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
#263826: Dec 8th 2018 at 6:17:42 AM

RE: Sexism - for older voters, it absolutely was a rationale used. I have one customer - former Marine, friendly guy, late-70s in age - who hated Trump from the first time seeing him on The Apprentice... but still voted for him because he was concerned that other nations wouldn't take a female President seriously. He also voted straight Republican in the midterms because he bought into the lie that "These Democrats want to take your guns!" My brother did the same with Trump in 2016, though in that case it was buying into the Benghazi bullshit.

RE: Think of the Children! - George Carlin put it best. "If you're pre-born, you're fine, if you're pre-school, you're fucked!" Alternatively - "They want live babies so they can become dead soldiers."

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
speedyboris Since: Feb, 2010
#263827: Dec 8th 2018 at 6:26:32 AM

I never understood that "won't take America seriously if we have a woman president" rationale. Last time I checked, Angela Merkel has been described as the most powerful woman in the world.

Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#263828: Dec 8th 2018 at 6:29:40 AM

I kinda doubt those people follow German politics.

3of4 Just a harmless giant from a foreign land. from Five Seconds in the Future. Since: Jan, 2010 Relationship Status: GAR for Archer
Just a harmless giant from a foreign land.
#263829: Dec 8th 2018 at 6:43:42 AM

[up][up]And her heir apparent, since yesterday, is also a Woman.

I mean there's also Theresa May, but if you know who she is you likely see her more of a negative example 😅

"You can reply to this Message!"
ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#263830: Dec 8th 2018 at 6:45:30 AM

[up][up]

When I pointed that out to him, as well as Margaret Thatcher for the UK in the '80s, his counter boiled down to "America is different!" The irony is, with the exception of this, firearms, and Islam, he's downright liberal for my area.

[down]

I will say that some topics that use that argument hold more water than others, as the US is a lot larger, less centralized, and diverse (politically, geographically, and economically) than most other nations. That's why, for example, High Speed Rail is practically a non-starter - rail travel is nowhere near as popular in the US as a baseline, and then you have the reliance on personal vehicles to take into account.

Edited by ironballs16 on Dec 8th 2018 at 11:20:46 AM

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
PhysicalStamina i'm tired, my friend (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
i'm tired, my friend
#263831: Dec 8th 2018 at 6:52:18 AM

The other irony, of course, is that most of the people who default to that "America is different!" non-argument whenever the topic of why X policy won't work in America despite being a smashing success elsewhere comes up are the type to complain about libs thinking they're special snowflakes.

Edited by PhysicalStamina on Dec 8th 2018 at 9:53:28 AM

i'm tired, my friend
Wyldchyld (Old as dirt)
#263832: Dec 8th 2018 at 7:35:48 AM

I know this was two pages ago, but there is something I feel should be addressed:

Yeah, Hillary losing has relatively little to do with sexism. The issue mostly is that she was predicted well ahead of time of being the DNC candidate, and the Republican propaganda networks did absolutely everything in their power to demonize her.

One of the primary reasons why the Republicans have been vilifying for her for over forty years is because she is a woman who had ambitions.

You have to remember that she left the Republican Party because she couldn't achieve as a woman and joined the Democrats, which was more supportive of the rights of women. The Republicans did not forgive that. They doubled-down on this when she was First Lady because she transformed the role of First Lady. Republicans didn't target her just because they had issues with Clinton 'stealing' a second Bush presidency, they targeted her in her own right — the womanising enabled them to unite their separate issues with the two Clintons, but it didn't change the fact that they had separate issues with each Clinton to begin with.

In short, she had two problems at the very beginning of her career: the first was that one of her first jobs as a graduate was working on the legal team that investigated Nixon and whether or not he could be impeached (her role was minor but that didn't matter). The second being her decision to leave the Republican Party for the Democrats because of sexism. That summarises the origin of Republican hatred for Hillary as Nixon and sexism, which ramped up during the Clinton presidency because of her transformation of the First Lady's role.

