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

TheRoguePenguin Since: Jul, 2009
#271251: Feb 13th 2019 at 9:31:29 PM

Even if we accept as true that the deal as is is untenable, I doubt AOC is so naive as to believe it would go through the process without any revision. Start pie-in-the-sky, then talk it down to something that is still progress.

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#271252: Feb 13th 2019 at 9:32:53 PM

[up]Of course, that would likely lead to some of her supporters decrying her as a sell-out or something.

And if you think that's unrealistic, keep in mind that we have people in this very thread who were eager to call the Democratic Party spineless appeasers for getting a better budget deal just because it didn't erase border money entirely.

Edited by M84 on Feb 14th 2019 at 1:34:14 AM

Disgusted, but not surprised
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#271253: Feb 13th 2019 at 9:36:59 PM

I had to post that analysis link at least once, or was it two more times?, after the initial post.

[down] The first time I linked that WaPo article someone had used the exact wording of spineless fuck-up to describe it.

Edited by sgamer82 on Feb 13th 2019 at 10:38:18 AM

CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#271254: Feb 13th 2019 at 9:37:01 PM

I seem to recall you were the one who used that description for those of us who were disappointed that we gave Trump any money.

No one called them that in this forum.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#271255: Feb 13th 2019 at 9:39:31 PM

[up] Ahem.

Yeah, so Dems are agreeing to give billions in border security funding. Glad to see that even when they still have nothing to lose, they still fuck up and lose their spines.

Edited by M84 on Feb 14th 2019 at 1:39:52 AM

Disgusted, but not surprised
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#271256: Feb 13th 2019 at 9:41:12 PM

I stand corrected.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#271257: Feb 13th 2019 at 10:00:48 PM

Me, I wonder how much of that spending returns into government coffers. 16 trillion dollars do not simply disappear into the economy, after all, a lot of that extra money will be taxed and thus become government revenue again.

Also, given that the Trump tax cuts have demonstrated that nobody actually cares about deficits except lip service, perhaps it has also worn out its credibility as an argument in general. See the paygo debacle a few weeks back.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#271258: Feb 13th 2019 at 10:05:25 PM

I explained to my wife that government debts don't actually matter as our biggest creditors just want interest paid and even then not much because we're their creditors for a lot of payments.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#271259: Feb 13th 2019 at 10:18:28 PM

[up][up]Oh people do still care. It's just that a lot of them care more about getting tax cuts and fucking over poor people and minorities.

And the paygo thing may have been due to the Democratic Party not wanting to alienate people who voted for Democratic candidates who used the argument "unlike the GOP candidate I actually do care about sound fiscal policy".

Edited by M84 on Feb 14th 2019 at 2:20:01 AM

Disgusted, but not surprised
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#271260: Feb 13th 2019 at 10:19:54 PM

A bit further on these two claims about the GND:

  • This one is claiming that AOC wants to pay for that project by printing money and that will lead to inflation. Yeah, big two catches there. One, the op-ed (?) does not cite any evidence of that. Two, claims that increased government spending lead to inflation are usually wrong, empirically.
  • The Bloomberg source does draw a distinction between the "green" part of the deal - which costs less than half a trillion dollars, only about twice-thrice as much as the Trump tax cuts when ignoring accelerator effects and about half of the revenue from some of AOC's tax ideas - and the "social" one which is the real driver of the price tag ... but the conservation of mass (i.e the effects on revenue) that such a huge spending hike would have are totally ignored.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Kamiccolo Since: May, 2018
#271261: Feb 13th 2019 at 10:23:20 PM

The resolution addresses this specifically. [[quoteblock]]Basically, the view is that social and economic injustice is not an unrelated problem that exists independently with climate change, but rather climate change makes the problems of social and economic injustice worse because the people most affected (and harmed) by climate change are already those on the losing side of the system.
It's the opposite. The reason CO 2 emissions are rising so rapidly is that a lot of poor people are winning; mainly those in China and India. This is why, despite per capita carbon dioxide emissions (as well as water usage, energy usage, etc.) decreasing in the developed world since the 1970s, global output keeps rising. In the US, "environmental injustice" has absolutely no link to supposed economic injustice, and in fact, all reasonable policies by which environmental problems could be combatted involve smashing the middle class with a hammer (case in point: the near-universally endorsed carbon tax: "key point is that calculations by household understate how regressive a price on carbon would really be. That’s because households in the highest income quintile are much larger averaging 3.1 persons – than those in the lowest quintile, which average only 1.8 persons. Accounting for those differences (and for economies of scale in household consumption), the authors calculate that the real impact of a carbon tax on a person in the lowest income quintile would be nearly five times more burdensome than for someone in the top income quintile"). Not to "economic collapse" level, as Cortez would like, and it's something that could be partially mitigated with sound policy, but the burden will definitely fall on them more than anyone.

