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

ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#181276: Apr 5th 2017 at 3:51:29 PM

[up][up]

To reiterate - I'm not saying that there aren't assholes within the WWC, but saying that they're all irredeemable is arguably worse than Trump's comments on illegal immigrants, as he still finished with "Some, I assume, are good people", and that acting like they are irredeemable is a fast-track to getting them to not so much as give you or your opinions the time of day.

Though funnily enough, that Cracked article linked on the previous page kind of makes this a moot point, as their mind was slowly changed by others that were slightly-more-tolerant, not the opposite end of the spectrum.

edited 5th Apr '17 3:55:44 PM by ironballs16

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#181277: Apr 5th 2017 at 3:52:50 PM

They already don't, we've got a D next to our names.

Oh really when?
TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor
#181278: Apr 5th 2017 at 3:54:53 PM

Imagine the shoe on the other foot. Could you imagine what the media and political reaction would be if all the wails of the WWC were replaced with POC?

The propaganda would literally write itself.

New Survey coming this weekend!
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
#181279: Apr 5th 2017 at 4:11:59 PM

[up] The fact that the media are massive assholes does not give us a black cheque to be slightly smaller assholes.

Why exactly would the numbers not add up if there was a charismatic candidate with a great platform who could successfully make the Republicans and Trump look weak and incompetent?

They'd probably add up, but that's because the factors you mentioned would win over some of the people we're talking about, which some folks here are very resistant to doing.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Wryte Since: Jul, 2010
#181280: Apr 5th 2017 at 4:21:54 PM

Move voting the hell off tuesday. Or make it a national holiday. The USA has uniquely low turnout for it's elections and the fact that a lot of people really can't practically vote has a heck of a lot to do with that. And the counter argument against making it a national holiday is.., what exactly? That people who work for a living don't deserve a vote? This will help because it reduces the influence of small minorities with unusually high turnout.

Break the back of citizens united. Not via the courts, write an amendment, get it on ballots and in front of legislatures. The primary requirement for constitutional amendments is very broad support, and this would have it - because everyone is convinced the other party is in the pocket of moneyed interests (.. because they are. ) The primary problem here is that current politicians are bought, but.. this is surmountable, because, well having to spend all their time trying to get oceans of money to be reelected must be personally distasteful to an astronomical degree - people dont enter politics to spend all their time begging rich guys for money. Not even republicans.

Boy, what great ideas! Man, why haven't we ever thought of making voting more accessible to people who don't have the luxury of taking time off in the middle of the week to vote or spend large sums of cash to influence politics directly?

Oh, right, we have, and the Republicans block every effort because the people those changes would help are more likely to vote Democrat.

tclittle Professional Forum Ninja from Somewhere Down in Texas Since: Apr, 2010
Professional Forum Ninja
#181281: Apr 5th 2017 at 4:53:55 PM

[up][up] The LA election you brought up just reminded me of this NeoGAF post.

California's 34th congressional district is voting today to replace Xavier Bacerra who became Attorney General of CA back in January. There is like over 20 candidates for the district that cover downtown, east and other parts of Los Angeles.

One of those candidates is a Korean dude, I think he would be first congressman if elected or something, so my phone's been ringing off the hook past couple of weeks, with the Korean peer pressure being cranked to full tilt.

But I don't just go with the Kimchee flow cuz I can eat the food and speak the language. I looked into the guy, and he feels like a pretend progressive, having switch from Republican to Democrat only recently. I get the suspicion he switched and moved to LA just so that he can increase the chance of being elected. Fuck that. I'm voting for Wendy Carrillo who use to be an undocumented immigrant and worked on Sanders campaign last summer locally.

Anyways, I went to the polling place and got the ballot, and punched it with my choice and handed it to an old Korean lady volunteer. She looks at it, sees that I marked it for someone other than the Korean dude, and asked who I voted for. I said why? She then asked did I intended to vote for the Korean dude but make an mistake? I said no. Then she further pressed why not? In a panic I yelled "NO MORE 12 GODDESSES!" and ran out. True story* *except for that very last sentence

Fox News: General Keene says a preemptive military strike may be the only option in regards to making sure North Korea doesn't go nuclear as Trump does not want to use nukes himself.