To say that sexism played very little role in Republican vilification isn't so much about ignoring the history of how and why they started demonising her as it is an example of how institutionalised and unrecognised sexism can become.

People have said on this thread many times that part of the problem with combating racism is that everyday racism does not get recognised as racism. People therefore deny they're being racist partially because they don't understand what racism really is. Sexism suffers from the same problem, which is why much of the vilification of Hillary does not get recognised as sexism or, perhaps more accurately, the role sexism has played in the history of her demonisation doesn't get recognised for what it is.

Edited by Wyldchyld on Dec 8th 2018 at 3:45:34 PM

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.
wisewillow She/her Since: May, 2011
She/her
#263833: Dec 8th 2018 at 8:30:27 AM

My parents have hated, HATED Hillary since the 90s. And while they weren’t Obama fans, they’d at least concede he seemed nice, good Dad, etc.

My mom voted for Trump because he was, in her mind, the lesser evil. Every bad thing about him, she claimed Hillary had done worse. And it was emotional hatred, not rational hatred. So I’d say sexism was involved.

Edited by wisewillow on Dec 8th 2018 at 11:30:47 AM

ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#263834: Dec 8th 2018 at 8:34:20 AM

[up][up]

She was also the First Lady to the first Democrat to be elected after Saint Reagan, and an ambitious one at that (read: Hillary-care).

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#263835: Dec 8th 2018 at 8:51:11 AM

At the risk of once more going against the grain, there's a lot of people who insist anyone who dislikes Hillary Clinton must be doing so because she's a woman or Republican propaganda. Which basically irritates anyone attempting to criticize her and increasing their dislike.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
RedSavant Since: Jan, 2001
#263836: Dec 8th 2018 at 8:52:30 AM

Dislike of her for valid reasons is... well, valid. But the examples brought up here are of people saying 'Well, surely she's done everything Trump has, but worse!', which is... either sexism or Republican propaganda, because it's not true.

It's been fun.
DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#263837: Dec 8th 2018 at 9:01:34 AM

There is one other reason republican voters I frequently encounter dont like Hillary, which is that they associate her, rightly or wrongly, with NAFTA, and they blame that agreement, and globalism generally, for their economic woes.

Im not saying that sexism isnt involved or doesnt matter, but there is this other issue.

Edited by DeMarquis on Dec 8th 2018 at 12:02:23 PM

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#263838: Dec 8th 2018 at 9:06:55 AM

At the risk of once more going against the grain, there's a lot of people who insist anyone who dislikes Hillary Clinton must be doing so because she's a woman or Republican propaganda. Which basically irritates anyone attempting to criticize her and increasing their dislike.

No one has said this, I mean literally no-one.

The point everyone has been making is that sexism is intrinsically linked to the widespread hatred and distrust of Clinton, which is not the same thing as saying that anyone who dislikes her is sexist. It's more than possible (if not necessarily probable) that one can dislike Clinton strongly without being sexist.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#263839: Dec 8th 2018 at 9:22:18 AM

"No-one's" a strong word to use, and I recall more instances.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Draghinazzo (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I get a feeling so complicated...
#263840: Dec 8th 2018 at 9:46:50 AM

The main issue with Hillary specifically was that she was up against Donald. Against such a disastrous candidate, most legitimate reasons to dislike her weren't particularly relevant given that Donald was worse in literally every way.

And now it mostly doesn't matter anyway, because she's not relevant. Unless of course she ends up saying something like that nonsense validating far-right xenophobia.

megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#263841: Dec 8th 2018 at 10:13:50 AM

to get back to something a bit more current, what did we learn from the Cohen Filing from Federal Prosecutors in New York?

What should we make of the conclusion by federal prosecutors in New York that Donald Trump directed Michael Cohen to commit a crime?

In the sentencing memorandum filed by federal prosecutors tonight, they said the following: "In particular, and as Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1." There can be no question whatsoever that "Individual-1" in that paragraph referred to Trump. (At times, they note that Individual-1 was elected president.) So what does that statement mean?

