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

CrimsonZephyr Would that it were so simple. from Massachusetts Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
Would that it were so simple.
#180976: Apr 4th 2017 at 1:10:50 PM

The fact that people are claiming that a self-professed socialist, mildly atheist New York Jew would have cleaned up among a demographic that hates Northern liberals, is obviously antisemitic even if they're cagey about it, distrust atheists entirely, and need only their daily intravenous treatment of Fox News to reconvince themselves that socialism is the ultimate evil, is hilarious in its delusion.

Closed democratic primary. No independents allowed only Democrats so he was disadvantaged there.

Unaffiliated interlopers have no business interfering in the matters of proper Democrats. If Bernie cannot win among Democrats, what makes him deserving of their endorsement?

edited 4th Apr '17 1:13:47 PM by CrimsonZephyr

"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
Hodor2 Since: Jan, 2015
#180977: Apr 4th 2017 at 1:14:42 PM

I actually disagree there. Sanders doesn't really identify with Judaism- unlike his "nemesis" Barney Frank, he doesn't really have ties with "cultural Judaism" even with being not involved with the religious side.

And like he refers to/identifies himself as "White Working Class".

Like fundamentally, the reason why I'm rankled by the "Bernie would have won" argument is not because I thin it's necessarily false, but because there's some pernicious reasons why White Working Class voters like/trust Sanders in a way they don't Obama or Clinton (or any non-white and/or female candidate).

edited 4th Apr '17 1:17:07 PM by Hodor2

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#180978: Apr 4th 2017 at 1:16:20 PM

@Hodor That's not what I'm arguing when I talk about pragmatism, except perhaps in the case of specific districts where the population is unlikely to care very much about the social reforms proposed in the national platform.

As far as the democrats being "progressive on economic issues", the last three democratic administrations all were unapologetically centrist in terms of their economic policies. They have either dismissed any possibility of progressive economic reform because the GOP will be able to outflank them (which I would argue is a self fulfilling prophecy since it results in a perpetually demoralized left and has consistently failed to put a meaningful dent in the GOP's coalition), or have no desire to enact such reforms in the first place.

[up] If I were to use your own standards for determining the (ultimately unknowable) true intentions behind a person's words, I would think you might be implying Sanders is a race traitor. I don't think this is the case (and I have no reasons to doubt your sincerity about your intentions, so I assume you mean what you say), but I think you are more than happy to assure yourself that everyone who disagrees with you is in some way evil, ignorant, or misinformed.

@Fighteer: You do realize that Clinton's campaign ads were even worse than Trump's when it came to staying on the topic of issues? Her rallies were another story, but those are more about firing up dyed in the wool partisans than they are about swaying opinions. It's understandable why that tactic was employed, as Trump offers an absurd number of low hanging fruits for attack ads, but the unfortunate fact of the matter is that if you can't condense your policy proposals into a 10-30 second stump speech, you can't win a highly competitive election because an absurd number of people only hear the soundbites.

edited 4th Apr '17 1:38:44 PM by CaptainCapsase

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
#180979: Apr 4th 2017 at 1:28:58 PM

What can we offer Trump voters that might help move them towards the Democrats that does not take the form of selling out the interests of core Democratic voters?

  • A candidate that hasn't been subject to a forty year smear campaign.
  • A charismatic candidate.
  • A man.
  • Rural spending.
  • Jobs (no need to get specific, just say we will get them jobs)
  • Not being the party in power.
  • Someone who comes across as an outsider (they don't have to actually be one.)
  • Infrastructure spending.
  • Union rights.
  • An end to wasteful spending on oversees wars like [insert war Trump starts here].
  • Elderly care and other social services.
  • The return of rural services cut by Trump.
  • A candidate that won't waste their money on things like trips to his golf course and security for his tower.
  • The kind of messaging that you use to help a domestic violence victim see the light.
  • Talking about two of three big mistakes the Republicans have made.
  • Change.

Now a ton of that is superficial, some of it is vague, but that's okay. Sure each of the things I listed will only win over a few people, but we don't need that many people, one of thouse things might have been enough to win in November, all of thouse things could bring about a solid win.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#180980: Apr 4th 2017 at 1:37:45 PM

Capsace: I'm not sure what you're trying to demonstrate here. Sanders' campaign ads were no less vacuous that Clinton's, and his stump speech was... let's just say I could have put him on an endless loop and gotten the same effect. Every time Clinton spoke, she had concrete policy ideas to discuss. To be fair, Sanders did too on those rare occasions when he deviated from the script.