EDIT:Folders aren't working for some reason...

On the heels of yet another North Korean missile test, albeit one the Pentagon says failed, and ahead of a meeting between President Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart, Trump’s first choice for Secretary of Defense told Fox News the U.S. is right to consider first-strike military action against Pyongyang.

“We’re rapidly and dangerously heading towards the reality that the military option is the only one left when it comes to getting North Korea to denuclearize and not weaponized [intercontinental ballistic missiles]," said retired four-star Gen. Jack Keane.

Keane said going to war is undesirable to the Trump administration because of the toll it would take on human lives.“But the Trump administration cannot accept a nuclear launch,” he said. “We cannot rely on our missile-defense system to defeat it and expose the American people to a nuclear attack. Therefore if an ICBM attack was imminent the president would have to conduct a preemptive strike.”

Such a position is intended to send a message to Chinese leaders ahead of tomorrow’s meeting at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida.

“Three past presidents have sought political, economic and diplomatic steps to get North Korea to denuclearize but failed miserably,” Keane said. “All three tried to leverage China but also failed.”

Keane said that while former President Obama never fully removed the military option – a move Obama called “strategic patience” – both China and North Korea believed he had done so.The Trump administration has said that policy is not working and plan to put the military option back on the table, Keane said.

“North Korea ought to be at the top of the agenda in Mar-a-Lago,” said John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. “How much do you fear a nuclear weapon? That's the question. We have to look at preemptive military action. If China doesn't like that prospect maybe we can start bringing down the regime with other measures, like cutting off the supply of food and fuel to North Korea.”

The Trump administration is said to be considering a range of new sanctions against the North Korean regime. But, as in the past, such moves require help from Beijing. That help has not often been forthcoming.

“The U.S. has tried to get the Chinese to cut off oil and food to the North Koreans for 23 years, only to be told that Beijing does not believe in cut-offs of anything,” said J.J. Tkacik of the International Strategy and Assessment Center. “The Chinese have acquiesced in several UN Security Council resolutions that involve some level of trade and economic sanctions, but there has never been any indication that they actually have implemented those sanctions.”

There is broad agreement that what North Korea is doing is dangerous and unprecedented. In his first five years as North Korean leader, the Center for Strategic and International Studies points out that Kim Jong-Un has ordered more than twice the number of missile tests than his father, Kim Jong-Il, did during his 17-year rule.

“It has invested heavily in the development of increasingly longer range ballistic missiles, and the miniaturization of its nascent nuclear weapons stockpile,” according to a report by the non-partisan CSIS. “North Korea is reliant on these capabilities to hold U.S., allied forces and civilian areas at risk.”

Keane said what is particularly dangerous is Kim Jong-Un’s rhetoric that he intends to use these weapons against the United States.

“There’s not another world leader who says he intends to use nukes against the U.S.,” Keane said. “We have to take this threat very seriously.”

In his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Trump could try to get help from China. But experts say even if that does come up, China would likely not agree to it.

“North Korea has strategic value to China,” said Shen Dingli, vice dean of international relations at Fudan University in Shanghai, and a frequent commentator on U.S.-China relations. “The U.S. has to end its military threat to China, on the issue of Taiwan, before asking China to do it a favor by demanding something from North Korea.”

But experts said Trump’s candor and blunt approach is appreciated in China and could help him.

“Being unpredictable and questioning conventional wisdom can be an effective strategy at times,” said Paul Haenle, who served on the national security staffs of Presidents Bush and Obama. “A healthy dose of unpredictability is useful in our strategy with China.”

Still, some experts said Trump has to be careful in how he deals with China and North Korea. Any provocation, they say, could backfire.

