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

Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#266726: Jan 12th 2019 at 12:15:54 PM

There are also other candidates from the democratic left which are actually, well, Democrats.

PhysicalStamina i'm tired, my friend (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
i'm tired, my friend
#266727: Jan 12th 2019 at 12:19:01 PM

Looks like it's official: Elizabeth Warren announces 2020 run against Trump: 'I'm in this fight'

Senator Elizabeth Warren jumped into the race for president on Monday, announcing she is forming an exploratory committee for 2020.

“I’m in this fight all the way,” she said on Monday afternoon.

Terry Mc Auliffe turned a red state blue – but is he the face of the future for Democrats? Read more The Massachusetts Democrat, known for her critiques of big banks and corporations, became the first major candidate to declare her intentions with a video posted online on New Year’s Eve.

“America’s middle class is under attack,” she said. “How did we get here? Billionaires and big corporations decided they wanted more of the pie and they enlisted politicians to cut them a fatter slice.”

Warren, 69, is entering what is likely to be a crowded Democratic primary field seeking to take on Donald Trump. Those considering bids include a slew of fellow senators such as Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand and Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, the former vice-president, and former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Haven't seen this posted here yet, so here it is.

Edited by PhysicalStamina on Jan 12th 2019 at 3:19:23 PM

i'm tired, my friend
Eschaton Since: Jul, 2010
#266728: Jan 12th 2019 at 12:19:30 PM

There are also other politicians who have been longstanding Democrats yet have far worse positions and policies, which is why I find this party loyalty argument a bunch of nonsense.

Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#266729: Jan 12th 2019 at 12:26:05 PM

[up] ???? There are also independents who are closer to the republicans, should they be allowed to run for office as democrats too?

The ideal candidate is a democrat and presents whatever direction you want the party to move towards.

And to be clear, I have nothing against people who run independent for office. But if they want to be independent, it is a matter of integrity to not get entangled with a party at all.

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.
#266730: Jan 12th 2019 at 12:28:44 PM

[up][up]Why? He's free to run as Candidate for President. As an Independent. But if he wants to be Candidate for the President of the United States for the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party should expect some loyalty. They didn't build their election machine for fun and games but to get the Democratic Agenda across.

If he runs as Democrat, for the entire year or so until he fails again, that is Money the Party has to spend on him that they could spend on someone is actually a Democrat outside of when it suits them. And probably someone with better views.

Edited by 3of4 on Jan 12th 2019 at 9:29:14 PM

"You can reply to this Message!"
Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#266731: Jan 12th 2019 at 12:42:09 PM

So Castro is running, Warren made it official. Anybody have opinions on their stances on things?

Oruka Since: Dec, 2018
#266732: Jan 12th 2019 at 12:42:44 PM

"Obamacare cut the amount of personal bankruptcy filings in half."

And that's wonderful and I love that the ACA passed and appreciate how much work and sacrifice went into that and how many lives and livelihoods it saved. Obama's policies did do something to alleviate wealth inequality and sheer injustice, just not nearly enough, as can be seen in the relevant Wikipedia article linked below.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

BlueNinja0 The Mod with the Migraine from Taking a left at Albuquerque Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
The Mod with the Migraine
#266733: Jan 12th 2019 at 12:45:42 PM

Those considering bids include a slew of fellow senators such as Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand and Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, the former vice-president, and former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Of the names listed here, I can't see myself voting for Bernie or Bloomberg in the primaries. The others, I would entertain, and I'm sure in the next 3-4 months I'm sure we'll see a few more names tossed into the ring worth taking seriously. But I'd take any of them over Trump, even Bernie, despite my frustrations with him since the 2016 primaries.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw
Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#266734: Jan 12th 2019 at 12:47:18 PM

Don't know much about Castro but one has to respect Warren's constant fight for consumer protection. You really can't accuse her of not having fought for the "little people" so to speak. And she is pro a tighter regulation of the finance market which for me as someone who isn't from the US is a major concern...let's just say that the finance markets need tighter controls across the board, but especially in the US, and if you f... it up again, we all will be affected.

Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#266735: Jan 12th 2019 at 12:52:15 PM

I really like Warren, my only concern with her is foreign policy.

In that, I literally know nothing about her foreign policy positions.

Otherwise, at the moment the people I think I'd likely support the most for President is either Gillibrand, Warren, or Harris.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
Eschaton Since: Jul, 2010
#266736: Jan 12th 2019 at 12:55:31 PM

Why? He's free to run as Candidate for President. As an Independent. But if he wants to be Candidate for the President of the United States for the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party should expect some loyalty. They didn't build their election machine for fun and games but to get the Democratic Agenda across. If he runs as Democrat, for the entire year or so until he fails again, that is Money the Party has to spend on him that they could spend on someone is actually a Democrat outside of when it suits them. And probably someone with better views.

If Sanders were to actually win the primary for the Democratic Presidential candidate, then yes, obviously the party should support him to the fullest extent. It doesn't get much clearer than that. Especially in 2020. Surely we can agree on that much?

Concern about Sander's disloyalty to the party agenda feels overblown when, as this thread has discussed, his and Clinton's primary platforms were substantially similar. And neither his nor the party's seems to have diverged all that drastically since then. Not to mention Democratic politicians who more often vote in favor of Republicans for various reasons.

Edited by Eschaton on Jan 12th 2019 at 12:55:54 PM

LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#266737: Jan 12th 2019 at 12:57:42 PM

Which ones are voting in favor of Republicans these days?