The missing link was the media coverage, which utterly ignored every one of Clinton's policy ideas (except when it had to do with something she'd adopted from Sanders' platform) and played up every single scandal. Clinton's website had full details behind every single part of her platform, with concrete plans for adoption. She was by far the most prepared and detail-oriented candidate in the field. Everything she had to say was utterly ignored.

edited 4th Apr '17 1:38:52 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#180981: Apr 4th 2017 at 1:40:49 PM

[up] And that's what doomed her. If you cannot condense your policy proposals into a 30 second or less soundbite (or stump speech as the case may be, though a 4 word slogan is even better), you have no policy proposals as far as a large chunk of the electorate in concerned. That's an unavoidable drawback of a democracy, so either learn to live with it, or do away with those pesky elections and put Churchill's famous quote about democracy to the test.

edited 4th Apr '17 1:41:55 PM by CaptainCapsase

Hodor2 Since: Jan, 2015
#180982: Apr 4th 2017 at 1:41:27 PM

@Capsase-

What do you define as progressive economic policies? I do think we have a fundamental disagreement though in terms of your seeing Obama's efforts as deliberate centrism as opposed to doing as best as he could given obstruction. And this is kind of where the racism discussion comes in too, because the Sanders loving Trump voters seem to be much more economically progressive regarding policies when proposed by Sanders versus those proposed by Obama. Like it's kind of "odd" that the same woman who opposed the ACA but enjoys the coverage is a bag fan of single payer.

To be honest, it does rankle me a bit as a Jew that Sanders refers to himself as white working class and refers to his ancestry as Polish, which is a bit odd. There's no such thing as being a race traitor and it's a terrible accusation. What I would say though is that in addition to simply not identifying with Judaism (which is fine, it's his choice) I suspect, it's also a deliberate and apparently successful means of appealing to voters who might be iffy to some degree toward Jews.

I also had been aware that Sanders lived on a Kibbutz, but it wasn't something he discusses. However, he was only there for less than a year, and it was several decades ago, so I can't fault him for not discussing it. Although it would be an interesting and relevant thing to bring up when discussing problems with current Israeli policies (maybe he has brought it up in this context?)

Edit- Also, can you drop the accusation that people in this thread want to abolish democracy?

edited 4th Apr '17 1:42:24 PM by Hodor2

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#180983: Apr 4th 2017 at 1:45:00 PM

[up] I don't think people in this thread want to abolish democracy, but I do think that some sentiments being expressed here are either Utopian ("if only voters weren't complete and utter morons!") or unintentionally authoritarian ("only the 'right' people should be allowed to vote because letting the rubes have a voice will ruin everything!"). That's what I mean by pragmatism; coming to terms with the inherent drawbacks of democratic governance and working within that framework rather than complaining about how unfair and illogical it is that people voted the way they did.

As far as Sanders and Judaism goes, he had a fair amount to say about Israel and Palestine, and some personal anecdotes about sitting in on, IIRC a meeting over water use rights which he cited as an example of how positive cooperation between Israel and Palestine can look. He didn't make it a major talking point, but I don't recall him self identifying as white working class like you seem to think he des.

edited 4th Apr '17 1:52:07 PM by CaptainCapsase

MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#180984: Apr 4th 2017 at 1:45:33 PM

I'm also going to bring something else in.

For this election, more voters were against a candidate than for a candidate.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/02/for-many-voters-its-not-which-presidential-candidate-theyre-for-but-which-theyre-against/

Over half of Trump supporters weren't voting for Trump so much as against Hillary. Those are the guys that you can probably coax back.

Hodor2 Since: Jan, 2015
#180985: Apr 4th 2017 at 1:56:25 PM

@Capsase- On the democracy discussion- honest question, are you against anything that is aimed at decreasing the "tyranny of the majority"- you know, like protections of various rights that came in the Obama administration from like the Department of Labor, EEOC, and various Executive Orders (incidentally, a lot of these things are also just or additionally pro-employee)? And also, I wonder your thoughts on the idea that open primaries and caucuses dilute the ability of minorities to have a voice in the political process.

Interesting on the Israel thing. I'll look into that.

Re Sanders and the WWC, there's this, which I've brought up a couple of times- "I think that there needs to be a profound change in the way the Democratic Party does business," Sanders said. "It is not good enough to have a liberal elite. I come from the white working class, and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party cannot talk to where I came from." So yeah, he identifies with the WWC and acts as if the Democratic Party has no support from this demographic. Also, while I won't judge intention, this is one of those statements that seems like it elides any distinction between "working class" and "white working class".

edited 4th Apr '17 1:56:37 PM by Hodor2

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#180986: Apr 4th 2017 at 1:58:56 PM

Capsace, are you really going with the line that people are too ignorant/inattentive to pay attention to any policy argument that cannot be condensed to a pithy sound bite? Assuming you are advancing that argument, do you understand how little hope this gives that we can ever have a democracy based on rational principles?

