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
![]()
Now, that is a more solid point, but one of those that only makes sense if you already knew Trump would win. You can't fault anybody for assuming that Trump is a bad enough option that anyone else should win by default.
I have the same sense. Based on some reactions to the Syria strikes, I'd expect that a bunch of supporters left him over the strikes. Other people who approve of the strikes may have now positive opinions, net effect being a wash.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanWell, this incident isn't very "Trumpian", in the sense that it doesnt really seem to reflect anything about the man himself, one way or another. After all, the US has been bombing the Middle East for generations now, there really really isnt anything unusual about it.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart."As always I've been keeping a close eye on Trump's approval rating, and on the surface it looks like the Syrian airstrike didn't affect his approval rating at all. In fact it's been very consistent over the last few days, Gallup has him holding at 40% approve/54% disapprove over the last few days, which is basically in line with 538's polling average."
Oh thank god, I was worried that his Syria misadventure and the media's collective ejaculation over it would lead to him getting a decisive popularity boost.
"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."My family's kinda split. Mom and stepdad are moderate, somewhat wishy-washy liberals (Mom voted against a bill banning discrimination based on sexual orientation because it was "too confrontational," and stepdad because the people pushing the bill came across as patronizing assholes - which they did), stepmom is a progressive leftist - a ways to the left of me in some respects - and Dad is one of those sasquatch-like actual Libertarians like I used to be. (Almost as anti-racist as he is anti-government, anti-Trump, pro-civil liberties/anti-NSA surveillance, consistently refuses to vote for either major party.)
The republicans are tearing each other apart, because they have no unifying hatred of Obama. It is causing an identity crisis. Apparently Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) has said
“External party struggles — you can have an open food fight and say, I disagree with Nancy Pelosi and she’s going to throw breadcrumbs my way and I’m going to throw breadcrumbs her way,” Sanford said. “If it’s within the fraternity, then it’s a question of — wait — who represents the fraternity? Are we right? Are we left? Are we center? Who is us?”
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/how-republicans-learned-to-love-obama-237017
edited 9th Apr '17 1:23:14 PM by megaeliz
My family used to vote Republican, but now we lean toward the Democrats — if only because we despise what the Republicans have become.
Personally, I don't seem to fit in anywhere on the conventional political spectrum. Every time I take one of those quizzes, it places me somewhere in the middle. And as everybody knows, there's no such thing as a political Moderate/Centerist these days...
This Space Intentionally Left Blank.We don't have to guess what Hillary would have done because she said it pretty clear. Her plan was to establish no-fly zones and safe-zones for the Syrian citizens and then move forward from there. As much as I don't like the notion of the US intervening anywhere without at least an UN mandate, she at least had her eye on what actually matters in this mess, the people on the ground, instead of flexing her muscles in order to show the world that she will hit back hard and fast if she feels like it. She also would have most likely not approved of deliberately killing children the way Trump did.
Here is a big question: Why did Assad or one of his generals a gas attack? If they did it and not the Russians, most likely because they thought they could get away with it. And why not, if the US is busy killing children left and right while signalling that they don't care about removing Assad from power. The attack might still have happened with Hillary in power, but maybe Assad would have been more careful from the get go, if for no other reason than that Hillary would have had a good chance to convince some of the European countries to help her out for a project to establish peace in Syria. Trump doesn't. There is a reason why Germany and France did a joint statement that they were waiting for word from the UN for further actions. Nobody really trusts Trump. Well, other than the Brits, who apparently still believe in their special relationship.
While the US habit of intervening in the middle east has yielded terrible result so far, there actually is an example of intervention ending a war: the Balkan wars. They might still go on if not for the NATO intervening with an UN Mandate and forcing the parties in question to reach some sort of agreement.
I never understood how trying to prevent war crimes is apparently now imperialism. It has always struck me as a case of people caring more about the principle of non-intervention over the real lives of people in the developing world.
