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.
#178926: Mar 22nd 2017 at 12:29:55 AM

[up] I mean, if you look at the end results, then it's easy to claim that her campaign was badly run since she lost. But as you already mentioned earlier, then we can go back and claim that Sanders' campaign was also very badly run since he lost the primaries to her.

Disgusted, but not surprised
Eschaton Since: Jul, 2010
#178927: Mar 22nd 2017 at 12:33:03 AM

Despite her and Bernie's policies being identical in the end.
Hillary was status quo? Now you're just bullshitting. Straight up.
Because it ultimately wasn't about policy, it was about perception.

Hillary Clinton was perceived to embody government as a self-sustaining industry rather than a representation of the people, a sentiment that has been festering for decades. And that's crucial to the "both sides of the same" narrative that undermines the substantive differences between the two parties, that fuels the ridiculous political nihilism and apathy we see across the country.

Now, you can tear that down as complete bullshit all you want. The Clinton campaign certainly tried to for the better part of a year, and failed, though not without some outside help.

Isolated personal anecdote time: I know a white, roughly middle-aged therapist who considers himself a middle-of-road kind of guy. Has somethings he's liberal about, some he's conservative about (as a therapist, he looks at it as helping people vs. getting people to help themselves). Doesn't pay too much attention to politics beyond what pops up on Yahoo news.

He did not vote for president in the 2016 election (note this is in California, which does effect the belief that "my vote doesn't matter," but let's delve into the mindset here). Because he considered both options the worst that either party could offer. And the fact that they were not equal levels of "worst" was completely overshadowed by his overall disgust (something he only now recognizes in retrospect)

When he was younger, he spent several years in England, where he got turned off to "socialism." He still would've rather voted for Sanders in a heartbeat, if he was an option.

Again, this is only one example, but I find it reflective of a lot of the ideas that a lot of Americans hold, especially "independent" ones who eschew both parties and make up a large, growing chunk of the electorate.

edited 22nd Mar '17 12:40:13 AM by Eschaton

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#178928: Mar 22nd 2017 at 12:36:01 AM

[up] Politics: the one field where having years of experience and connections can disqualify you from getting the top job.

Edit: I'm registered in California too, but that didn't stop me from voting for HRC as a Democrat.

edited 22nd Mar '17 12:39:10 AM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
RAlexa21th Zettai Ryouiki Enjoyer from California (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I <3 love!
Gilphon (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#178930: Mar 22nd 2017 at 12:39:54 AM

[up][up][up]Which, as someone who doesn't in the US, I can only see as an utterly terrifying mindset for a democracy. Or even without that particular bit of context, when let you 'being experienced and qualified' become a reason not to give someone an extremely difficult, demanding and important position, that's a good way to ensure that the position will be filled by someone who's terrible at the job.

edited 22nd Mar '17 12:40:13 AM by Gilphon

MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#178931: Mar 22nd 2017 at 12:41:40 AM

The Democratic Party didn't choose to run HRC as their candidate for the presidency. The people who voted in the primaries did.

That's not completely true. The Democratic Party has super-delegates to chose who they want to win.

I'm also not advocating that they should've picked Bernie over Hillary.

Wandering over to her site, I see a promise to make college debt-free and help with student loans. Nothing specifically about marijuana- closest is rhetoric about how addiction should be tried as a disease, not a moral failing.

She didn't say anything about federally legalizing it and I didn't see it on her platform so I have to assume that it wasn't something that was a priority for her and back in 2014, she said she was good for medical marijuana legalization but that she had to take a wait and see approach for recreational use.

You're packing a lot of assumptions into the phrase 'under investigation by the FBI while her team leads an incompetent campaign'. Because in order of that statement to stand, you need to prove a) that her campaign was incompetently run, which is by itself an argument that you'll have an uphill time trying to win here,

I thought this was widely agreed upon. I mean you have her campaign hiring Debbie Wasserman Schultz after the DNC scandal that did nothing to help win Hillary points. It actually made her look corrupt that she willing to give Debbie a position on her staff after she left as head of the DNC. I know why she did it but most people don't.

Then you have Bill, Obama and Sanders' campaign telling her tocampaign in the Rust Belt and all three sides offering their services to her to campaign there in the very states she lost but her campaign batted it away.

I mean there was a large amount of hubris there. You have the assumption that moderate Republicans should be appealed to because they want to jump from Trump, that WWC can be safely ignored and that Berniecrats would support her because it was between her and Trump.