It means prosecutors concluded that Trump directed Cohen to commit the two campaign finance violations he pleaded guilty to. Those violations were felonies, and someone who directs a subordinate or agent to commit a crime is also guilty of that crime. That does *not* mean that Trump has been charged with a crime, or necessarily that he will. But it's a very big deal because federal prosecutors are required to provide full and accurate information to the judge about Cohen's criminal activity.

Those statements mean that in addition to Cohen's statement under oath, the evidence that prosecutors have in their possession is also consistent with the conclusion that Trump directed him to commit crimes. If prosecutors had contrary evidence, they would say so.

In addition, it is hard for me to believe that they would have made this statement if the *only* evidence they had was Cohen's say-so. If all they had was Cohen's assertion, they would have merely said that Cohen asserted that Trump directed him to commit those crimes. That statement by prosecutors indicates that they have some level of corroborating evidence that convinces them by "a preponderance of the evidence" that Trump directed Cohen to commit those crimes. That means all of the evidence indicates it is "more likely than not" to be true. In other words, prosecutors believe the evidence proves it by a "51%" standard. Their citation to two paragraphs of the PSR (Presentence Investigation Report) indicates U.S. Probation agreed.

That is well below the standard in a criminal trial, which is "beyond a reasonable doubt." By any measure that is well above 51%. We don't know whether they could meet the higher burden. Another complicating factor is that Cohen is an attorney. Although it doesn't look like Cohen was acting as Trump's attorney in this context, I suspect that Trump's legal team would try to argue that Trump believed that this transaction was legal because an attorney was involved.

That's not a legal defense in itself, but it goes to Trump's state of mind, which the government would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. (It would be a defense if Trump sought and obtained a legal opinion that this was legal, which it does not appear he did.) By now you are aware that DOJ policy is that a sitting president can't be indicted while in office. But even if that was not DOJ policy, it is not clear that Trump would be indicted. What *is* clear is that federal prosecutors and Probation concluded he committed a felony.

Kinda gets a bit technical, but the key takeaway, is that the New York Prosecutors have a good reason to believe that Trump Directed Cohen to commit a Felony, which is in itself a felony.

Edited by megaeliz on Dec 8th 2018 at 1:26:48 PM

megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#263842: Dec 8th 2018 at 10:23:45 AM

And here's a bit more analysis on the implications of both the manafort and Cohen Filings. (Emphasis mine)

What else can we learn from the Cohen and Manafort filings?

Earlier I wrote a thread (link below) about the conclusion by federal prosecutors that Trump directed Cohen to commit crimes. (see previous post) That is the most important news of the day, but there were other key details in the filings. I'll talk about some of them here.

Another key revelation are the details of Cohen's cooperation with Mueller, which were set forth in the sentencing memorandum filed by Mueller's team. Mueller outlines what Cohen told them about Russian contacts offering help to Trump's campaign from the Russian government.

For example, Cohen spoke with a Russian who "claimed to be a 'trusted person' in the Russian Federation who could offer the campaign 'political synergy' and 'synergy on a government level" and repeatedly proposed a meeting between Trump and Putin. The person told Cohen the Trump-Putin meeting would have a "phenomenal" impact "not only in political but in a business dimension as well," referring to the Trump Tower Moscow project. Cohen told Mueller he didn't take that meeting because he was working with other Russians.

According to Cohen, the other Russian he was working with already had connections to the Russian government. That last sentence is astounding. Trump's lawyer, who Trump directed to commit a crime, was working with a Russian who he believed had ties with the Russian government. Does that mean anything legally? It's not clear based on the document itself. But Mueller's filing strongly suggests that there is more to come. Mueller's team said Cohen provided information pertaining to "certain discrete Russia-related matters core to its investigation."

