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

DeathorCake Since: Mar, 2016
#261376: Nov 11th 2018 at 5:04:29 AM

[up]x5

Pelosi is promising Pay Go for... some reason, Obama was ready to go almost full austerity in the Grand Bargain but was only stopped because the republicans were even more insane and they keep talking about how the Trump tax cuts inflated the deficit as problem #1. I suspect the current Democratic response to a recession would be 1/3 chance of austerity, 1/3 stimulus and 1/3 doing absolutely nothing because of deadlock between the two, they've not been reliably Keynesian since Carter was president. Not criticising your assessment of the political situation, just remarking that they may not be as reflexively biased towards stimulus as most of us would like.

If we're assuming that the Democrats take power before the recession hits who gives a fuck what the Republicans want to cut? Just ignore them, don't cut off a toe as ritual sacrifice to the Deficit Gods when there's no reason to.

Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#261377: Nov 11th 2018 at 5:20:30 AM

[up][up] I don't see why they can't do both. They HAVE to do both, otherwise they will get accused of having politics which end with "Not Trump".

Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#261378: Nov 11th 2018 at 6:39:05 AM

The Democrats need to be tactical. Which means that actually they should put the popular stuff on the back burner.

No, they need to be strategic.

And from a strategic perspective pushing legislation is a very wise move to prepare for 2020, obviously, investigations should be done too but to ignore legislation would be highly foolish. We should want the Democrats to attempt Medicare for All and have Republicans vote it down so we can run on that come 2020, alongside other beneficial reform.

We need to give the image of standing for something and having beneficial policy, and purely doing an investigation is not the way to do that. We can do both and thus should.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
singularityshot Since: Dec, 2012
#261379: Nov 11th 2018 at 6:40:36 AM

There's no reason why they can't present the legislation in public in an open and transparent manner. Hold town hall meetings, publish documents, get doctors and healthcare professional onboard. Just don't bring it to the floor yet, unless it's full of poison pills that the Republicans can't oppose without electoral consequence.

I just don't like the idea of sending legislation to the Senate that you know is going to be rejected, and that every time it does get rejected you give Senate Republicans a grandstand to attack your ideas without having to defend their own / defend their lack of ideas.

I also don't like watching Congress fall into political infighting. Starting a fight between the Senate and the House just makes both sides look bad (according to lazy political narratives). And as the Democrats are the party of governing any damage done to the institutions of Democracy hurts them more. Republicans don't care if they burn it all down to the ground.

kkhohoho (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#261380: Nov 11th 2018 at 6:41:32 AM

Above all else, the Democrats need to give their base a reason to support them. 'Stop Trump' only goes so far, and it's part of why we didn't get four years of Hilary. They need to communicate to people clearly and succinctly what they're fighting for, not just what they're fighting against. Because a clear forward-thinking message is the difference between a Blue Wave and a Blue Tsunami.

Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#261381: Nov 11th 2018 at 6:50:24 AM

There's no reason why they can't present the legislation in public in an open and transparent manner. Hold town hall meetings, publish documents, get doctors and healthcare professional onboard. Just don't bring it to the floor yet, unless it's full of poison pills that the Republicans can't oppose without electoral consequence.

None of these things are comparable to sending bills to the floor, this is not the way that Democrats can be seen standing for things.

I just don't like the idea of sending legislation to the Senate that you know is going to be rejected, and that every time it does get rejected you give Senate Republicans a grandstand to attack your ideas without having to defend their own / defend their lack of ideas.

I don't know why you're assuming that this would be good for them, every time we propose good legislation that is popular with the general public and Republicans shoot them down we get useful ammunition in 2020. Furthermore, when they shoot down our good legislation their lack of palatable equivalents is emphasized, so it's not like they're getting the opportunity to attack our policy without any costs to themselves. Every time they shut down our proposed solutions they make it clear that they lack any of their own.

I also don't like watching Congress fall into political infighting. Starting a fight between the Senate and the House just makes both sides look bad (according to lazy political narratives). And as the Democrats are the party of governing any damage done to the institutions of Democracy hurts them more. Republicans don't care if they burn it all down to the ground.

This is no time for feebleness, if we don't take action out of fear of looking overly partisan then we will never be able to do anything. This logic would not just oppose passing legislation but also investigating the White House at all, after all, if you're afraid of showing infighting then why investigate Donald Trump? That would be the clearest sign of infighting.