“If the U.S. attacks without provocation, China is legally bound to defend North Korea,” said Shen Dingli, vice dean of international relations at Fudan University in Shanghai, and a frequent commentator on U.S.-China relations. “Don’t expect China to let North Korea collapse. China will join North Korea to a level that will prevent its collapse.”

Keane said President Trump is going to be diplomatic, but he isn’t afraid to urge China to take sides.

“[Thursday], we’re going to try the diplomatic option to reverse North Korea’s nuclear program,” Keane said. “As for the military option, we’re moving there because Beijing, you’ve painted us into a corner. Let’s work together and denuclearize North Korea. I don’t know if they’re going to do that. But we’ll see.”

edited 5th Apr '17 4:59:31 PM by tclittle

"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#181282: Apr 5th 2017 at 5:03:43 PM

Where was the defense of Imperial Japan's dictatorship? Please point that out to me.

And I never said I agreed with the people who wrote the article. You're jumping from a to d here without getting to b and c first.

It's implicit in its association of the Pacific War with the Vietnam War (and all the other wars of the Cold War). It includes the Empire of Japan in a list of states that, according to it, had no power to infringe on American security interests or threaten American territory.

This is of course a crock. The Japanese directly assaulted American territorial holdings in Hawaii, Alaska, and the Philippines, killed thousands of American servicemen, and while we're on the subject, hundreds of American civilians. They attacked American shipping in the Pacific, and did while being in alliance with Nazi Germany, whose submarines were trying to close the Atlantic to US commercial shipping (by sinking every commercial ship they came across). They also, of course, murdered millions of people in China, Vietnam, Korea, etc, which might not be an attack on American interests, but was still worth stopping.

To put Imperial Japan and North Vietnam (and numerous other countries) on the same list of "non-threats" to American security interests is to ignore the crimes of the Japanese junta against the USA. I'd note, actually, that of Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan, it was the latter that by far the greater threat to American security, what with numerous assaults on American possessions, and the actual capture of American (or American held) territory.

As to the last point—if you're going to share apologia for a dictatorship, and do so while trying to explain the positions of a person or persons you had previously been citing (ie, bringing up that article as part of your attempt to explain the positions of Chomsky and people like him, in a conversation in which you had previously cited Chomsky repeatedly) it's probably best to say, in the post in which you share it, that you do not agree with the apologia. Otherwise the entirely logical deduction is going to be that you agree with it.

Boy, what great ideas! Man, why haven't we ever thought of making voting more accessible to people who don't have the luxury of taking time off in the middle of the week to vote or spend large sums of cash to influence politics directly?

Oh, right, we have, and the Republicans block every effort because the people those changes would help are more likely to vote Democrat.

No kidding. We seem to keep going around in circles on this point—the Democrats have already tried all of these things, and will no doubt try them again. But the reality is that the hard-right and the white voting bloc that backs them have been locked together with glue since the Civil Rights act, and even more so since Reagan, which makes getting enough people elected to get those things done becomes nigh impossible. Inroads would have to be made into those white voters to pull it off and the only way to make inroads into that group has, historically, been paying at least lip service to the notion that their problems really are more important than those of minorities—an act that the Unicorn Brigaders have been denouncing Bill Clinton for ever since he did it.

Over the course of the past election, the Sanders fanatics and Stein fans and various other "True Progressives" denounced again and again Bill Clinton's policy of "triangulation" and tried to pin the blame for it on Hillary Clinton. Some of them have also, in this very thread, denounced Jimmy Carter for supposedly doing similar things. And yet now they're demanding the Democratic Party do that very thing in order to secure the votes of Sanders' precious WWC. I don't know if this is blatant hypocrisy, or if they've simply blinded themselves, and are convinced that any idea posited by Sanders and those around him cannot possibly resemble in any way something pushed by dreaded "Establishment" Democrats like Carter or Clinton.