Cohen also provided information about his contacts with "persons connected with the White House" in 2017 and 2018 as well as the "circumstances of preparing and circulating his response" to Congress. It looks like he may have implicated others in his lies to Congress. It's also interesting that Cohen was in contact with "persons connected with the White House" after the Mueller investigation began. On that note, the most interesting part of the Manafort filing was that Manafort was in contact with "Administration officials" in 2018.

Why was Manafort directly speaking with Administration officials when his attorneys were already speaking with Trump's attorneys? The safest route would be to communicate through the attorneys to keep common interest privilege and avoid government surveillance. Perhaps Manafort didn't want his attorneys to know about the subjects he was talking to the Administration officials about. Another obvious question: Why were Administration officials talking to a man who had been indicted for many serious crimes?

Manafort also spoke often to a Russian intelligence operative, Konstantin Kilimnik. Much of the content about Kilimnik is blacked out, but it's clear from the overall document that there is little doubt that Manafort lied to Mueller. In an early passage, Mueller suggests Manafort's own attorneys made no "factual or legal argument" that Manafort was truthful in their conversations about the lies, and at one point, Manafort was confronted by his own attorney when Manafort contradicted a prior statement.

The most interesting filings related to Cohen, however. There's no question that the New York federal prosecutors are upset that Cohen did not want a full cooperation deal but yet wants credit for cooperating. Cooperators typically have to tell all details of past crimes. They also have to tell all details they know about crimes committed by others. Cohen refused to do that and it's not sure who he's protecting. (It does not appear to be Trump.) The filing by Mueller's team was much more positive about Cohen's cooperation with them.

One question we didn't know the answer to before today was *why* Mueller recently charged Cohen. Now it appears Cohen may have wanted to be charged so Mueller could file a sentencing memo.

Because Mueller made a separate filing, the judge can read Mueller's views in addition to the New York federal prosecutors when determining his sentence. I remain convinced Cohen will receive a sentence significantly below the 51-63 month guidelines range. But the key takeaway from today remains the conclusion that Trump directed Cohen to commit a crime, which I discussed at length in the prior thread. There is no question in my mind that the federal prosecutors (including their leader Rob Khazami) wrote that very carefully.

[down] Basically, this points out the various unanswered questions and oddities brought up in last night's court filings. He doesn't say it outright, but Mueller can prove that the Trump campaign had several contacts with agents of the Russian Government, and was already working with other Russians.

Or to put it simply, that sounds a lot like what Conspiracy and Collusion.

Edited by megaeliz on Dec 8th 2018 at 2:26:26 PM

PhysicalStamina i'm tired, my friend (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
i'm tired, my friend
#263843: Dec 8th 2018 at 11:00:47 AM

TL;DR?

i'm tired, my friend
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#263844: Dec 8th 2018 at 11:33:13 AM

The main issue with Hillary specifically was that she was up against Donald. Against such a disastrous candidate, most legitimate reasons to dislike her weren't particularly relevant given that Donald was worse in literally every way.

I'd argue that this attitude is what cost Hillary the election. Hillary famously didn't campaign in the Rust Belt (which cost her the election) because she believed they were solid due to their support of Obama. Numerous times people attempted to bring up issues regarding her and the reaction was, "Trump is a joke. No one could vote for him and not her unless they were a racist piece of crap." Which, true or not, did nothing to alleviate the people who didn't think she was going to do well by their community.

Bluntly, also, many people do believe that you shouldn't vote if you don't believe in a canddiate—even if you believe in the other less. This is an attitude, "You vote or you don't complain" people deride but—bluntly, doesn't change it one bit.

Hillary also remains relevant today because her presence casts a pall on all subsequent strategies because so many in the DNC held her up as the ideal candidate while ignoring any complaints, divisiveness, or warning signs. Bernie was not the messiah candidate some people wanted but his presence in the DNC primaries showed that a lot of people were NOT fired up by "business as usual."

And that MINORITY of voters certainly fucked up momentum and should have been a sign that something needed to be changed.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Dec 8th 2018 at 11:35:18 AM

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#263845: Dec 8th 2018 at 11:41:48 AM

"No-one's" a strong word to use, and I recall more instances.