This logic is very dangerous, the people who are quick to declare both sides being equally bad are not going to be kind if we don't actually do anything. Doing nothing will not in-fact make us safer and thus we should clearly stand tall and do what is Right.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Nov 11th 2018 at 9:52:08 AM

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
singularityshot Since: Dec, 2012
#261382: Nov 11th 2018 at 7:07:29 AM

I'm not saying ignore legislation. Just don't try for the progressive Hail Mary just yet. Universal healthcare needs Democratic control of both houses and the White House to have a chance of succeeding. I think most Democratic supporters recognise that.

That's why I say go for tax reform. Make taxation more progressive - that's still a win and helps to break up the Republican coalition of rich elites and their "economically anxious" base. Infrastructure as well - it needs to be done and as long as you include a budget for a fancy ribbon cutting ceremony Trump will be all over it.

Investigating Trump is a separate issue. I think it's clear to every non-partisan that should the Senate start investigating Democrats it will be because Trump wants revenge and he is using the Senate to do so. That isn't Congressional infighting, that's the Senate losing its dignity and being seen as just a puppet to the Trump administration. Only if Trump successfully stays out of any infighting will it start to look bad for Congress as an institution, so in other words never.

Edited by singularityshot on Nov 11th 2018 at 3:10:18 PM

Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#261383: Nov 11th 2018 at 7:23:29 AM

[up] I think that a lot of Democratic supporters don't realize that and at the very least need to see an effort to be made. Plus, Hail Mary? Is there any rule that you can't try to pass a law multiple times?

At the very least the Democrats need to agree with each other on a doable health care plan. In case you haven't noticed, they have different ideas in this direction, too.

And they could table laws which would curtail the power of the Pharma lobby. Because if they DON'T do that, the voters won't believe that they have any intention to do something about it.

CrimsonZephyr Would that it were so simple. from Massachusetts Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
Would that it were so simple.
#261384: Nov 11th 2018 at 7:31:46 AM

We really don't have to be mealy-mouthed about this. We need a slate of policies that we can present as a programme with the pitch: "elect Democrats in both houses and this will become a reality."

We've become too accustomed to being a besieged minority party if in the days after a major triumph, we're talking like this[up][up].

"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."
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
#261385: Nov 11th 2018 at 7:50:45 AM

Healthcare reform is something that shouldn’t be out on the back burner but is going to take time, as such working in out in backroom for the next couple years might be an idea.

Instead push a middle-class tax cut (paid for by undoing parts of the Trump tax cuts), infrastructure spending (that one should mess with Trump a bit) and a new Voting Rights Act. Let Republicans vote all three down but use them to both work out any kinks and show Republicans up.

Healthcare however needs to be ready for late 2019, so that it can be pushed aggressively before the election and Dems can use it being blocked to campaign.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Draghinazzo (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I get a feeling so complicated...
#261386: Nov 11th 2018 at 8:03:48 AM

Yeah that's the thing: I don't think the GOP will vote on any sensible, broadly popular legislation. However, the Dems should propose it anyways because that's good ammo to use for the elections in 2020.

Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#261387: Nov 11th 2018 at 8:35:01 AM

For the record, Pelosi has already presented the House agenda once the Democrats take control next year:

Democratic leaders say they would use their first month in the House majority to advance sweeping changes to future campaign and ethics laws, requiring the disclosure of shadowy political donors, outlawing the gerrymandering of congressional districts and restoring key enforcement provisions to the Voting Rights Act.

They would then turn to infrastructure investment and the climbing costs of prescription drugs, answering voter demands and challenging President Trump’s willingness to work on shared policy priorities with a party he has vilified.

Summary: Campaign, ethic, and voting reform. Followed by infrastructure and drug pricing.

Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Hoyer said that Democrats would push through — on party-line votes if necessary — other more liberal agenda items they say enjoy broad public support but have been stymied for years by Republican majorities. They include gun safety legislation; a bill to give permanent legal status and a path to citizenship to young, undocumented immigrants who came to the country as children; and the Equality Act, which would amend longstanding civil rights laws to extend legal protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Ms. Pelosi said that she would urge her caucus to revive a select committee focused on climate change, similar to the one that Democrats financed from 2007 to early 2011, to “prepare the way with evidence” for energy conservation and other climate change mitigation legislation.

