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
#178276: Mar 17th 2017 at 12:01:43 AM

The backlash over Ellison going along with so-called "Clinton politics" lends credence to Jovian's and Ambar's earlier posts in which they claimed that the "progressive" wing would have turned on Ellison if he had won the DNC chair and proceeded to assist the campaign efforts of establishment Democratic members who have the best (or only real) chances of winning elections. Which is more or less the job description of the DNC chair (get Democrats elected).

I don't think it's fair to call them the progressive wing. They're the ideologues of the progressive wing.

And I heavily disagree with what they're doing but I will point out that it's not that he's working now with establishment Democrats that's the problem. It's that he's working under them on their terms. (Although there will always be true fanatics that hate the establishment in general.)

edited 17th Mar '17 12:02:35 AM by MadSkillz

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
#178277: Mar 17th 2017 at 12:02:11 AM

I'd content that "far left" is the wrong way to refer to such people because they don't have an actual left-right ideology, their entire ideology is rejecting the mainstream. That's why they keep turning on their own the moment they gain power, because they don't want power, they want to stand outside and yell about how the 'establishment' sucks, they'll do that even if Jill Stein were to become president.

Their ideology isn't Left, it's Contrarian.

[up] You seem to have missed the quote marks around the word "progressive" in the post you're quoting, I'm pretty sure the quote marks are there to indicate that such people call themselves progressive despite not being so.

edited 17th Mar '17 12:03:26 AM 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
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#178278: Mar 17th 2017 at 12:03:25 AM

[up] [awesome]

Edit: Yeah, that was why I put the quotes around "progressive".

edited 17th Mar '17 12:07:35 AM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#178279: Mar 17th 2017 at 12:05:26 AM

[up]Thank you! God I've been trying to think of how to word that for months and you did it for me.

Oh really when?
MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#178280: Mar 17th 2017 at 12:23:24 AM

That's why they keep turning on their own the moment they gain power, because they don't want power,

I don't think that's really true. Corporate democrats and centrists are not their own.

The anger stems from there not being an actual party that represents their interests. This was true for the alt-right until recently.

This is the kinda thinking that leads to not listening to people because you think they'll always be against you no matter what.

edited 17th Mar '17 12:24:29 AM by MadSkillz

LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#178281: Mar 17th 2017 at 12:25:35 AM

Clinton had the same policies as Sanders, why didn't they vote for her then?

Oh really when?
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#178282: Mar 17th 2017 at 12:27:42 AM

Maybe because they did...

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#178283: Mar 17th 2017 at 12:30:01 AM

Clinton had the same policies as Sanders, why didn't they vote for her then?

Well most did but the ones that didn't was because they didn't trust her to stick to her platform (and because she was too friendly with the banks plus emails).

What typical politicians say they're going to do and what they actually do are two different things. Sanders was actually seen as trustworthy.

And like for example, she was originally pro TPP but during the campaign she switched to "anti TPP" because TPP wasn't exactly popular among the people. I think it's pretty clear that if she wasn't going to sign off on the TPP that she would've signed off on some version of it I.

edited 17th Mar '17 12:31:12 AM by MadSkillz

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#178284: Mar 17th 2017 at 12:31:05 AM

[up][up][up][up] They are awfully quick to brand one of their own as "corporate" and "establishment" the moment they gain power and decide that actually cooperating and compromising with said establishment rather than tearing it down is the best way to actually get results.

edited 17th Mar '17 12:34:56 AM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#178285: Mar 17th 2017 at 12:41:39 AM

They are awfully quick to brand one of their own as "corporate" and "establishment" the moment they gain power and decide that actually cooperating with said establishment rather than tearing it down is the best way to actually get results.

Well yeah, they don't trust the establishment because the ultimate goal is to kill corporate influence over the government and both parties are going to fight tooth and nail to stop that.

They just have their priorities set wrong. Kill the Republican Party first and then fight the Centrists.

It's like WWII. Republicans are the Nazis, the Soviets are the Centrists and the Americans are the Progressives. (This isn't serious btw. I'm just having fun with it.)

edited 17th Mar '17 12:41:55 AM by MadSkillz

LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#178286: Mar 17th 2017 at 12:43:34 AM

Then why did they back Sanders at all when he's been a politician for 30 years and is in the NRA's pocket?

Oh really when?
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#178287: Mar 17th 2017 at 12:43:40 AM

[up][up] Considering the centrists in the USA were the ones who got screwed over by Russian propaganda while the "progressives" were the ones who fell for said propaganda...that might not be the best analogy. Especially since Gabbard is a fucking Tankie.

[up] I recall one of Sanders' critics claiming that Sanders "never met a defense spending bill he didn't like". Sanders has some pretty strong ties to Vermont's military industrial complex.

edited 17th Mar '17 12:47:23 AM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
PhysicalStamina i'm tired, my friend (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
i'm tired, my friend
#178288: Mar 17th 2017 at 12:47:30 AM

[up][up]He knew how to talk to (young white) people.

i'm tired, my friend
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#178289: Mar 17th 2017 at 12:49:28 AM

[up] To me, Sanders reminded me of this one old angry dude with a literal soapbox and a bullhorn who would complain about "the establishment" in my university's main square.

