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

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#181951: Apr 8th 2017 at 10:15:48 AM

Hoping Bernie can run again, he's really the best counter there is to Trump, but he's getting on in the years.

Excuse me while I laugh. Sanders got played like a fiddle by Trump during the actual election, acting like a small child desperate for Trump to debate him and therefore give him legitimacy in the midst of a losing primary campaign. He shot himself in the foot and elevated Trump, all without Trump ever having to do anything beyond a pretty basic trick.

Where she loses me "bigly" is the blatant homophobia she showed a little over a decade ago when she has stated that the government shouldn't cater to homosexual extremists in concerns to same-sex marriage. Then there's also her Islamaphobia.

It goes beyond that even. She worked with her father's organization to actively fight against gay rights. It's one thing to be a lawmaker who wasn't in favour of gay rights a few years ago. It's a whole other thing to have actively tried to suppress the gay rights movement, and to continue to employ staff from those organizations. It would be one thing for her to claim to have had an epiphany, but for her to have brought numerous anti-gay figures who worked for her and her father in the past along with her? At that point she breaks my willing suspension of disbelief.

Frankly, I've got to disagree that she's worse than Manchin, and not only in the relative sense. Manchin may not have been a big supporter of gay rights but he's also never opposed them in the same way that she did. Same goes on numerous other issues. He may not push for progressive causes, but Gabbard has actively tried to undermine those same causes. Throw in her Assad fangirling, and her various statements of support for Trump, and you've got pure conartist personified.

Well, I do have actual news sources that back up the "memes" (see the Washington Post article "Emails reveal how foundation donors got access to Clinton and her close aides at State Dept.", for example). I can only go where the evidence leads.

You have evidence for nothing. The entire "Clinton Foundation scandal" was debunked, repeatedly, including by numerous other articles in the Post.

And I try to hold my side to the same standards I hold the other side to. If the biggest customers of Trump's companies were getting special access to his administration, I'd consider that bad, too

...If? So you've somehow missed all the genuine corruption in the Trump admin while you were busy harping on the nonexistent corruption of the Clintons? Why does that not surprise.

Both are bought out by wealthy individuals and corporations (made even worse since Citizens United). Both are typically in favor of unprovoked wars in the Middle East that kill civilians, even though attempts at nation building in those countries haven't worked in the past. Both support the continued use of drone strikes despite civilian casualties. Neither one wants to prosecute the people who committed fraud and crashed our economy (although granted, Trump is the first president I know of to officially bring those people into his administration, at least in such high profile positions).

So, as was before, blatant both-siderism with a side dose of Unicorn Brigade talking points. I mean seriously, we're doing the drone thing again? We're pretending the Democrats have launched an "unprovoked war in the Middle East" when they've literally done nothing of the sort? That's where this conversation is going? Wish I could say I was surprised.

Perhaps intelligence agency employees and leaders are overwhelming pro-Clinton or anti-Trump and wanted her to win. Maybe they didn't like the fact that Trump seemed less hawkish with Russia. Maybe they felt confident that Clinton wouldn't restrict their power whereas they weren't sure about Trump. It could be any number of reasons.

Maybe the FBI is pro-Trump, but I'm not so sure. They did clear Hillary Clinton, after all. They even basically said she'd been careless about her e-mails but they still weren't going to prosecute her because she didn't mean for them to be leaked. I kind of doubt they would've been that understanding for a lower level, not very powerful bureaucrat who was careless with top secret info, especially since accidental crime is still crime in most other cases (hence charges like reckless driving and manslaughter)..

And here we have it folks. Overt conspiracy theorizing about the "Deep State" plotting against Trump on behalf of the Democrats, complete with the suggestion that Trump is going to rein in the powers of those evil, evil intelligence agencies, whereas Clinton would have given them "free reign". Throw in accusations of Clinton being a warhawk on Russia, with the implied suggestion that the intelligence community wants a war with Russia, and you've got a Breitbart article from a couple of months ago.