And going off on a tangent, I think picking Tim Kaine as her VP was another mistake. It helped her with Virginia but it was only given to him because Hillary offered to him long ago so he'd drop off as DNC chair so Debbie could have it. And the way the election played out, a progressive might have helped her out more.

edited 22nd Mar '17 12:44:08 AM by MadSkillz

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#178932: Mar 22nd 2017 at 12:41:54 AM

[up][up] Populism with its anti-elite rhetoric doesn't help either.

[up] Concerning the super-delegates...didn't Sanders' supporters try to push the super-delegates into picking him over HRC once it became clear they wouldn't be able to win with actual votes?

edited 22nd Mar '17 12:43:21 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
#178933: Mar 22nd 2017 at 12:44:35 AM

And the way the election played out, a progressive might have helped her out more.

How isn't she progressive though? Her policies were the same.

Oh really when?
RAlexa21th Zettai Ryouiki Enjoyer from California (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I <3 love!
Zettai Ryouiki Enjoyer
#178934: Mar 22nd 2017 at 12:45:20 AM

Anti-elite by voting billionaires into the government.

Continue writing our story of peace.
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#178935: Mar 22nd 2017 at 12:46:19 AM

[up] Billionaires who have never had experience working in the gov't, which somehow made them "anti-establishment".

Disgusted, but not surprised
RAlexa21th Zettai Ryouiki Enjoyer from California (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I <3 love!
Zettai Ryouiki Enjoyer
#178936: Mar 22nd 2017 at 12:48:07 AM

By being the establishment.

But what do I expect from a country of traitorous taxdodgers?

Continue writing our story of peace.
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#178937: Mar 22nd 2017 at 12:49:00 AM

[up] Who are also tea dumping vandals. tongue

Disgusted, but not surprised
Gilphon (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#178938: Mar 22nd 2017 at 12:49:10 AM

@Mad: You're committing a huge 'hindsight is 20-20' sin there, is the thing. Like, she lost, so of course there are going to be things that in retrospect we can were problems. If there weren't any problems, she would've have lost. Remember that during the campaign, nobody thought Trump had a chance. Remember that people mocked him for bothering to campaign in Michigan, like he thought he had a chance of winning there.

Not being psychic isn't the same as being incompetent. And we've had this argument before, most certainly not reaching consensus.

edited 22nd Mar '17 12:50:20 AM by Gilphon

MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#178939: Mar 22nd 2017 at 12:49:15 AM

Populism with its anti-elite rhetoric doesn't help either.

Well why is that a bad thing?

You know railing against a white establishment that's trying to suppress minorities in one way or another is also anti-elite rhetoric.

Concerning the super-delegates...didn't Sanders' supporters try to push the super-delegates into picking him over HRC once it became clear they wouldn't be able to win with actual votes?

Hell, I think Sanders was trying to push for that himself(or at least his campaign) when he saw he couldn't win that way.

Eschaton Since: Jul, 2010
#178940: Mar 22nd 2017 at 12:49:20 AM

a) that her campaign was incompetently run, which is by itself an argument that you'll have an uphill time trying to win here, and b) that the DNC knew a bullshit nothingburger of a scandal would dog her for an entire year, helped along by the FBI breaking the law to remind people of it, which is downright illogical.
a). I'm with M84 here. It was badly run, because she lost because: b). "bullshit nothingburgers of scandals" have dogged her for her entire political career. They should have known.

However, I'm also with M84 in saying that Sanders' campaign was badly run, because they lost, because they should have known just how much they were at a disadvantage. Not to mention how criticizing superdelegates and then appealing to them was completely undermining. [nja]

Politics: the one field where having years of experience and connections can disqualify you from getting the top job.
Again, it's about perception. As people here have keenly pointed out, Sanders is no outsider to the political process. But his perceived consistency within it garnered him a lot of support, compared to Clinton's being stereotyped as flip-flopping.

That and the inherent anti-elitism which all too often is corrupted into anti-intellectualism.
If there's one good thing to come out of this current administration, it will be separating those two sentiments.

Because the elites in charge right now sure as fuck aren't intellectual.

edited 22nd Mar '17 1:14:44 AM by Eschaton

RAlexa21th Zettai Ryouiki Enjoyer from California (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I <3 love!
Zettai Ryouiki Enjoyer
#178941: Mar 22nd 2017 at 12:52:32 AM

[up][up]Funny that they created a white establishment that exists to oppress minorities.

Continue writing our story of peace.
MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#178942: Mar 22nd 2017 at 12:58:24 AM

@Mad: You're committing a huge 'hindsight is 20-20' sin there, is the thing. Like, she lost, so of course there are going to be things that in retrospect we can were problems. If there weren't any problems, she would've have lost. Remember that during the campaign, nobody thought Trump had a chance. Remember that people mocked him for bothering to campaign in Michigan, like he thought he had a chance of winning there.