Summary: Gun safety, DACA, Civil Right for the LGTB community.

Edited by Parable on Nov 11th 2018 at 8:37:40 AM

PhysicalStamina i'm tired, my friend (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
i'm tired, my friend
#261388: Nov 11th 2018 at 8:38:48 AM

All right, I'ma be honest, I'm tired of hearing "we can use this later", "this will be good for us later", "later" this, "later" that all the damn time. Entire families aren't separated "later" Places aren't being shot up by angry white men "later". People aren't dying of disease because they can't afford treatment "later". All of this is happening right now, and something needs to be done about it right now. I get that it's far easier to break things than it is to fix them, but when things like Medicare For All, restoring the Voting Rights Act, etc. are inevitably struck down by Republicans, "this will be good for us later" is not a consoling thought when those same Republicans are destroying the country as we speak.

i'm tired, my friend
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#261389: Nov 11th 2018 at 8:39:24 AM

[up] The problem, however, is the question of what can be done right now. If the answer is "not a whole hell of a lot", and please correct me if it isn't, planning for "later" is the best option available.

Edited by sgamer82 on Nov 11th 2018 at 9:39:58 AM

Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#261390: Nov 11th 2018 at 9:17:13 AM

[up] Well, regarding the separated families, the Democrats can investigate. And they will. They can investigate the hell out of Trumps BS, starting with finances. Maxine Walter is already sharpening her pencils.

[up][up] That is the beauty, the Democrats can currently do a lot regarding voting rights. And in 2020 the map will be redrawn. With the Democrats having control of the house and a number of governors seats to boot, it WILL be done fairly this time around.

The agenda Pelosi set sounds good. There is still a need for the Democrats to agree on one version of health care reform so that they can present it to the voters in late 2019. I know a year sounds like a lot of time, but it really isn't when it comes to something as complicated.

Edited by Swanpride on Nov 11th 2018 at 9:18:55 AM

Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#261391: Nov 11th 2018 at 9:22:16 AM

I left that part out from the article, but the consensus among the leadership is that they want to focus on fixing up Obamacare rather than pushing something like Medicare for All right now. So at least they know what path they're going to be trekking.

Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#261392: Nov 11th 2018 at 9:25:08 AM

[up] Probably a smart move. They can extend Obamacare into medicare for all over time. That has a better chance of success than repealing the ACA in the hope that they can then install a single payer system. That would be way too risky.

Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#261393: Nov 11th 2018 at 9:53:18 AM

For the record, Pelosi has already presented the House agenda once the Democrats take control next year:

Huh, I had read it a while ago and I could've sworn I intended to post it.

Oops.

I left that part out from the article, but the consensus among the leadership is that they want to focus on fixing up Obamacare rather than pushing something like Medicare for All right now. So at least they know what path they're going to be trekking.

Which I don't like at all, yes we can't afford to replace it now (for the obvious reasons) but the Insurance and for-profit Healthcare industry is cancerous and tolerating their existence is simply an invitation for them to sabotage any attempts at expanding healthcare.

Not to mention that Republicans are going to fight it tooth and nail regardless of what we do, might as well go all the way and just fight for single payer.

I hope that the party consensus shifts towards single payer regardless of what they say, I don't view this as some horrible betrayal or other nonsense like that but all the same, I don't like it.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Nov 11th 2018 at 12:57:46 PM

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#261394: Nov 11th 2018 at 10:02:17 AM

[up] You are aware that a lot of countries which have health care coverage for everyone also have insurance companies, right? Single payer is one possible system for affordable health care for everyone, but it is not the only one. And considering what the US is starting with, it might be worth studying said systems.

RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#261395: Nov 11th 2018 at 10:11:18 AM

Actually, given the current US situation, it's probably worse to try to push for universal coverage on an insurance basis. That would give the insurance companies too much room to mess with it.

Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#261396: Nov 11th 2018 at 10:12:52 AM

You are aware that a lot of countries which have health care coverage for everyone also have insurance companies, right? Single payer is one possible system for affordable health care for everyone, but it is not the only one. And considering what the US is starting with, it might be worth studying said systems.

