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

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#183426: Apr 18th 2017 at 9:25:44 AM

'sides, one could say the same thing about elderly voters. And in politics, competence is a subjective concept.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
NoName999 Since: May, 2011
#183427: Apr 18th 2017 at 9:29:28 AM

Why isn't there an maximum voting age limit?

If someone's 80, I don't think they should get a say in where the country is heading considering they won't be around much longer.. [lol]

MorningStar1337 The Encounter that ended the Dogma from 🤔 Since: Nov, 2012
The Encounter that ended the Dogma
#183429: Apr 18th 2017 at 9:33:12 AM

I presume its because part of the principles of America can be summed as "all voices are equal". Not like there's any chance of getting that in place considering that the Republicans and the people affected by this would probably see it as a power grab, and cry voter suppression (I don't know if they would be in the right on this, I'll check to see if the 26th or another amendment finalized a protection for elderly voters didn't see any amendment specifically, but I did notice that America is the rule, not the exception, that would be the Vatican)

edited 18th Apr '17 9:36:16 AM by MorningStar1337

Wyldchyld (Old as dirt)
#183430: Apr 18th 2017 at 10:02:32 AM

@Wyldchyld: There's a significant amount of research in both academia and in the private sector, at least in terms of the medical sciences.

Yes, but as I said, I was only talking about personal experience in the climate science field.

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#183431: Apr 18th 2017 at 10:21:06 AM

Once again, Caspase, you're arguing against a position that literally no one—least of all me—is supporting. Multiple people have now pointed it out to you.

Young people treat voting the way they treat picking out their favourite band. They want someone who is "totally real" and who will "never sellout". Unfortunately they have a highly undeveloped notion of just what constitutes being real and not selling out, so in the end they simply pick the candidate who feels like they're authentic and cling to them like a drowning man to a rope.

Eventually, of course, that candidate, being a person and not the fictitious construct his/her fans have built them up to be, will say or do something those fans disagree with and that's when they either bail on their former hero, deriding them as a sellout (the same way they bail on a band after a genre change), or dive deep into cognitive dissonance, insisting that things that would outrage them if done by someone else are acceptable from their guy ("I hate this genre. Except when X covers it."). It's how you end up with phenomena like the youth vote loving Obama until he actually took office, or the insistence, in the face of all her public statements, that Tulsi Gabbard is a progressive.

And it is those tendencies that vanish as one ages. You become more rational. You care less about "selling out". And you start developing an actual understanding of what constitutes authenticity in a candidate.

@Dingo Walley

Also, I doubt highly she's a Reactionary. Grifter, sure, but nothing I've seen from her is out-and-out Reactionary (other then perhaps her Isolationism stance, but Sanders leans that way, too).

She's Islamaphobic, homophobic, and supportive of dictatorial regimes that use Weapons of Mass Destruction against their own citizenry. That's pretty much the definition of being a social reactionary.

MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#183432: Apr 18th 2017 at 10:21:29 AM

Denouncing scientists as corrupt now, are we? Your climate change example is utterly ridiculous given that 99+ percent of scientists cannot and will not be conned, cajoled, or bribed into supporting the notion that it's a hoax. You want to try coming up with an actual example?

When did I denounce scientists as utterly corrupt? I was forwarding a position that some of intellectuals are compromised. That includes some scientists but not all or even most scientists.

You know you can bring up the people intellectuals who say tobacco doesn't kill or that marijuana is a dangerous drug.

No, they weren't. The youth vote actually getting out and supporting any candidate is an aberration. 9/10 times they stay home. Them staying home this election was entirely predictable because it's what they almost always do.

They were important enough in the 2012 election to give the win to Obama.

Neither is wasting time promising them shit that they won't turn out to vote for anyway. Decisions are made by those who show up. The youth vote does not show up.

Because they're disenfranchised by Dems and they have been for generations.

Which is why those seventeen year olds turned out in droves and gave the primaries to Sanders. Oh wait, they didn't do that, did they? They stayed home, because they always stay home. That's who they are and what they do.

You're being obtuse. 17-29 year olds did show up in greater proportions than they usually do because Sanders appealed to them. If Hillary did more to appeal to the youth instead of assuming they'd vote for her out of fear of Trump she could've won.