I was talking about the current conversation, obviously, someone has said that at some point in time. But a claim made two years ago is hardly very relevant.

I'd argue that this attitude is what cost Hillary the election. Hillary famously didn't campaign in the Rust Belt (which cost her the election) because she believed they were solid due to their support of Obama. Numerous times people attempted to bring up issues regarding her and the reaction was, "Trump is a joke. No one could vote for him and not her unless they were a racist piece of crap." Which, true or not, did nothing to alleviate the people who didn't think she was going to do well by their community.

I will point out that they did not say anything about what should or shouldn't be campaigned on, it's certainly true that "our opponent is that awful" is not a very good message but their point is also right that considering who she was running against the reasons that people used to justify not voting for her were illogical and illegitimate.

So yes, campaigns should not take things for granted and should clearly run for something but we aren't campaigners or strategists and thus we can say that people should vote against someone as awful as Trump even if they aren't enamored with his opposition.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Dec 8th 2018 at 2:43:07 PM

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#263846: Dec 8th 2018 at 11:55:37 AM

TL;DR?
Cohen admits to committing felonies at the direction of Trump, and the prosecution believes him, but not necessarily to the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" that would be required to find Trump guilty of anything. Cohen was working with the Russian government through a cutout (ie, a Russian national who had ties to the Russian government but was not themselves a Russian government official). Manafort was working directly with a Russian intelligence agent, which he lied about to Mueller.

I'd argue that this attitude is what cost Hillary the election. Hillary famously didn't campaign in the Rust Belt (which cost her the election) because she believed they were solid due to their support of Obama.
1) As has been mentioned repeatedly, with the election as close as it was, you can pick any random thing that one campaign or the other did (or didn't) do and have a decent argument for declaring it "the thing that cost Hillary the election". The problem I have with this attitude is that it's almost always used to pin the blame on Hillary personally, rather than acknowledging that things like voter suppression and illegal Russian influence campaigns had as much or more effect on the outcome of the election. When one side is literally cheating, why in God's name would you choose to place the blame on the other side for being just barely not good enough to win despite the cheating?

2) The idea that Hillary lost because she didn't campaign in the midwest is the conventional pundit wisdom, but the argument isn't actually supported by the data. tldr, "Here’s the thing, though: The evidence suggests those decisions didn’t matter very much. In fact, Clinton’s ground game advantage over Trump may have been as large as the one Obama had over Mitt Romney in 2012. It just wasn’t enough to save the Electoral College for her." Demographic data explains the results much better than campaign decisions do — states with large amounts of white people without college degrees turned redder regardless of how much time either candidate spent campaigning in those states. "Accounting for where the candidates spent their resources makes almost no difference, it turns out, once you’ve controlled for one or two major demographic categories and the 2012 vote."

Edited by NativeJovian on Dec 8th 2018 at 2:56:28 PM

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#263847: Dec 8th 2018 at 11:58:04 AM

2} is a weird argument given those were states, like Ohio, that were critical in Trump's election and swing states.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#263848: Dec 8th 2018 at 12:04:35 PM

That's exactly the point. Trump did exceptionally well in those states because of demographics, not because of where he choose to campaign. For example, the state with the largest difference in how much time the candidates spent there was actually Colorado — where Trump campaigned heavily and Clinton largely ignored. But Colorado went for Hillary by a 5% margin, because it has relatively few non-college-educated white people, which is basically the only demographic where Trump does well.

You can't blame Clinton for losing the election due to her campaign decisions when the data shows that the campaign decisions have almost no effect on the election results.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#263849: Dec 8th 2018 at 12:06:48 PM

Yeah, I disagree completely with that conclusion. Especially since so many went to Obama.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
PhysicalStamina i'm tired, my friend (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
i'm tired, my friend
#263850: Dec 8th 2018 at 12:08:29 PM

And now we're disagreeing with data again.

i'm tired, my friend

Total posts: 417,856
Top