Historically the only way for Democrats to win the WWC is to play to at least some of their prejudices and ignore (or pretend to ignore) issues that matter to minorities. We've been told repeatedly by certain elements in the thread that this is unacceptable. Yet now those same people want the Democrats to focus their attention on winning back the WWC and are even crying for an abandonment of "identity politics". Is this an admission that "triangulation" wasn't so bad? Because that is what is being advocated for by a number of the very people who lectured us on how terrible it was.

edited 5th Apr '17 5:06:18 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#181283: Apr 5th 2017 at 5:23:29 PM

A WaPo op;Ed that caught my eye

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/04/05/how-americans-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-aca-sort-of/?utm_term=.2d4c890e1a35

First part:

[[quoteblock]]Democrats should give credit where credit is due — to President Trump. He has accomplished what they and President Barack Obama could not, namely make the Affordable Care Act popular, if not actually loved. The Kaiser Family Foundation poll reports:

Despite divided views about the Affordable Care Act, three-fourths of the public (75%) say President Trump and his administration should do what they can to make the law work, while one in five (19%), including 38 percent of Republicans, say the Administration should do what it can to make the law fail so they can replace it later, the latest Kaiser Health Tracking Poll finds.

Trump even convinced Republicans to hang onto Obamacare. “Fielded after the U.S. House cancelled its March 24 vote on a plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act supported by President Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan, the poll finds majorities of Democrats (89%) and independents (78%), and half of Republicans (51%) want the Trump Administration to make the law work, as do a majority of President Trump’s supporters (54%).” This is not to say the public is thrilled with Obamacare — support remains evenly divided. But the public, including most Republicans, no longer warm to a “repeal and replace” message, although that is precisely where House Republicans are stuck in an endless loop trying to appease the Freedom Caucus without losing everyone else.[[/quoteblock​]]

edited 5th Apr '17 5:24:17 PM by sgamer82

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
#181284: Apr 5th 2017 at 5:28:02 PM

Historically the only way for Democrats to win the WWC is to play to at least some of their prejudices and ignore (or pretend to ignore) issues that matter to minorities.

See many of us disagree with this premiss, LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act yet also won over the WWC, why can't we build that alliance again? Why can't the same alliance that got the Civil Rights Act passed while giving LBJ a crushing victory over Goldwater (an alliance that by nesecisity included a lot of white people) be built again?

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#181285: Apr 5th 2017 at 5:31:57 PM

Silas we had to send the 101st Airborne in to escort black children to school. There were church bombings and riots all over the country because of the civil rights movement.

We didn't make alliances, we told them that it was going to pass and that desegregation was the law of the land and we told them at literal gunpoint.

edited 5th Apr '17 5:32:58 PM by LeGarcon

Oh really when?
MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#181286: Apr 5th 2017 at 5:38:00 PM

@Ambar Eh, you're really reaching by saying an association is a defense since it's primarily about America's mode of conduct justified or not .

You know I say this as someone whose own family was victimized by the Japanese but your post is rather offensive to me personally.

I mean Imperial Japan turned my grandmother into an orphan so I think you can concur that I didn't mean to share apologia of Imperial Japan. Although I don't think I even did to begin since I think you're over-thinking it.

edited 5th Apr '17 5:38:34 PM 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
#181287: Apr 5th 2017 at 5:39:50 PM

Yes it had to be done at gunpoint, yet that was not the end of the WWC supporting politicians who would do that. Eisenhower sent the 101st in yet Republicans still got to votes from the South, LBJ was willing to sign the Civil Rights Act (and in fact did) yet still got votes from the WWC.

Many of them were forced to accept civil rights by force, yet a lot of them also elected the guys who forced them to accept civil rights.

We got the WWC and the South to vote for people who'd bring about progress on civil rights once before, why can't we do it again?

edited 5th Apr '17 5:40:52 PM 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
LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#181288: Apr 5th 2017 at 5:44:27 PM

Because this time we don't have control over the 101st.

Oh really when?
MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#181289: Apr 5th 2017 at 5:45:27 PM

Honestly, one of the best things you could do for the country is free college tuition. It'd liberalize a lot more people by just getting them in university.