Not sure there's any further point in engaging with this garbage.

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#181952: Apr 8th 2017 at 10:17:11 AM

They cleared her before the election. Why do that if they were trying to damage her politically?

Because there was nothing they could charge her for.

edited 8th Apr '17 10:17:36 AM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#181953: Apr 8th 2017 at 10:19:00 AM

I would just like to note that as it currently stands we are talking to someone who wants to posit that every intelligence agency in the United States, including the one that threw the election to him, is engaged in a vast conspiracy to undermine poor President Trump.

TheRoguePenguin Since: Jul, 2009
#181954: Apr 8th 2017 at 10:20:53 AM

Just because they cleared her doesn't mean that there was no political intent. The last-minute email thing was pure politics.

Krieger22 Causing freakouts over sourcing since 2018 from Malaysia Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: I'm in love with my car
Causing freakouts over sourcing since 2018
#181955: Apr 8th 2017 at 10:21:48 AM

But Her Emails: Charging Hillary would have required retroactively charging literally every senior State Department official since the turn of the millennium due to antiquated infrastructure requiring that communications rules be broken in order for the State Department to even function.

Tulsi is against TPP
And a woman gets to state that without being decried as a spineless opportunist because?

revival of the Glass-Steagall Act
What would that do? It wouldn't have helped in 2008, why now?

she's against the Iraq War
And how does that help? The Iraq War is over. Unless I'm being overly charitable and overlooked some recent statement of hers that the Iraqi public is better off under Daesh, that means literally nothing.

she's against making arms deals with Saudi Arabia who funds terrorism
Yeah, and is she in power? In any form of position to oppose- oh wait.

she went to Standing Rock to help the protests
And why was she there instead of serving her constituents? Opportunism?

she opposes cutting benefits for Medicare and SS
When did you last see a Democrat support cutting those anyway?

has proposed some good immigration bills
Like this one?

I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot
Advarielle Homicidal Editor Since: Aug, 2016
Homicidal Editor
#181956: Apr 8th 2017 at 10:22:34 AM

[up][up][up] *sigh* This is why I don't like responding to this kind of stuff. It's like reading the same book again and again, and the book isn't even a good one.

edited 8th Apr '17 10:23:03 AM by Advarielle

Only an experienced editor who has a name possesses the ability to truly understand my work - What 90% of writers I'm in charge of said.
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#181957: Apr 8th 2017 at 10:24:37 AM

[up][up] The kicker is, if Gabbard hadn't endorsed Sanders, "progressives" would be baying for her blood (figuratively) and decrying the EVIL establishment for supporting her. But hey, she got on the Sanders train early so all is forgiven.

[down] Fixed it. Thanks.

edited 8th Apr '17 10:28:50 AM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#181958: Apr 8th 2017 at 10:28:02 AM

[up]"Progressives" not progressives. Let's not let them steal that term for themselves. Anyone with genuinely progressive views would not embrace an unreformed homophobe and Islamaphobe who supports Bashar al-Assad and Donald Trump both.

Of course as I've said before, this is the problem with messianic politics. Anything that gets the Messiah's blessing is assumed by default to be good. Anything the Messiah disagrees with is caricatured as evil. Gabbard endorsed Sanders and he in turn assured his followers that she was good people, which for the true diehards among them was enough reason to never question her again. Not because of anything she'd actually done to advance a progressive agenda but because the Messiah said she was the genuine article so she must be.

EDIT: Article on Gabbard's Islamaphobia and connections to radical Hindu politics.

edited 8th Apr '17 10:35:19 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar

Krieger22 Causing freakouts over sourcing since 2018 from Malaysia Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: I'm in love with my car
Causing freakouts over sourcing since 2018
#181960: Apr 8th 2017 at 10:41:43 AM

[up]The FBI investigation into Clinton was nearly devoid of evidence, was based off news clippings and a hitpiece whose author admitted had literally no evidence supporting it either.