The whole approach is a non sequitur. Cortez and her ilk live in an alternate universe where they can have their cake and eat it too- doesn't work out like that in reality.

The point of fighting climate change is not for its own sake, but to make people's lives better. If you stop climate change by setting those people on fire, then you have accomplished nothing.
But this is exactly why her policies are so dangerous. They would set fire to the economy and drive us towards rampant inflation and falling living standards since you're still diverting a ridiculously large percentage of economic production to non-consumer goods with no sustainable way to pay for it. Judging by the op-eds she linked to explain her position on her website, she subscribes to MMT which means she doesn't care about this because she thinks the government can just print money forever and never default. Or, given that she gets mad at people for correcting her wildly inaccurate statistics and asserts that "facts" just get in the way of morality, she probably just doesn't know the implications and has no desire to learn.

I feel like I should emphasize the MMT point again. She has repeatedly come out in favor of that theory, which finds support in no respected economist working today (hence, why it's heterodox). It's the modern descendant of chartalism.

In any case, I feel like you missed my point. Pie in the sky plans to restructure the economy have nothing to do with supposedly common sense environmental policy. Conflating them only hurts good-faith attempts at the latter because people will (correctly) suspect that the whole thing is just a plot to get more unpopular far left policies (again: this nation is so allergic to any sort of tax increase, even actually sensible ones like a small increase of income tax on the 1% only to fund health care, that such a policy got nearly 40% opposition in friggin' California). Why do you think Mitch Mcconnel is so eager to have this called to vote? The smug smirking turtle knows it'll make the Democrats look bad. And AOC, the dolt, is playing right into his hands.

Even if we accept as true that the deal as is is untenable, I doubt AOC is so naive as to believe it would go through the process without any revision. Start pie-in-the-sky, then talk it down to something that is still progress.
Nah. She'll do what the far left always does: make unrealistic proposals that will never get passed, drum up a ruckus when they got shot down, and then call the Democrats sellouts and traitors when they "talk it down to something" that will actually pass.

Edited by Kamiccolo on Feb 13th 2019 at 10:28:05 AM

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#271262: Feb 13th 2019 at 10:25:19 PM

[up][up]A big part of the Bloomberg op-ed's concerns involve that now deleted FAQ. The writer seems to be worried that the FAQ shows AOC's actual ultimate goals.

Here's the deleted FAQ in question (isn't web archive great?)

Edited by M84 on Feb 14th 2019 at 2:26:01 AM

Disgusted, but not surprised
Eschaton Since: Jul, 2010
#271263: Feb 13th 2019 at 10:34:14 PM

that such a policy got nearly 40% opposition in friggin' California
I don't know why you're using this as an exceptional metric. The 2018 California gubernatorial election had a similar result. Because there are Republicans in California.

Edited by Eschaton on Feb 13th 2019 at 10:36:06 AM

RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#271264: Feb 13th 2019 at 10:36:23 PM

Nah. She'll do what the far left always does: make unrealistic proposals that will never get passed, drum up a ruckus when they got shot down, and then call the Democrats sellouts and traitors when they "talk it down to something" that will actually pass.

I see we're back to making stupid claims about what constitutes far left.

It must be Tuesday.

Oh wait, it's Thursday.

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#271265: Feb 13th 2019 at 10:36:39 PM

[up][up]It's easy to forget that California is not a Blue monolith. Plenty of areas are Red and conservative.

[up]Personally I don't think she counts as far left either. My own issues with AOC have always been about her being a self-proclaimed populist, with all that entails.

Edited by M84 on Feb 14th 2019 at 2:38:38 AM

Disgusted, but not surprised
wisewillow She/her Since: May, 2011
She/her
#271266: Feb 13th 2019 at 10:36:45 PM

[up]x5 ... billionaires flying private jets have a bigger carbon footprint than thousands of poor people. So do American corporations deliberately refusing to improve their practices. There’s literally like 500 people and companies making the biggest impact. So, wanna try again as to why regulating their behavior won’t fix anything?

again: this nation is so allergic to any sort of tax increase, even actually sensible ones like a small increase of income tax on the 1% only to fund health care, that such a policy got nearly 40% opposition in friggin' California).

You never did answer my question about how the campaigning and fundraising on that referendum went. And 60% backed the increase. And California has plenty of rich people and republicans.

I’d also like to note that your consistent dismissal of AOC as a “dolt” and your unsubstantiated claims about her supposed incompetence are getting very grating. No one is saying she’s perfect or doesn’t have room to learn and improve, but the level of vitriol is real unnecessary.