I don't trust Trump to do anything in Syria other than be imperialistic, but I could have trusted Clinton to try and help the Syrian people make the country better and safer.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranAs a Brit, I wanna say I hate Trump and I hate how my government seems to really want to appease him, using phrases like "Influence him from the inside" which is so naive as to make me puke. However, I still align with my American brothers and sisters, and hope we can get America and Britain back on track. I could go on, but I'll save that for the British Politics thread.
So as someone who politically identifies as a "Be-Nice-To-People-Don't-Discriminate-And-Give-Them-What-They-Need-To-Live" what should I think of Bernie Sanders? I hang out among lefties a lot online, and I don't hear too much criticism on him from them, so I'm intrigued what the good people of TV Tropes think of the Berner.
Sanders is alright, but he could use more concrete positions. His followers, and the movement he helped ignite, have elements that are counter productive, if not outright harmful.
And count me in as in favor of well executed interventions. Look at the Balkans, or Korea for models. More recently you had France's effort in Mali. Sure, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya were botched but that doesn't condemn the entire practice.
edited 9th Apr '17 2:24:24 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
That, he's an alright Senator, who has some good stuff and his share of fuckups (the rape article from 40 years ago, dealings with Vermont's M-I complex...), and who got to be particularly relevant in the 2016 US presidential election. This situation eventually got him a rabid "fanbase" filled with the worst parts of the US left (except maybe North Korea apologists?), which during and after the campaign worked as a kind of sabotage against Hillary by peddling old and new right wing conspiracy theories against her to the general left. Sanders himself, I have to point out, actually made some efforts after dropping out of trying to reunify the party.
Edit: on interventions, put me in the "let's judge case by case to see if it's helping or making stuff work, but I won't endorse or condemn until having an idea of how it's working out".
edited 9th Apr '17 2:39:03 PM by IFwanderer
1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KVhttp://www.rawstory.com/2017/04/alabama-supreme-court-allows-impeachment-of-governor-to-proceed/
The Alabama Supreme Court has voted (unanimously) to allow proceedings to proceed to impeach Governor Robert Bentley for "inappropriate use of state resources" in the form of ordering state law enforcement to hunt down copies of a recording that implied he was having an affair. He's also accused of retaliating against someone who learned of the relationship.
Side note, another forum I follow had someone ask why the alt-right's so upset about the Syria bombing. I want to explain but doubt I have everything. The main gist I've gotten is that it's because they spent so much time accusing Clinton of being the warmonger that Trump doing it makes him seem like the same kind of Establishment pig she was.
He is very passionate about his views. This is the guy that in 2010, once gave an epic eight hour speech in front of congress on a bill that had wide bipartisan support, because he felt that the bill was not serving the working class. The speech was actually published as, "The Speech: On Corporate Greed and the Decline of Our Middle Class"
edited 9th Apr '17 2:58:56 PM by megaeliz
![]()
![]()
I think there was also a post about Infowars posting a Conspiracy Theory that the gassing was a false flag
edited 9th Apr '17 2:58:49 PM by MorningStar1337

As always I've been keeping a close eye on Trump's approval rating, and on the surface it looks like the Syrian airstrike didn't affect his approval rating at all. In fact it's been very consistent over the last few days, Gallup has him holding at 40% approve/54% disapprove over the last few days
, which is basically in line with 538's polling average.
However I do wonder if there's something going below the surface that could turn out very bad for Trump in the near-ish future. Part of his core support base are people who are isolationist for whatever reasonnote , and those people got really angry when Trump ordered the strikes. Whereas the people who praised the airstrike were traditionally much more critical of Trump.
So essentially Trump may of replaced some of his core supporters with much more middling supporters. And once he ticks off those middling supporters, and since he's Donald Trump we can safely assume he will, it could expose the fact that his "approval floor" is noticeably lower now then it was before.
I could be off base on this as I'm just a random internet person and not an actual polling analyst, but it's still interesting that such a hot topic seems to have had no impact whatsoever on Trump's approval rating when previous events like this have.