Of course, but I see no reason to believe that the strict regulation required for a hybrid universal healthcare system is especially viable in the United States given that we have strong forces in our society that relentlessly push for deregulation.

Thus if we can't tightly control them then the best option is simply to eliminate them as an industry, that way they cannot engage in any more price gouging or attempts to sabotage healthcare reform.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Nov 11th 2018 at 1:23:20 PM

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#261397: Nov 11th 2018 at 11:44:57 AM

"... Hence why I want the Democrats to propose a middle class tax cut funded by reversing the Trump tax cuts."

That approach is so sensible and obvious that I put the odds of the Democratic party actually pursuing it at approximately zero.

The choice isnt between pursuing no legislative agenda at all vs a progressive one. The Dems have to pursue something for the next two years in order to justify having been elected in the first place. The real choice is between pursuing a centrist agenda that might find support in the Rep dominated Senate vs a progressive agenda that has no chance of being passed but could be the strategic basis of winning the Senate in 2020.

The reason this is a dilemma is that legislation passed now is historically very unlikely to be replaced with a fundementally different approach later. Laws have inertia which partially explains why the Reps are having such a hard time reversing Obama care, despite having control of all branches of government. So passing a law now runs the risk of being stuck with it forever.

However, the one piece of legislation that we almost have to compromise on is the budget, unless we are willing to shut down the gov on principle. History shows that it rarely works out well for the party percieved as causing the shutdown. So some difficult choices are almost inevitable.

Which spending priorities do we draw a line in blood, and which are we willing to let go in exchange for them? In particular, do we fight to either reverse tax cuts for the very rich (which certain Reps will fight to the death to prevent), and/or to restore funding to certain programs like environmental protections or education?

Edited by DeMarquis on Nov 11th 2018 at 2:47:32 PM

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
TechPriest90 Servant of the Omnissiah from Collegia Titanica, Mars, Sol System Since: Sep, 2015 Relationship Status: Above such petty unnecessities
Servant of the Omnissiah
#261398: Nov 11th 2018 at 11:48:33 AM

Frankly, the idea that the Democrats should have some kind of focused legislative agenda is the most important one. Some here are saying "It won't work."

That is precisely the point.

The GOP will mercilessly obstruct. Opposition for the sake of Opposition. It's perfect ammunition to use against them come 2020.

You can implement precisely those points once you have taken control. But you're not going to get very far by salting it away for later. Show the voter-base that you're listening and doing something about it, and they'll remember it when the General Election rolls by.

Some vote-banks are going to go one way or the other no matter what - Religious Hardliners for the GOP, Urbanites and City Workers for the Democrats. They're not the focus - the Suburban Areas are. Any policy that affects them is going to be the measure which determines who is going to take the Government in 2020.

I hold the secrets of the machine.
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#261399: Nov 11th 2018 at 11:52:31 AM

"... Hence why I want the Democrats to propose a middle class tax cut funded by reversing the Trump tax cuts."

That approach is so sensible and obvious that I put the odds of the Democratic party actually pursuing it at approximately zero.

I hope you didn't bet on this because the Dems have already shown the desire to reverse some of the tax cuts to fund infrastructure thus reducing middle-class taxes is simply a logical conclusion of the precedent set by that.

However, the one piece of legislation that we almost have to compromise on is the budget, unless we are willing to shut down the gov on principle. History shows that it rarely works out well for the party percieved as causing the shutdown. So some difficult choices are almost inevitable.

How does history show this? The Republicans faced zero consequences for shutting down the government not once but twice, I'm not saying that we should do it but this is demonstrably false to the point of wishful thinking.

Voters lack the attention span or memory to reliably punish anyone for shutting down the government or engaging in obstructionism, we shouldn't do it just because we can but it's simply not true to say that if we do it we'll definitely face consequences.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
MorningStar1337 The Encounter that ended the Dogma from 🤔 Since: Nov, 2012
The Encounter that ended the Dogma
#261400: Nov 11th 2018 at 11:55:20 AM

It makes me wonder, would it be possible to cut military funding and use that to fund infrastructure. Put the Republicans on Morton's Fork by forcing them to either tax the 1% or cut funding from the army/navy/etc?

Edited by MorningStar1337 on Nov 11th 2018 at 11:55:29 AM


Total posts: 417,856
Top