could say the same thing about the Democrats pre-FDR with the Dixiecrats that they eventually ejected into the Republican Party's body.

They weren't the modern Republican 'we basically eat babies' levels of evil. But they were, at best, ruthlessly pro-business and married to the civil rights status quo, and at worst were actively working to smash the progress made by the progressive wing of the Republican Party in the 1910's. They were only really saved by picking a war hero as their next ticket, and there's a reason we have the phrase 'Eisenhower Republican.' Dude picked the Republicans because he thought the American people needed some variety after 20 years of Democrats in the White House.

I suppose it's better to say that the Republican Party had a renewal under Eisenhower through Nixon then. And you know percentage-wise more Republicans pushed for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats in Congress. They wouldn't broke the filibuster without them. There were definitely as many good Republicans in that era as good Democrats.

I mean the Republican Party has a history of pushing out their good side from the Reconstructionists to Theodore Roosevelt's Progressives to the Rockerfeller Republicans to most of the leftover "moderates" that got pushed out by the libertarian my way or the highway Tea Party.

MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#177162: Mar 7th 2017 at 7:30:47 AM

This Reddit comment has links to many tweets dissecting the new Republicare bill. And in a reply there's mentions that it includes a tax break for insurance companies whose CE Os are paid over $500,000.

But...why? Are they playing Game of Thrones? Is this a damn bribe to incentivize them to convince their puppet politicians to support it?

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#177163: Mar 7th 2017 at 7:30:55 AM

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/gop-lawmaker-poor-people-would-have-health-coverage-if-they-didnt-spend-money-on-that-new-iphone/

GOP lawmaker: Poor people would have health coverage if they didn’t spend money on ‘that new iPhone’

Jason Chaffetz is just a gift that keeps on giving...

Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#177164: Mar 7th 2017 at 7:38:02 AM

Oh, that idiotic claim. It's like the people a few years ago who were utterly flabbergasted that low-income housing in New Mexico had refrigerators and T Vs.

But, Chaffetz, guess what? PEOPLE NEED PHONES TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A JOB! You can access the internet on one, even if you can't afford a computer. You can talk to an employer. You can have e-mail.

The other thing is that people generally don't drop a thousand dollars in one go for a phone. What actually happens is that their monthly bill goes up a bit and they can't get a new phone until they pay the previous one off.

This is a new version of the welfare queen myth, but a particularly stupid version that comes from a man who very obviously has never owned a personal smartphone before. And who doesn't know how much an iPhone or healthcare cost.

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#177165: Mar 7th 2017 at 7:38:27 AM

[up][up][up]Welcome to kleptocracy.

edited 7th Mar '17 7:38:42 AM by Rationalinsanity

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#177166: Mar 7th 2017 at 7:40:27 AM

No, I figure he's owned smartphones plenty. He just pays for them up-front in cash and assumes the rest of us do too. People who have never had to finance anything have no idea how financing things works.

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
speedyboris Since: Feb, 2010
#177167: Mar 7th 2017 at 8:09:26 AM

New smartphones come out way too frequently, and people buy them, but that's because they purposefully make them go out of date too fast. I have a friend who has an iPhone 5S and claims it's gotten really slow. For those who don't know, that model is less than four years old! I would expect electronics to last a little longer than that.

So this criticism should be levied against the smartphone companies, not the consumers.

edited 7th Mar '17 8:11:39 AM by speedyboris

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#177168: Mar 7th 2017 at 8:10:46 AM

[up] Planned obsolescence sucks. tongue

As for Chaffetz...that prick needs to go.

edited 7th Mar '17 8:11:46 AM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#177169: Mar 7th 2017 at 8:28:38 AM

Quoth my Twitter feed: "Make healthcare costs equal to one new iPhone every two years and we have a fucking deal!"

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#177170: Mar 7th 2017 at 8:40:39 AM

In brighter news, Trump's pick for deputy Attorney General looks solid and unbiased.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/world/rod-rosenstein-deputy-attorney-general-jeff-sessions-1.4012558

He's a hold over from the Bush and Obama years.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
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
#177171: Mar 7th 2017 at 8:43:52 AM

New smartphones come out way too frequently, and people buy them, but that's because they purposefully make them go out of date too fast. I have a friend who has an iPhone 5S and claims it's gotten really slow. For those who don't know, that model is less than four years old! I would expect electronics to last a little longer than that.

So this criticism should be levied against the smartphone companies, not the consumers.

That is mostly an Apple thing, they purposely make older iPhones slower with each update but they have enough plausible deniability, my hand-me-down Samsung running a Droid OS has more than 4 years of service and is doing just fine even after the updates.

Inter arma enim silent leges
BearyScary Since: Sep, 2010 Relationship Status: You spin me right round, baby
#177172: Mar 7th 2017 at 8:56:06 AM

Chaffetz's logic reminds me of Repub$ who claim that people are not truly poor if they have appliances like refrigerators.

Who will really miss the Repub$ when they finally fall out of power and choke on their own bile?

Do not obey in advance.
Hodor2 Since: Jan, 2015
#177174: Mar 7th 2017 at 9:36:55 AM

(Oprah voice) You meet with the Russian ambassador! You meet with the Russian ambassador! Everyone meets with the Russian ambassador!

nightwyrm_zero Since: Apr, 2010
#177175: Mar 7th 2017 at 9:39:48 AM

Is there ANYBODY in this administration who's not working for the Russians?


Total posts: 417,856
Top