How does that look like the FBI was pulling for Hillary? What are you taking? Or for something based off your signature, what are you feeling exactly?

edited 8th Apr '17 10:42:14 AM by Krieger22

I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#181961: Apr 8th 2017 at 10:42:08 AM

And the claim the FBI 'preferred her' goes against the FBI's visible public actions, as well as polling conducted within the FBI which outed the organization as filled with radical Trump fanboys who think "Clinton Cash" is a documentary.

You are crafting a conspiracy theory to defend your belief that Clinton is corrupt and in the process are wittingly or unwittingly defending Trump.

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#181962: Apr 8th 2017 at 10:46:41 AM

@vast-ocean: I'm going to ask you the question that comes to my mind every single time Clinton scandals get brought up now: Why does it matter?

At this point, Hillary Clinton and the skeletons in her closet, real or imagined, are irrelevant. They became irrelevant the moment she became the Democratic candidate for President of the United States. They became irrelevant because Trump was so blatantly unfit for the office of President that nothing could justify putting him in the office over her. They remain irrelevant because she lost, lost "bigly" and not even the Republicans consider her a threat anymore (nobody cares about "Locking her Up" anymore, for instance). On top of that, she just announced she's basically retiring from politics for good. So she's out. Nothing she's done matters anymore.

Finally, to shoehorn my preferred expression, complaining about Hillary Clinton's corruption just rings hollow after watching Donald Trump spend the last six months since the election treating each and every accusation against her like a job description.

edited 8th Apr '17 10:49:52 AM by sgamer82

Advarielle Homicidal Editor Since: Aug, 2016
Homicidal Editor
#181963: Apr 8th 2017 at 10:50:28 AM

[up][up][up][up][up] There is no point or merit in supporting Gabbard. She isn't a good democrat, and she is in Hawaii. In fact, supporting her is harmful to the "progressives". At least the democrat can learn a thing or two from the "progressives" about the dangers of the horseshoe theory.

[up][up][up][up]

I never said Trump wasn't corrupt. He absolutely is.

You really should be more clear about this kind of stuff.

In retrospect, I shouldn't have used an analogy.

You don't need to use an analogy on a fact. You use it on a hypothetical scenario.

If you say so.

I guess we just have to be an adult and agree to disagree on this one.

A lot of innocent people are hurt by this pragmatism.

It's still better than all innocent people. The saying "perfect is the enemy of good" exists for a reason, you know.

I didn't say she was working with the FBI; just that the FBI might have preferred her.

I'm going to give you an advice here. Don't say, write, or type things unless you really mean it. The justification I'm just kidding or speculating don't always work.

Not to mention that this is top-class conspiracy nutjob's nonsense. You aren't talking in a debate, but typing a comment on a forum. You have more than enough time to think before you type.

edited 8th Apr '17 10:53:21 AM by Advarielle

Only an experienced editor who has a name possesses the ability to truly understand my work - What 90% of writers I'm in charge of said.
Luigisan98 A wandering user from Venezuelan Muscat Since: Oct, 2013 Relationship Status: I <3 love!
A wandering user
#181965: Apr 8th 2017 at 10:56:37 AM

Someone should mind their tongue of what they mean before getting being chewed massively by the good people in this forum thread...

The only good fanboy, is a redeemed fanboy.
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#181966: Apr 8th 2017 at 10:58:49 AM

She said that we should use "military responses" to the Russia hacks and that we should have a no-fly zone where Syrian and Russian planes aren't allowed to go.
Well it's a damn good thing we voted in Trump and not a warmonger like her.

Sorry-not-Sorry, couldn't help myself on this one. This is another one that rings hollow, both because of my "job description" metaphor, and because pretty much everyone here assumed Trump would use military force the first chance he got, while Clinton is not nearly so bloodthirsty.

edited 8th Apr '17 10:59:37 AM by sgamer82

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#181967: Apr 8th 2017 at 11:00:37 AM

I'm starting to think I was too kind with my earlier criticism.

edited 8th Apr '17 11:00:50 AM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#181968: Apr 8th 2017 at 11:02:29 AM

Conspiracies are kind of what the deep state does. They've got a long history of toppling foreign governments to install dictatorships friendly to America's business interests (just read about the history of Iran or the Banana Wars, for example).