It's one reason why modern Republicans in the aggregate tend to opposite it since they see colleges as liberal brain-washing institutions.

edited 5th Apr '17 5:45:59 PM 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
#181290: Apr 5th 2017 at 5:49:03 PM

[up][up] Eisenhower didn't use the 101st to win votes and neither did LBJ.

The WWC were forced to accept civil rights at gunpoint, they weren't forced to vote for civil rights rights supporting candidates at gunpoint, stop conflating the two.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor
#181291: Apr 5th 2017 at 6:11:25 PM

The only reason LBJ demolished Goldwater is because he successfully painted him as a batshit insane candidate who might get us into a nuclear war and was exceptionally incompetent. Considering how polarization was pretty much non-existent back then, it was a pretty much a given that he was going to straight massacre him.

New Survey coming this weekend!
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
#181292: Apr 5th 2017 at 6:43:07 PM

[LBJ] successfully painted [Goldwater] as a batshit insane candidate who might get us into a nuclear war and was exceptionally incompetent.

I fail to see why this should be consider a feat beyond repetition. Yes it means having messaging that can break though the media insistence that both sides are equally bad, yes it means reaching low information voters, yes it means having a candidate that can make complicated ideas seem simple and easy to understand, but none of that is impossible.

I get that a repeate of LBJ's win is going to be hard, it may not be possible, but it's what we should strive for, not getting the exact same votes as 2016 but maybe in a slightly better spread so that we win.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#181294: Apr 5th 2017 at 6:57:46 PM

Are there any good tools available for Democrats to use in swing states to suppress likely Republican voters?

megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#181295: Apr 5th 2017 at 7:01:06 PM

No, no, no. Stop right there. The part of the reason we want democrats to win is to get rid of voter suppression laws. Voter suppression is what many republicans do.

The way forward is to join organizations like Swing Left, Sister District, and Flippable. The best thing we can do is get organized, and make a coordinated effort to support stratigic candidates and elections where we have a good chance of winning.

edited 5th Apr '17 7:17:56 PM by megaeliz

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#181296: Apr 5th 2017 at 7:01:31 PM

[up][up] ...No, we shouldn't be going down that road. Voter suppression is bad, even when it's suppressing the votes of people who don't agree with us.

That's not how democracy is supposed to work.

Improving voter turnout is what needs to be done.

edited 5th Apr '17 7:01:41 PM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#181297: Apr 5th 2017 at 7:07:04 PM

In fact, if you really want to flip swing states, help support John Ossof in the Georgia special election.

https://www.flippable.org/act/

http://elections.flippable.org/elections

edited 5th Apr '17 7:08:21 PM by megaeliz

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
#181298: Apr 5th 2017 at 7:07:51 PM

Are there any good tools available for Democrats to use in swing states to suppress likely Republican voters?

No.

Morally because voter suppression is a direct subversion of democracy and wrong.

Tactically because voter suppression only really works on Dems, also tactically because engaging in morally bankrupt acts like voter suppression is how you loose the high ground, kill your own moral and make the media right when they claim that both sides are as bad as each other, also also tactically because any resources that could be used on over suppression would be better used on get out the vote initiatives for Dem voters.

edited 5th Apr '17 7:08:54 PM 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
Wryte Since: Jul, 2010
#181299: Apr 5th 2017 at 8:26:06 PM

We got the WWC and the South to vote for people who'd bring about progress on civil rights once before, why can't we do it again?

Because the Republicans hadn't yet spent decades radicalizing their base into a death cult back then.

You cannot underestimate the impact the Right's decades-long institutionalized campaign of propaganda, disinformation, and delusion has had on the country, let alone their voting base. Some of these people would literally rather vote for their own deaths than for a Democrat. Changing minds like that is not a realistic goal.

If we can swing some of the WWC to the Democrats incidentally, then great, but dedicating major resources to turning them is a complete waste. The name of the game here is not flipping, it's flopping; they won't vote blue, so the best we can hope for is that they don't vote at all. Not through suppression, but through disillusionment with the Republicans.