And the concern is Bernie splitting the vote because he wants an ego boost.

Oh really when?
Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#266738: Jan 12th 2019 at 1:03:52 PM

[up][up] It's not about him disloyal to the party agenda, it's about him being disloyal to the party. Doesn't help that Sanders is kind of the figurehead of the kind of leftists who spend more time ranting against the Democrats and the "corporate press" than caring about what the republicans are doing - to a degree that they claim that the whole Russia investigation is a distraction by the corporate press from the "fact" that Hillary was the wrong candidate in 2016. This isn't necessarily his fault, but he sure as hell does nothing to discourage it.

Eschaton Since: Jul, 2010
#266739: Jan 12th 2019 at 1:13:23 PM

[up][up]538 Congress Tracker. Most of the big-name potential runners (Harris, Booker, Sanders, Warren, Gillibrand) are all on the low end. On the high end are the usual red-state Senators, as well as various House members.

This is the first time I've seen vote-splitting brought up as a concern. And yes, a progressive vote split leading to something like candidate Bloomberg would be bad.

Edited by Eschaton on Jan 12th 2019 at 1:17:33 AM

CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#266740: Jan 12th 2019 at 1:36:16 PM

At this point, I think anyone up to and including Dennis Rodman (Noble Peace Prize candidate!) would be an improvement on Trump so I'm not overly panicking about a Bloomberg nomination.

As for Bernie, the fact that we're arguing whether he should be able to run as a Democrat is a ridiculous statement because that implies the Democratic Party should be able to dictate down to the voters who identifies as them.

"Club politics" are a serious issue in America as is.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jan 12th 2019 at 1:38:51 AM

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#266742: Jan 12th 2019 at 1:40:44 PM

I think that Warren's run was actually already mentioned here. I am not sold on Warren for the reasons enumerated here.

I don't think that there is any Democratic candidate who often votes with Trump in Congress. It's pretty unlikely anybody with such a record would succeed in the primary, anyhow, although this Ojeda guy might try.

My key considerations for some candidates are here.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#266743: Jan 12th 2019 at 1:43:00 PM

I like Warren a great deal.

But I do have the question whether she can electrify the base to vote.

I think it's a Democrat's election to lose, though, with Trump's many many failures and offenses.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jan 12th 2019 at 1:43:35 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!
#266744: Jan 12th 2019 at 1:45:01 PM

At this point, I think anyone up to and including Dennis Rodman (Noble Peace Prize candidate!) would be an improvement on Trump so I'm not overly panicking about a Bloomberg nomination.

This is an absolutely horrible sentiment, better then Trump is not good. A lesser evil is still evil and thus should only be supported when there is no choice, arguing this before the primary even begins is massively preemptive.

Bloomberg would be better than Trump but only somewhat, we don't need his wishy-washy "socially liberal economically conservative" nonsense. He is incapable of providing the change the country needs.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
Ultimatum Disasturbator from the Amiga Forest (Old as dirt) Relationship Status: Who needs love when you have waffles?
Disasturbator
#266745: Jan 12th 2019 at 1:48:21 PM

> But I do have the question whether she can electrify the base to vote.

She doesn't have to worry about giving people reason to vote when they've endured Trump for years at this point,I definitely think she has a strong chance too,now who is going to run with her?,that's what we should be asking

have a listen and have a link to my discord server
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.
#266746: Jan 12th 2019 at 1:53:37 PM

My main concern about Warren is...dunno how to phrase this...if she can stay Adult with Trump. I remember her row with the Native Heritage and the DNA test and that wasn't her most shining hour.

I'm just a little bit (no sarcasm) worried that she'll rise to Trumps baits too easy.

"You can reply to this Message!"
Grafite Since: Apr, 2016 Relationship Status: Less than three
#266747: Jan 12th 2019 at 1:57:34 PM

[up][up] That would be making the exact same mistake as last time, never assume the American voters won't pick a candidate because they are too extreme or incompetent to you. Electability matters now more than ever.

That said, I stand fully behind Warren, her political expertise helped to found the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, her economic views rare to find in the party. Just has to admit to being mistaken about her heritage.

Edited by Grafite on Jan 12th 2019 at 10:04:16 AM

Life is unfair...
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#266748: Jan 12th 2019 at 1:58:50 PM

Obama's policies did do something to alleviate wealth inequality and sheer injustice, just not nearly enough, as can be seen in the relevant Wikipedia article linked below.
Your original claim — which I quoted in the post you're responding to — was "Obama's policies have done nothing to stop the explosion of wealth disparity". Which is wrong. Which is what I was pointing out. "Obama's policies didn't do enough to stop the explosion of wealth disparity" is a very different claim, and pretending that they're not is disingenuous.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#266749: Jan 12th 2019 at 2:00:44 PM

The issue to "electability" is that such discussions tend to veer away from polling and data and towards subjective "likability" discussions that are completely fact free. Oh, and often sexist.

Electability is an important consideration, but not the kind of "electability" that media and pundits talk about.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#266750: Jan 12th 2019 at 2:04:50 PM

My response to elect-ability is if they're the kind of voters who would only vote for white man then they weren't likely to vote Democrat in the first place.

Just has to admit to being mistaken about her heritage.

Didn't the DNA test reveal she was genetically descended from Native Americans?

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jan 12th 2019 at 2:05:43 AM

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.

Total posts: 417,856
Top