And there it is. You just proved you know absolutely nothing about what you are pontificating on. The coups in Iran and Guatemala were not executed by some shadowy CIA operatives going behind the backs of the current president. They were done on the orders of the executive branch of the government, which agreed with the intelligence agencies that the socialist Iranian and Guatemalan governments were threats to American interests and demanded operations be launched to undermine them. It was in no way a product of the "Deep State" and you're digging yourself further and further into conspiracy theorist territory every time you use that Breitbart pushed phrase.

She said that we should use "military responses" to the Russia hacks and that we should have a no-fly zone where Syrian and Russian planes aren't allowed to go.

I was waiting for this. It's such old hat from the alt-right and fringe left by now. No-fly zones are a regular part of US foreign policy. They were regularly declared throughout the Cold War. They are a part of business-as-usual. Get over it.

Krieger22 Causing freakouts over sourcing since 2018 from Malaysia Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: I'm in love with my car
Causing freakouts over sourcing since 2018
#181969: Apr 8th 2017 at 11:03:50 AM

[up][up][up][up][up]As did many people in the post 9/11 climate. So?

And a no fly zone would have required planning, more far more planning than an ineffectual strike on an airbase (you want to render one unusable? You have to break out the cluster munitions or delayed action bombs). Otherwise, see [up][up][up]

I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot
Advarielle Homicidal Editor Since: Aug, 2016
Homicidal Editor
#181970: Apr 8th 2017 at 11:05:13 AM

[up][up][up][up][up][up] I'm being too kind before, am I?

Seriously, you're destroying your own credibility better than your opponent. What are you doing?

[down] I don't think anyone is going to answer you on that.

edited 8th Apr '17 11:08:28 AM by Advarielle

Only an experienced editor who has a name possesses the ability to truly understand my work - What 90% of writers I'm in charge of said.
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#181971: Apr 8th 2017 at 11:05:48 AM

That does seem to be the consensus. Personally I'm wondering if I'll get a response to my "Why does it matter" question.

I'll take [down] as a "no".

edited 8th Apr '17 11:09:59 AM by sgamer82

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#181973: Apr 8th 2017 at 11:11:45 AM

I realize we have a two-party system, but that doesn't mean this binary thinking is justified.
Normally, I'd agree with this sentiment. In the face of a man who has unabashedly and publicly shown that he is everything the other person is only accused of being, I think this one's an exception. Again, "rings hollow" and "job description".

Luigisan98 A wandering user from Venezuelan Muscat Since: Oct, 2013 Relationship Status: I <3 love!
A wandering user
#181974: Apr 8th 2017 at 11:13:19 AM

[up][up] Please calm down from this nonesense and let's focus on what matters, standing against Trump, OK?

The only good fanboy, is a redeemed fanboy.
Advarielle Homicidal Editor Since: Aug, 2016
Homicidal Editor
#181975: Apr 8th 2017 at 11:16:30 AM

[up][up][up]

Not a claim, a speculation.

Just because it's a speculation doesn't mean that you can go nuts and give any kind of answer. Speculation is based on reality and your speculation is just off. It's called speculation, not make our own fact and history.

I only focus on Clinton because someone here claimed that Clinton is hated for "no goddam reason".

To be honest, when her opponent is Trump, I don't think there is even a good enough reason to hate her unless, of course, you make stuff up and claim that she is the new, sixth Chosen of Chaos or something like that.

edited 8th Apr '17 11:17:33 AM by Advarielle

Only an experienced editor who has a name possesses the ability to truly understand my work - What 90% of writers I'm in charge of said.

Total posts: 417,856
Top