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?
#181300: Apr 5th 2017 at 8:31:46 PM

About Holding the Line...Tomi Lahren Was Made for the Trump Era--The rising TV starlet might have run afoul of social conservatives. But with her wide reach and trademark sass, her future could be positively Trumpian.

    Tomi Lahren Was Made for the Trump Era 
Tomi Lahren, the Trumpite girl wonder, seemed hurt. Famous for savaging Hillary Clinton, snowflakes and Black Lives Matter at auctioneer pace in the rant portion of “Tomi,” her nightly show on Glenn Beck’s Blaze TV, Lahren typically casts a cold eye on emotion. But her sangfroid appeared to fail her on Monday, March 20, after a long weekend taking heat from conservative quarters for announcing on “The View” that she’s pro-choice. (“I’m for limited government, so stay out of my guns, and you can stay out of my body as well.”)

Most of the attacks were Twitter’s usual ad feminam taunts and entry-level sarcasm—many accusing Lahren of turning coat and aligning with the liberals she purports to despise—but some conservatives brought out bigger guns, calling Lahren godless. Presumably to fortify herself for another social-media scalding, Lahren tweeted, with the tag “#mondaymotivation,” a you-go-girl inspirational quote. It was less a stock Lahren zinger and more the kind of thing that shows up on the Instagram accounts of yoga studios: “No one hunts small deer”—deer emoji—“this too shall pass.”

Aw. That was about 11 a.m. By day’s end, nothing had passed but her tenure at The Blaze. The Daily Caller reported that production of “Tomi” was suspended—first for a week, and then, according to a report in the New York Post, permanently. Beck, Lahren’s boss, questioned Lahren’s libertarian bona fides as a zealous Trump supporter: “Wait, libertarian views? Help me out on Trumpcare, stimulus, and executive orders. Trump is anything but libertarian. #intellectualhonesty.” A source close to Beck told the gossip page of the Post, “Glenn is reminding the world of his conservative principles by sidelining Tomi after she insulted conservatives by calling them hypocrites.” (Conservative agitator Mark Dice put it this way: “@Glenn Beck soured on @Tomi Lahren when she wouldn’t drink his #Never Trump Kool Aid, & got jealous when she became a bigger star than him.”)

At 24, she is a full-fledged “news personality”—three parts actor, one part editorialist—and is regularly likened to Ann Coulter and Megyn Kelly. Not only has she presided over “Tomi,” whose clips draw tens of thousands of views daily, for nearly a year and a half, she has also introduced a devilishly compelling and new high-speed rant style with “Final Thoughts,” her end-of-show remarks. These little jalapeño poppers of bravura bile clock in at just 30 seconds, and are perfectly suited to social media, where Lahren has conjured up a gigantic one-woman franchise with some 5.5 million followers. (That’s 702,000 on Instagram, 666,000 on Twitter and 4.2 million on Facebook.)

Chiefly, the swiftness of the firing suggests that the resentments traditional Republicans bear Trump and Trumpites may be building up. And while most in conservative media are impotent to censure the president himself for his betrayal of signature conservative positions, they can flex some muscle by smacking down Lahren—and maybe others—as his proxy. In Lahren’s firing might even be a suggestion of what could happen, ideologically, if the GOP is ever emboldened—by its constituencies, by further legislative failures or by the president’s deepening ignominy—to take Trump to task for his disregard of both civil liberties and family values.

Lahren has certainly brought some new verve to the conservative sphere—she seems on track to be the Samantha Bee of the right. As a performer she’s derivative but compelling, as she affects the air of a straight-shooter noting ironies. “Let’s get something straight,” she often says. In Lahren’s entertaining fables, the ironies that interest her concern “snowflakes” and “participation-trophy” types, mincing grotesques whose sense of their absolute uniqueness has them insist on special treatment for just breathing air. Lahren borrows tropes from stand-up, opening softly before revving the outrage. Snippy pedantry often precedes her code-red fury: “A protest is a peaceful objection to a grievance,” she explained just after the women’s march in January. “A bunch of sore losers occupying a space is called a tantrum!” In Lahren’s teacher-talking-to-idiots pose, there’s a bit of the old Dennis Miller, who also leveraged rants for conservative causes, spotting fraudulent phrases among liberal elites.