Can't say I agree with that. She'd only be better in the sense that the Democratic Party wouldn't let her get away with as much shit as the Republicans let Trump get away with—and that would only matter if she got a Democratic Congress or Senate. Put her in the situation Obama was in, with the Republicans controlling the Houses, and she'll show herself for the reactionary grifter she's always been.

That's kind of insulting. You really think she'd only be marginally better than Trump? I can't see Tulsi hiring freaking Jeff Sessions to make things worse for minorities in America. At least with Tulsi, I'm not afraid of being put in a camp.

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#183433: Apr 18th 2017 at 10:28:36 AM

[up][up] What I object to is putting Sanders and his supporters into the same category as Jill Stein and Ralph Nader, and suggesting that with age and maturity, people who voted for him will come to regret casting that vote, which given Clinton's subsequent loss in the general election and Sanders not running as a spoiler seems far, far less likely than buyer's remorse after McGovern got crushed.

edited 18th Apr '17 10:31:25 AM by CaptainCapsase

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#183434: Apr 18th 2017 at 10:46:48 AM

They were important enough in the 2012 election to give the win to Obama.
My understanding here is they would not/did not do it for anyone but Obama, hence aberration.

The youth vote is great if you can get it, but nowhere near reliable enough to actively court.

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#183435: Apr 18th 2017 at 10:48:59 AM

Here's a question. Why is there a large amount of voter apathy among the youth bloc? Is it cynicism? hunting for the perfect unicorn to bring forth their utopia? not paying attention to politics and hoping that the winner would handle it?

As others have noted, it's cynicism. I've met plenty of youths who don't vote or even bother following elections because "everyone knows" that all politicians are cut from the same cloth, they're all trying to screw you, there isn't a single policy that any of them hold that wasn't given to them by their corporate backers, and so there's no point even caring which one of them is going to be eroding your civil liberties.

Most of what they know about politics is consumed from media like South Park, The Simpsons, etc. in which the naked corruption of every political official is a popular joke, plus a dash of that ever-popular trope, Ambition Is Evil. They echo those sentiments in their philosophies.

Remember when we talked about how rural voters are dominated more by "common sense" than actual facts and learning? The same is true of youths.

edited 18th Apr '17 10:49:34 AM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
MorningStar1337 The Encounter that ended the Dogma from 🤔 Since: Nov, 2012
The Encounter that ended the Dogma
#183436: Apr 18th 2017 at 10:52:07 AM

In other words, they are more prone to populism? I'm not surprised if that was the case.

edited 18th Apr '17 10:53:12 AM by MorningStar1337

Draghinazzo (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I get a feeling so complicated...
#183437: Apr 18th 2017 at 10:52:10 AM

It's weird how you guys define anti-elitism especially since most of us belong to at least one camp of anti-elites. We have to define who the elite are first and every group has a different definition: Alt-right- the Jews The left- Corporations The other left- Old White Men The right- Intellectuals/ Corrupt politicians/coastal elites

I'm a bit late to this, but to me the "elite" are just the people with the most money/power/influence in a society.

The thing is I don't see that as good or bad. Elites can do and fuck over the general population in a lot of cases, but being an "elite" doesn't automatically make you evil, it's what you do that matters.

Or in other words, it's ok to have money, just don't be a dick.

MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#183438: Apr 18th 2017 at 10:52:27 AM

As others have noted, it's cynicism. I've met plenty of youths who don't vote or even bother following elections because "everyone knows" that all politicians are cut from the same cloth, they're all trying to screw you, there isn't a single policy that any of them hold that wasn't given to them by their corporate backers, and so there's no point even caring which one of them is going to be eroding your civil liberties.

Take a good look at the Republican Party and tell me that isn't true to a large extent.

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#183439: Apr 18th 2017 at 10:52:59 AM

[up][up][up] Which is why Trump had record youth support, right?

edited 18th Apr '17 10:53:15 AM by CaptainCapsase

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#183440: Apr 18th 2017 at 10:53:33 AM

[up][up] The thing is they view both parties that way.

If nothing else, I'd say in the face of that to go for the candidate who at least says things you agree with. That way you can call them out when they inevitably betray you. A candidate who's both corrupt and speaks against your values has zero reason to care what you say.