Well it depends on who you listened to during the campaign. There were definitely people giving warning signs but no one was listening to those guys and some of them were even ridiculed like Nate Silverman.

MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#178943: Mar 22nd 2017 at 1:01:39 AM

If there's one good thing to come out of this current administration, it will be separating those two sentiments. Because the elites in charge right now sure as fuck aren't intellectual.

I hear Uncle Ben is a really good neurosurgeon. You know it's just everything else that he's not so good at.

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#178944: Mar 22nd 2017 at 1:06:54 AM

@Eschaton

Concerning Sanders' voting record and what he actually did as a Senator for Vermont...frankly, the only people who really should be totally 100% happy voting for Sanders as presidential candidate are Lockheed Martin employees.

edited 22nd Mar '17 1:07:53 AM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
RAlexa21th Zettai Ryouiki Enjoyer from California (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I <3 love!
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#178946: Mar 22nd 2017 at 1:10:52 AM

[up] If you're referring to Mad's "Uncle Ben" comment, that's probably a reference to Ben Carson. Good neurosurgeon but bad...everything else.

If you're referring to my post, I'm just referring to Sanders' consistency in supporting his state's military industrial complex as a Senator.

edited 22nd Mar '17 1:11:17 AM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#178948: Mar 22nd 2017 at 1:17:00 AM

[up] The Russian tropers who post in the General Russia thread would likely cast doubt on this being an assassination attempt since the guy is still alive. When the Kremlin wants someone dead, they usually don't leave it to chance. Awfully convenient for the Russian mob, either way.

I'd suggest x-posting this in the Russia thread to see what they have to say.

edited 22nd Mar '17 1:20:19 AM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#178949: Mar 22nd 2017 at 1:28:15 AM

If you're referring to my post, I'm just referring to Sanders' consistency in supporting his state's military industrial complex as a Senator.

You know it's actually the NRA that made Bernie a senator. That's one of the only positions that Hillary could actually attack him from the left.

As a candidate in 1990, Sanders won over gun rights groups by promising to oppose one bill they hated — a measure that would establish a waiting period for handgun sales. In Congress, he kept that promise. The dynamic served as an early demonstration that, despite his pure-leftist persona, Sanders was at his core a pragmatic politician, calculating that he couldn’t win in rural Vermont without doing something for gun owners.

“The gun vote brought us down,” said Judy Shailor, Smith’s 1990 campaign manager. She said she had warned gun groups that, in the long run, Sanders would prove too liberal for them.

“The gun groups would say to me, ‘We are going to put him in office for one term and teach Peter Smith a lesson. Then we’re going to vote [Sanders] out,’ ” Shailor said. “I said, ‘You won’t get him out.’ . . . He’s one of the best master politicians I’ve ever come across.”

Sanders was with the gun group on one major issue: he opposed a mandatory waiting period for handguns, saying that was best left to states. But, on assault weapons, his position was the same as the one for which Smith was getting hammered.

“It’s an issue I do not feel comfortable about,” Sanders said after one debate, according to a memoir about the race by a former aide, Steven Rosenfeld.

Sanders couldn’t very well rail against Smith for his views on assault weapons when they were the same as his own. Instead, the aide said, Sanders wanted to let others “do our dirty work for us.”

Instead of talking about guns, then, Sanders talked about honesty.

“Unlike some people, I won’t change my views on the subject,” he told one pro-gun group.

It worked.

“Bernie Sanders was upfront with us,” an NRA official wrote to one of Smith’s constituents after the race. The letter ended up in another official collection of Smith’s papers. “He was viewed as the lesser of two evils.”

As the election approached, the socialist’s good luck kept getting better.

Among Vermont gun groups, there is some ambivalence about that long-ago election.

“In some ways, I’m happy that it happened. And in some ways I seriously regret it,” said Cutler, of the Gun Owners of Vermont. “I’m happy I did it, because it sent a message around the state that the gun vote really does count around here.”

But now, Cutler said, when he calls Sanders’s office to ask for a meeting, he never gets one. “I regret that it happened,” he said, “because, realistically, we have no input with him.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-nra-helped-put-bernie-sanders-in-congress/2015/07/19/ed1be26c-2bfe-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html?utm_term=.da32502a362e

edited 22nd Mar '17 1:29:59 AM by MadSkillz

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#178950: Mar 22nd 2017 at 1:34:43 AM

[up] There's that too, but Bernie Sanders also has a record of supporting his state's weapons manufacturers. One of his detractors in Counterpunch of all things once claimed that Sanders was "a technofascist disguised as a liberal" who never opposes any defense spending bill.

Disgusted, but not surprised

Total posts: 417,856
Top