Edited by wisewillow on Feb 13th 2019 at 1:39:35 PM

Kamiccolo Since: May, 2018
#271267: Feb 13th 2019 at 10:46:41 PM

I don't know why you're using this as an exceptional metric. The 2018 California gubernatorial election had a similar result. Because there are Republicans in California.
I cited it because it's probably the most extreme example of a harmless and common sense tax hike in a blue state. It would affect almost none of the people voting, yet nearly 40% would still kill it on principle. Were you to look at ''real'' tax hikes in other states... near universally thrown out in overwhelming majorities by the voting public. Want to know the best part? Much like their French counterparts, even blue state voters overwhelmingly oppose the carbon tax, the most basic, harmless, and universally-approved of measure for combating climate change. During the middle of the blue wave.
billionaires flying private jets have a bigger carbon footprint than thousands of poor people. So do American corporations deliberately refusing to improve their practices.
On a macroscale, not really. The only way to reduce emissions from corporations to a significant degree is to cut consumption OR technological advancement (from corporations).
There’s literally like 500 people and companies making the biggest impact.
Check the stats again. Most of the emissions come from state-owned enterprises supplying essentials to their populations like oil. #1 is China's state-owned oil company. Almost all of those 100 companies provide fossil energy, mostly fuels to consumers. See here for the full data source. These emissions simply cannot be avoided without avoiding the consumption itself.

This buck-passing line of thinking is dangerously naive. It leads people on a certain end of the political spectrum to believe that companies are the ones producing CO 2, not people, and especially not they themselves. This is of course hogwash since companies don't produce CO 2 for shits and giggles, but rather because it is a side effect of the production of the products people buy, in other words an externality. To rub this in further: the largest source of greenhouses gases is transportation, and 60% of those emissions come from the light duty vehicles that you drive.

You never did answer my question about how the campaigning and fundraising on that referendum went
If you have any evidence that the people were secretly wishing for tax hikes and that their voting patterns are unrepresentative, then by all means, present it.
I’d also like to note that your consistent dismissal of AOC as a “dolt” and your unsubstantiated claims about her supposed incompetence are getting very grating.
I substantiate all my claims.

Edited by Kamiccolo on Feb 13th 2019 at 10:57:40 AM

BearyScary Since: Sep, 2010 Relationship Status: You spin me right round, baby
#271268: Feb 13th 2019 at 11:02:19 PM

Kamicollo, your viewpoint of AOC sounds like a better fit for Bernie Sanders.

Do not obey in advance.
Kamiccolo Since: May, 2018
#271269: Feb 13th 2019 at 11:04:13 PM

You don't think they're similar?

BearyScary Since: Sep, 2010 Relationship Status: You spin me right round, baby
#271270: Feb 13th 2019 at 11:06:00 PM

No, not really; AOC hasn't been around for decades as a politician yet. I guess you could argue that Bernie may have paved the way for her in some ways.

Do not obey in advance.
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#271271: Feb 13th 2019 at 11:06:33 PM

While I don't necessarily agree with all of the criticisms of AOC (despite not being an AOC supporter myself), I do take issue with the idea that we can't insult her here. We are all pretty quick to insult public figures we don't like here, so why should AOC be the exception? I certainly don't go easy with my language when talking about people like Trump, Gabbard, etc. whom I have described as awful soulless wastes of carbon and such on multiple occasions.

Edited by M84 on Feb 14th 2019 at 3:07:28 AM

Disgusted, but not surprised
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#271272: Feb 13th 2019 at 11:07:09 PM

Well, I do think that Sanders and AOC are similar in policy terms to a degree but then I have to dispute some of Kamiccolo's assertions:

  • Carbon taxes being regressive is part of the reason why they raise concerns. That's probably the reason why AOC isn't going with it. That would make it a rational decision.
  • The Forbes article is citing only a few states and a congressional election result that doesn't tell me whether taxes actually mattered to the outcome. Plus, "they are unduly regressive" is a concern that applies to some of these tax rises that were rejected.
  • I also think that leaving off that a prominent economist endorses AOC's tax ideas makes your claim that all your claims are "substantiated" a little questionable.
  • Why are you making assumptions about other tropers' vehicle uses? I don't have a driving license.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
TheRoguePenguin Since: Jul, 2009
#271273: Feb 13th 2019 at 11:09:43 PM

Even Fox News has tax increases on the rich polling rather high, which they predictably complained about. The idea that Americans are allergic to any tax increases is ridiculous. What they do hate is when they're perceived to affect them personally.

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#271274: Feb 13th 2019 at 11:11:52 PM

"I support higher taxes as long as I am not getting the worst of it."

Disgusted, but not surprised
BearyScary Since: Sep, 2010 Relationship Status: You spin me right round, baby
#271275: Feb 13th 2019 at 11:12:13 PM

I haven't felt any need to insult AOC yet. I actually like how she has the right-wing scared to death. evil grin

If there is one thing I dislike about her, it's how she tends to look a little intense in some pictures. It's... not a look I'm used to with politicians.

Do not obey in advance.

Total posts: 417,856
Top