Lahren has fashioned herself a loyal Trump defender ever since the campaign. In one noteworthy appearance, she admitted that Trump’s on-tape comments about groping women didn’t “look good,” but lambasted his prudish critics: “Don’t go around acting holier than thou about this, like you’ve never heard anyone say anything like that before. Give me a break. And don’t try to shame women who still support Trump. No, we aren’t crying in the corner about this, and that doesn’t make us any less woman. So save your pity.” But Lahren’s most famous rant—against Colin Kaepernick, the NFL quarterback who protested American racism by refusing to stand for the national anthem—is less a debunking and more a sprint to full-throated bigotry. After faulting Kaepernick last fall for what she called “mouth diarrhea,” she turned his modest protest into a pretext for this: “When will those in black communities take a step back and take some responsi-damn-bility for the problems of black communities? Because it seems to me blaming white people for all of your problems might make you the racist.”

With her reach and influence, and presumably with decades of sass ahead of her, Lahren is rumored (without clear evidence) to be in Fox’s sights, where she would be the latest pledge in the pro-Trump FNC sorority, which includes Trump cheerleaders like Sean Hannity and Ainsley Earhardt. Another Trump devotee is especially needed now that Kelly, who famously sparred with Trump during the campaign, has defected to opposition-party NBC. Lahren’s pro-choice leanings, which echo some of Trump’s only lightly disavowed statements on abortion, would likely not hurt her at Fox, where these days Trump seems to be a one-man ideology .

Lahren would also be a boon to the graying network, where the average viewer is 68. She is, as she says, a millennial. (“I’m a millennial, so I don’t like labels,” she once told Noah, in an unconscious riddle.) She is committed to “standing in my truth,” as she said of the pro-choice dust-up, leaning on a locution often used by the under-30 crowd as a bulwark against gaslighting. (In another mood, Lahren might hear the dread whining in this phrase, but I won’t presume to stand in her truth.) In any case, “stand in my truth” is not an Coulterism; Coulter, a boomer, usually talks ex cathedra—about the truth, to which she claims privileged access. But not “her” truth, which often carries overtones of identity politics.

But, importantly for Fox, Lahren, under Beck’s protection, has drawn not only a younger audience to Blaze TV; she has also played a millennial for her elders. She’s a pint-size right-wing prodigy, applauded by graybeard commenters on Facebook for saying “I’m a libertarian” the way the same men might applaud—with decorous lechery—a precocious Taylor Swift impersonator on America’s Got Talent. Mindful of her senior-citizen base, Lahren has made her home not primarily on Snapchat or even Twitter but on venerable old Facebook. In its current function as a retirement home, Facebook is a perfect place for her to perform for Tea Partyers and older conservatives, leaning on her love of guns and country to come off as the dream daughter—like Ivanka Trump, but country and not snooty.

For now, in conservative media, as in conservative politics, not plumping for Trump is a dangerous game. Of course it means forfeiting presidential favor. But it also means losing out on the antic energy of performers like Lahren, who bring a Clockwork Orange-style crime-spree zeal to their takedowns of resisters, cucks and celebrities. By contrast, to keep complaining about Trump’s besmirching of conservative honor—as Ted Cruz, Megan Mc Cain and Megyn Kelly all did—is depressing, a fast-track (for now) to irrelevance.

Short synopsis: Millennials are not immune to reactionary propaganda and said reactionaries are not ignoring them (on purpose). Also, on message is starting to become a hazy thing on the right. Finally, a warning. The article makes no attempt at neutrality and'll probably hit this forum's confirmation biases like a hammer.

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

Total posts: 417,856
Top