Disgusted, but not surprised
MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#178290: Mar 17th 2017 at 12:56:32 AM

Then why did they back Sanders at all when he's been a politician for 30 years and is in the NRA's pocket?

Because the NRA is more interested in gun control not being taken too far than it is in corporate control of the government. Or at least that's the popular opinion.

And Bernie wasn't part of either the Democrat or the Republican Party.

MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#178291: Mar 17th 2017 at 12:57:54 AM

@Physical Come on. We've been over this. Bernie did much better with young people in general including minorities than his oppponent did. The 39 and under crowd favored Sanders.

PushoverMediaCritic I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out. from the Italy of America Since: Jul, 2015 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out.
#178292: Mar 17th 2017 at 1:32:52 AM

Haven't checked in on this thread since the 9th, since I decided to take a break from politics while taking a Spring Break from college. Can I have the cliff-notes on what I missed?

HallowHawk Since: Feb, 2013
#178293: Mar 17th 2017 at 1:48:34 AM

[up] Please don't be like Marq FJA and ask something like that. If you do want to know what you missed that badly, go here.

edited 17th Mar '17 1:48:53 AM by HallowHawk

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#178294: Mar 17th 2017 at 2:06:25 AM

Sanders is not in the NRA's pocket. There is room between a Feinstein lookalike and NRA shill and he's between the two. As can be seen by the gun bills a few years ago.

A follow up on that Oklahoma state senator. Apparently he's suspected of soliciting underage prostitution.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
PushoverMediaCritic I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out. from the Italy of America Since: Jul, 2015 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out.
#178295: Mar 17th 2017 at 2:09:22 AM

[up][up]That came out the day before I dropped the thread temporarily. I already knew about that. Did anything of note happen between the 9th and now? People are talking about Bernie Sanders here, so I assume there's some news on him.

[up]Gross.

edited 17th Mar '17 2:12:33 AM by PushoverMediaCritic

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
#178296: Mar 17th 2017 at 2:12:27 AM

Corporate democrats and centrists are not their own.

They turned on Warren, they turned on Sanders himself after he endorsed Clinton, they turned or Sarah Silverman, they're turning on Ellison right now, I wouldn't describe any of those people as "Corporate Democrats" or "centerists".

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Medinoc from France (Before Recorded History)
#178297: Mar 17th 2017 at 2:20:04 AM

The problem with TPP's copyright-based internet censorship is that it's not merely copyright-based internet censorship: It's that if you allow any internet censorship to be written into law on any basis (let alone on an international scale), then you've given away the farm. You've allowed censorship software to be legally installed on the infrastructure, compromised net neutrality, etc. The fox has gained its foothold into the henhouse, and isn't going away until everything inside is eaten.

It's the reason there was so much backlash in France against a law (eventually forced through) that prescribed censorship against "pædopornographic" sites: People were not defending pædophiles, they were aware of the threat to everything else in allowing internet censorship for any reason. The law was (and still is, in fact) just using Think of the Children! to sneak a censorship infrastructure in.note 

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."
math792d Since: Jun, 2011 Relationship Status: Drift compatible
#178298: Mar 17th 2017 at 2:21:20 AM

I think it's pretty clear that if she wasn't going to sign off on the TPP that she would've signed off on some version of it I.

I mean...yes? The TPP as a bill was flawed, especially the explicitly corporatist bits and the really shady way it was sold to the rest of the world.

But the whole point of the agreement was to give a bunch of East Asian countries a viable trade partner that wasn't China. Instead, expect Beijing to draft their own version of the bill because SCROTUS threw the baby out with the bathwater because he doesn't understand how foreign policy works.

The biggest problems with the TPP were mission creep (making it a trade deal for East Asia and the EU was a mistake), its shady corporatist laws, and its shady implementation. But the intent is somewhat sound from a realpolitik perspective.

The world we now live in, where Beijing is free to make a (probably more draconian) TPP isn't much better than one where it was signed into law.

edited 17th Mar '17 2:22:30 AM by math792d

Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#178299: Mar 17th 2017 at 2:26:14 AM

[up] China is all set to do just that...but they're currently in a tiff with the Republic of Korea and (maybe) Japan over THAAD and the behavior of North Korea which is the main reason the Republic of Korea and Japan want THAAD in the first place.

Their proposed free trade agreement actually becoming reality is complicated by the fact that several of their prospective partners don't like China (and vice-versa). And I don't just mean in the ways Mexico and Canada, our partners in NAFTA, don't always get along with the USA. There's a lot of lingering ill-will and bad blood between the countries of East Asia.

edited 17th Mar '17 2:31:16 AM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
math792d Since: Jun, 2011 Relationship Status: Drift compatible
#178300: Mar 17th 2017 at 2:31:46 AM

[up] Again, it sorta comes back to US commitment to the Pacific. If those allies don't have the US' reassurance, a trade agreement with China might be the least terrible option.

Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.

Total posts: 417,856
Top