And why do certain candidates, like Hillary, attract so much more of the TLDR thing than others? Obama certainly was given to long, philosophical speeches about matters of policy and justice, and people ate it up.

It's really hard to come up with any answers to these questions that don't boil down to people being sexist as all hell.

edited 4th Apr '17 2:00:02 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#180987: Apr 4th 2017 at 1:59:57 PM

If you can I highly recommend listening to this to this. It's about why people seamingly vote against their interests, and the narritives we construct. I found it helped me understand and empathize with many poor rural Republicans who voted for Trump

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/24/510567860/strangers-in-their-own-land-the-deep-story-of-trump-supporters

edited 4th Apr '17 2:51:46 PM by megaeliz

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#180988: Apr 4th 2017 at 2:06:45 PM

@Fighteer: Yes, I am arguing that voters are morons, and I don't believe its possible to have a democracy based on rational principles, because people are on average not rational. Democracy is a deeply imperfect, cruel, and unjust form of governance, but the cost-benefit ratio is favorable compared to other modes of governance, which are plagued with even more hopelessly insurmountable problems. As for Clinton versus Obama, long winded policy speeches don't preclude 4 word slogans and soundbites; you can have both, and in fact you probably should so you don't lose educated voters. For Obama that slogan was literally one word ("change") as far as it imprinted on the popular conscious.

@Hodor: Well there you have it then. We'll have to see what happens with that, but it's a disappointing turn of phrase. As far as your other point goes, no, I don't oppose those programs, and in fact strongly support them and other such targeted re-distributive programs; those don't have anything to do with the drawback of democracy I was referring to, which isn't the tyranny of the majority. The drawback I was talking about was the issue of a significant portion of voters being, to do away with the sugarcoating, kind of stupid.

edited 4th Apr '17 2:26:52 PM by CaptainCapsase

MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#180989: Apr 4th 2017 at 2:06:54 PM

And why do certain candidates, like Hillary, attract so much more of the TLDR thing than others? Obama certainly was given to long, philosophical speeches about matters of policy and justice, and people ate it up. It's really hard to come up with any answers to these questions that don't boil down to people being sexist as all hell.

Charisma. Hillary didn't have it to the degree that Obama did.

Hodor2 Since: Jan, 2015
#180990: Apr 4th 2017 at 2:08:27 PM

@Fighteer- Had mentioned something like this earlier, but I think the view comes down to believing that it's a bad thing that Trump won, but it's also a good thing that Hillary lost.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#180991: Apr 4th 2017 at 2:11:13 PM

[up] Yes, because we need fewer competent politicians and more slogan-spouters, if at all possible. /sigh

@Capsace: So, we have to pander to the racists with economic anxiety because otherwise they'll throw the country to someone like Trump. That's what I hear you saying. The left needs to adopt the Fox News principle of creating an ideological bubble where people are trained to spout the party slogans without the slightest comprehension of how they apply to reality.

I refuse to accede to such a world. There is a reality that exists outside our sloganeering, and it must be possible, somehow, to get people to accept it.

edited 4th Apr '17 2:12:01 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Eschaton Since: Jul, 2010
#180992: Apr 4th 2017 at 2:13:32 PM

[up][up][up]And before people argue that "charisma = male," there was that performance put on by I think a NY university, with a female Trump and male Clinton, and the female Trump ended up being even more well-liked than the actual one.

do you understand how little hope this gives that we can ever have a democracy based on rational principles?
All things considered, I'm surprised there's any hope left to be found at all.

The commodification of politics, with voters picking candidates for themselves rather than the public good, with campaigns employing targeting market strategies to match, has been going on for over 50 years since Eisenhower/Nixon and then Kennedy first started using television. And that's not going away.

edited 4th Apr '17 2:13:53 PM by Eschaton

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#180993: Apr 4th 2017 at 2:16:59 PM

[up][up] We're already living in that sort of world. If you find that intolerable, I seriously (like I am actually serious here) suggest looking into the manner in which China is governed, because that's the most readily apparent alternative to democratic governance in the modern world, and resolves many of those seemingly unsolvable problems with democracy. It's up to you to decide whether the price is worth it.

@Hodor: I certainly don't think that's the case. It's very unfortunate that Trump has won, which means it's equally unfortunate that his opponent lost.

edited 4th Apr '17 2:24:42 PM by CaptainCapsase

Gilphon (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#180994: Apr 4th 2017 at 2:18:01 PM

I'd agree. 'Charisma' being the deciding factor is a worldview I really don't want to be accurate. I may not be able to affect how the rest of world views things, but I can, at very least, police my own views and allegiances; make sure they're based on reality or ideology, not just who sounds best. And I can encourage others to do the same, as best I can.