Hell, how many people have used things like Clinton's Iraq war vote against her for reasons like that. Declaring she's like the rest of them but at least lip service to the subject that her actions betrayed.

edited 18th Apr '17 11:00:41 AM by sgamer82

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#183441: Apr 18th 2017 at 11:02:46 AM

[up] And that attitude is not completely wrong. To a significant extent; the incentives of power are such that virtually all politicians engage in many of the same practices which would in a just world be called corrupt. They do so not because they're evil people, but because doing so is necessary to gain and hold power. There is a clear difference of degrees between the two parties, but the unpleasant realities of politics can be extremely off putting.

edited 18th Apr '17 11:03:45 AM by CaptainCapsase

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
#183442: Apr 18th 2017 at 11:04:47 AM

[up][up][up]It's how this happened, too.

"Ooh, ooh, Imma stick it to the establishment elites by electing him... he isn't?"

[up]Like how it's OK to support pork programs that keep your constituents employed, yet the exact same thing is irredeemable corruption when others vote to keep their own constituents employed?

edited 18th Apr '17 11:07:57 AM by Krieger22

I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#183443: Apr 18th 2017 at 11:06:38 AM

[up][up] The cynicism in general is wrong or my "encourage the cynics towards the candidates who offer the right lip service" is wrong?

If the former, wether it's right or wrong seems irrelevant in terms of pointing out it's how they feel. If the latter, I'm not inclined to argue. It's more a random "of they're going to be cynical anyway..." thought I had.

[down] so I did

edited 18th Apr '17 11:09:23 AM by sgamer82

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#183444: Apr 18th 2017 at 11:07:49 AM

[up] You seem to have missed the "not" there, that is to say that the cynical attitude towards politics and towards both parties isn't without reason.

MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#183445: Apr 18th 2017 at 11:08:24 AM

Hell, how many people here used Clinton's Iraq war vote against her for reasons like that.

I mean there's more that you could point to on her record.

Like her foundation takes big donations from big oil companies and Saudi Arabia. She also supports offshore oil drilling and fracking. Or how she wouldn't voice an opinion on the Keystone XL pipeline. Then there's how she decried a US-Columbia agreement as being bad for labor rights and then turning around and supporting it after the oil company and it's founder gave millions of dollars to her foundation.

That's not to say this means she's bought for. It could all be coincidental and have some great explanantion behind it but it's bad for optics.

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#183446: Apr 18th 2017 at 11:10:21 AM

[up] I feel you missed the actual point of my post.

For the record, don't bother pointing out Clinton corruption to me, specifically. I stopped caring about it when Trump won the election and treated her accusations like instructions. As I've said numerous times, it's no longer relevant.

Not to me, at least.

On second thought, maybe this makes my point. Assuming every accusation leveled at Trump and Clinton both are true, I'd still say Clinton's better because her publicly taken positions match mine more. If she acts against them, she's more vulnerable to protest from my side than Trump would be. She actually has to care about my vote.

edited 18th Apr '17 11:20:58 AM by sgamer82

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#183447: Apr 18th 2017 at 11:13:16 AM

@Krieger: That and various other cases of politicians being massive hypocrites. (which can be very advantageous)

edited 18th Apr '17 11:14:38 AM by CaptainCapsase

vandro Shop Owner from The little shop that wasn't Since: Jul, 2009
Shop Owner
#183448: Apr 18th 2017 at 11:15:27 AM

For the record, Columbia is the USA. You mean Colombia.

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#183449: Apr 18th 2017 at 11:17:01 AM

@Kreiger 22

Is that a reference to Sanders more or less getting a pass for voting in favor of pork bills that keep the military-industrial complex in his state happy while Booker got hell for voting against a bill that would have brought Canadian drugs into the USA, possibly to protect the pharma jobs in his state?

edited 18th Apr '17 11:17:37 AM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#183450: Apr 18th 2017 at 11:17:59 AM

Ooo, the Clinton Foundation talking point. I remember that one. It was another one of the arguments the right used to hammer Clinton that became popularly regurgitated by bitter Sanders supporters.

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.

Total posts: 417,856
Top