Arguing that the reason Obama beat Hillary was Charisma, is, to me, arguing that Obama shouldn't have beat Hillary.

ViperMagnum357 Since: Mar, 2012
#180995: Apr 4th 2017 at 2:20:42 PM

@megaeliz: We have posted several in depth stories here the last few months that delve into the why of Trump voters, and while the particulars differ, the core concept remains the same-emotional components overriding reason. Actually taking a good look at yourself and the world around you through a rational, logical, reasonable lense is difficult, painful and almost invariably uncomfortable; and every single conscious decision we make gets run through one or more emotional centers that can short circuit it. For most people, they never bother to ask why, because it hurts, and usually makes them feel bad. So they seek out information that confirms or at least affirms their views, disregarding information that they do not like, and deny whatever inconvenient information cannot be reasoned or rationalized away.

That ties into the studies we have linked here before-when you get right down to brass tacks, it is functionally impossible to change someone's mind-the best you can hope to do is present convincing arguments and evidence, waiting for them to reach their own conclusions. When you debate someone and get them on the ropes, you are not convincing them-you are cornering them and getting them to agree to shut up about their views for the moment. Real change is a matter of self reflection and critical thinking, and someone unable or unwilling is not changing. If they get into a situation where the evidence is overwhelming, they rationalize it away, ignore it, and otherwise act as if they are part of a different reality-look at that white supremacist advocate who found out he was descended from sub-saharan african on life television.

Long term, teaching people how to think for themselves, question every authority along rational/logical grounds, engage in critical thinking and self reflection-these are the things that can combat emotional populism effectively. Not a coincidence that these are the exact opposite things that the Republicans tell their voters are important.

edited 4th Apr '17 2:25:02 PM by ViperMagnum357

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#180996: Apr 4th 2017 at 2:21:25 PM

[up][up] Once again, I point to the Chinese model (essentially an authoritarian technocracy) as the most readily apparent alternative to democratic governance. You have rule by experts, a comparatively meritocratic system, and a capability for long term planning that democracies are generally rather bad at. It's up to you to decide whether the cost in political and civil liberties and the massive and seemingly unsolvable problem of corruption is a tradeoff worth taking.

edited 4th Apr '17 2:22:49 PM by CaptainCapsase

Hodor2 Since: Jan, 2015
#180997: Apr 4th 2017 at 2:21:47 PM

@Eschaton- The subject had changed when that was last brought up, but if I were to attempt to suggest/hand wave why the results didn't meet with expectation, I'd posit that while a lot of people like Trump for being Trump, his crudeness can be off-putting and he's not a really eloquent speaker. So, perhaps the "feminine touch" cancelled out some of the crudeness but didn't cancel out the charisma. It would certainly explain Marie Le Pen. It's also kind of similar to that joke Peter Seranowitz (spelling?) did where he performed some Trump speeches in his classy British accent.

The male!Clinton actor being unpopular is definitely odd/counter-intuitive, especially because a lot of the sexism against Clinton is tied to specifics about her personally, which you'd think would be cancelled out by having someone else reading her speeches. However, from what I remember, didn't people say that he somehow came across as effeminate (which is considered a bad thing)?

edited 4th Apr '17 2:24:24 PM by Hodor2

Gilphon (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#180998: Apr 4th 2017 at 2:26:59 PM

[up][up]I would argue that that is a worse set of problems, and what's more problems that are harder to fix.

Additionally, as solutions go, that's much further removed from anything I'm remotely capable of accomplishing. I can't convinced the US to change its' system of government. But I can encourage people to actually think about what they're voting for. I might even be able to convince some people to make the right choice.

edited 4th Apr '17 2:27:36 PM by Gilphon

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#180999: Apr 4th 2017 at 2:29:30 PM

[up] Considering democracy is in decline around the western world (and considering support for democratic governance has also dropped substantially over the years, especially when it comes to elites), I don't think it's nearly as far removed from the available options as you think it is; people are already coming around to the notion that democracy isn't sacred without even needing to be convinced.

As far as the United States is concerned, that sort of shift would need to be accomplished by first establishing a de facto one party state through gerrymandering and voter suppression, and from that point gradually decreasing the agency of voters until you end up with a managed democracy.

edited 4th Apr '17 2:34:44 PM by CaptainCapsase

Eschaton Since: Jul, 2010
#181000: Apr 4th 2017 at 2:30:50 PM

[up][up][up]Correct, which troubled the director of the production, himself a gay man. There is absolutely still a discussion to be had on the association of power with "masculinity" and weakness with "femininity," and how it influences "charisma" as applied to men and women.

edited 4th Apr '17 2:31:00 PM by Eschaton


Total posts: 417,856
Top