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

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#274676: Mar 19th 2019 at 7:27:30 AM

[up] Exactly. The "all or nothing" mentality among certain Democrats is disturbing, because it doesn't allow for any nuance or negotiation. Unless they think they can somehow gain a complete supermajority in 2020 and keep it for an entire presidential term, while also surviving Supreme Court challenges... I mean, there's shooting for the stars and then there's getting mad when someone points out that stars are far away and that blindly launching astronauts into space on rockets doesn't accomplish anything.

I want universal health insurance in this country. What I do not want is for all of our political capital to be spent on something that fails to pass or is overturned in the courts.

Edited by Fighteer on Mar 19th 2019 at 10:30:02 AM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#274677: Mar 19th 2019 at 7:31:52 AM

Like I said, I don't approve of Warren very much. But I can't really see much of a problem with her being open to more than one option on this.

Disgusted, but not surprised
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#274678: Mar 19th 2019 at 7:36:54 AM

Warren has strong, popular messaging, but I've worried in the past that she's overly focused on specific problems at the expense of others that are equally pressing. There's nothing wrong with a President being an expert in certain fields, but to be effective they need to be able to manage many different fields competently.

The President should ideally aim to be the ultimate generalist.

Edited by Fighteer on Mar 19th 2019 at 10:40:57 AM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#274679: Mar 19th 2019 at 7:40:46 AM

Warren's stance is pretty much Eat the Rich as a political platform. It's a platform that, understandably, has gotten a lot of support thanks to the 2008 crisis and its fallout.

I've compared her to being the Ahab to Wall Street's Moby Dick in the past. I still stand by that.

I do admit that the mental image of Elizabeth Warren brandishing a harpoon while screaming "From Hell's Heart I stab at thee!" while facing a giant whale made of money is pretty badass.

Edited by M84 on Mar 19th 2019 at 10:44:21 PM

Disgusted, but not surprised
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#274680: Mar 19th 2019 at 7:46:43 AM

See, you and I disagree somewhat on whether Eat the Rich is a reasonable position to take. Some degree of wealth stratification is inevitable in a society: everyone is not equal nor equally productive, and not all occupations and capabilities are valued equally. This is fine, and we should not seek to prevent people from rising to the maximum level of their abilities and receiving appropriate compensation.

However, it is inarguable that the marginal value generated by the very wealthy is vastly disproportionate to their actual wealth, and that they are profiting from various combinations of monopoly rents, "star power", accumulated privilege, regulatory capture, insider dealing, and fraud. None of these represent value that they themselves contribute to society or to the economy, and so are "unjustly earned". Society has a right to insist that they be clawed back.

Then you have the simple technical question of how we pay for things, with abstract principles such as the marginal propensity to consume and the multipliers of various forms of taxing and spending. In the abstract, it is more efficient to tax wealthy people and spend that money on less wealthy people, because doing so generates more net value for society. There are obviously lots of details and nuances, but "tax the rich" as a mantra is sound from an economic perspective.

Now, whether it is practical to implement such policies in our current political environment is an entirely different question, and here's where I think Warren (and Sanders) fall a bit short. They're promising the world but have no guarantee that the promises are achievable. To me, this is dishonest.

Edited by Fighteer on Mar 19th 2019 at 10:50:29 AM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#274681: Mar 19th 2019 at 7:49:00 AM

[up]My main concern is that Warren, regardless of how harsh her actual policies turn out to be, is deliberately tapping into a well of populist anti-establishment hostility to score political points and garner votes for the future. Which ties a bit into that last bit of your post.

Edited by M84 on Mar 19th 2019 at 10:49:18 PM

Disgusted, but not surprised
Mio Since: Jan, 2001
#274682: Mar 19th 2019 at 8:02:36 AM

[up] You would kind of have to be an idiot not to at least address the anti-establishment sentiment that’s been building for years. It’s not as though it exist for no reason and just dismissing it isn’t exactly going to make it go away.

As for Medicare for All, I do think that candidates walking back on single payer will negatively effect them in the primary. How much so depends on whether or not healthcare remains a central issue and whether or not it gets covered enough. Pragmaticism is all well and good, but it’s not something that traditionally wins elections, especially not in this political environment.

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#274683: Mar 19th 2019 at 8:04:14 AM

[up] I'm questioning whether it's really a good idea to be deliberately tapping into that well the way populists tend to do.

Edited by M84 on Mar 19th 2019 at 11:05:53 PM

Disgusted, but not surprised
PhysicalStamina i'm tired, my friend (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
i'm tired, my friend
#274684: Mar 19th 2019 at 8:05:29 AM

Depends on how you define "good idea". I mean, if it keeps working...

i'm tired, my friend
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#274685: Mar 19th 2019 at 8:05:57 AM

I've made no secret of my concerns about populism. And it's not even just rightwing or leftwing populism that concerns me. I have even less trust for Beto who is, as Fourthspartan described, a cheap empty suit. I at least know what Warren or Sanders would try to do as President.

Edited by M84 on Mar 19th 2019 at 11:07:13 PM

Disgusted, but not surprised
fruitpork Since: Oct, 2010
#274686: Mar 19th 2019 at 8:18:40 AM

I think Bernie Sanders is worse than warren in these regards. I wish he wasn’t the front runner.

HailMuffins Since: May, 2016 Relationship Status: Shipping fictional characters
#274687: Mar 19th 2019 at 8:20:40 AM

He's likely at the top because he's the most recognizable.

By the time the election get on full throtle, he'll start dropping from the top of the charts.

CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#274688: Mar 19th 2019 at 8:24:25 AM

I think Bernie has a good chance of winning not just became name recognition but because want to buy what he's selling. He's also a very charismatic speaker. The idea he doesn't stand a chance misses the fact a lot of people DO like Bernie and don't necessarily feel the desire to rally around other candidates.

You can (and perhaps should) disagree with Bernie and not want him to win but the idea he's not even a contender is just....dumb.

And whatever the case, what *I* want is a deeply anti-establishment candidate. I hate that we got Trump running on it when he was the most establishment candidate you could ever get.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Mar 19th 2019 at 8:26:21 AM

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Grafite Since: Apr, 2016 Relationship Status: Less than three
#274689: Mar 19th 2019 at 8:30:47 AM

@Fighteer: Forget about Medicare, as long as Republicans control the Senate, which they have a much better chance of after the midterms, there won't even be a debate on healthcare, pragmatic president or not.

Life is unfair...
CrimsonZephyr Would that it were so simple. from Massachusetts Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
Would that it were so simple.
#274690: Mar 19th 2019 at 8:34:21 AM

[up][up]We'll see what happens when the first primaries roll in.

As for what I want — excepting Tulsi, I don't care who is nominated as long as they can win.

Edited by CrimsonZephyr on Mar 19th 2019 at 11:36:09 AM

"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."
Mio Since: Jan, 2001
#274691: Mar 19th 2019 at 8:35:40 AM

[up][up][up][up]I find that unlikely. The current front runners have sucked a lot of the air out of the room already when it comes to the primary and unless any of the candidates can do something to get a lot of attention on them (Beto kind of has right now, but we will see if it last) I think Biden and Sanders are going to be the ones who score the nomination.

Edited by Mio on Mar 19th 2019 at 11:36:24 AM

DingoWalley1 Asgore Adopts Noelle Since: Feb, 2014 Relationship Status: Can't buy me love
Asgore Adopts Noelle
#274692: Mar 19th 2019 at 8:41:32 AM

Primaries (especially in the modern day) end up being one of two things: 1) The Front Runner ends up winning (like with both Trump and Hillary Clinton in 2016, or Republican Bob Dole in '96), or the Race becomes a contest where there's a front runner every other week until a lesser Candidate takes over (like Bill Clinton in '92, John Mc Cain in '08, Mitt Romney in '12, Barack Obama in '08, and many others since 1984). It is possible for Sanders to just clean sweep the Primaries, but we could also see someone like Yang or Inslee clinching a surprise victory.

PushoverMediaCritic I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out. from the Italy of America Since: Jul, 2015 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out.
#274693: Mar 19th 2019 at 8:45:09 AM

Here's my opinion on Eat the Rich:

Ultimatum Disasturbator from the Amiga Forest (Old as dirt) Relationship Status: Who needs love when you have waffles?
Disasturbator
#274694: Mar 19th 2019 at 8:49:19 AM

The first primary will be a bloodbath because there a lot of runners who I don't expect to make it,mostly the ones with no brand name to speak of so they're effectively unknown

have a listen and have a link to my discord server
singularityshot Since: Dec, 2012
#274695: Mar 19th 2019 at 8:53:30 AM

I kind of get the feeling that the real reason why Biden is being cagey is that because he is going to have a (2016) Clinton-esque or Romney-esque experience in the primaries. All the other candidates are holding fire for the most part, just laying out their own platforms and being very cagey. I kind of imagine that intentionally or not if and when Joe jumps in, as the immediate front runner and probably the most establishment candidate he will be the one that the other candidates will seek to define themselves against. And it's a difficult path to tread if you are that candidate that everyone dog-piles on. That said, I don't think there is an Obama-type candidate to force a (2008) Clinton-esque experience for Joe.

Ultimatum Disasturbator from the Amiga Forest (Old as dirt) Relationship Status: Who needs love when you have waffles?
Disasturbator
#274696: Mar 19th 2019 at 8:54:51 AM

imagine Joe being primaried in the first round,ow

have a listen and have a link to my discord server
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#274697: Mar 19th 2019 at 8:56:05 AM

That's the purpose of the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries: to winnow the field. After that, the Joke Characters start dropping out and the rest get down to business.

CrimsonZephyr Would that it were so simple. from Massachusetts Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
Would that it were so simple.
#274698: Mar 19th 2019 at 9:01:20 AM

In the end, it doesn't really matter — barring one or two exceptions — who the nominee is. They'll run headlong into the same structural issues in government and be prodded incessantly by the same activist groups and lobbyists. It doesn't matter whose arm it is, so long as it is twisted in a leftward direction ideologically.

"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."
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#274699: Mar 19th 2019 at 9:01:56 AM

Like I said, I don't support him but I predict Joe will win the primary.

Why?

Because it's important to remember this isn't just in the hands of the people. The Democratic Party's insiders also choose the candidate.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#274700: Mar 19th 2019 at 9:02:40 AM

A little What the Fuck Just Happened Today? preview:

Devin Nunes is suing Twitter and three users for $250 million for defamation. Nunes claims users on Twitter made fun of him and accused him of crimes, something Nunes says "no human being should ever have to bear and suffer in their whole life." Nunes cited a wide range of tweets that accuse him of criminal misconduct, make jokes about him and criticism his actions as a lawmaker. One Twitter user claimed that Nunes was voted "Most Likely to Commit Treason" in high school. Nunes' lawsuit names GOP strategist Liz Mair and two parody accounts: @Devin Nunes Mom, which was suspended in 2018, and @Devin Cow, or "Devin Nunes' cow." He claims the accounts defamed him and Twitter allowed it to happen. (New York Times / USA Today / CBS News)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/19/rep-devin-nunes-sues-twitter-spoof-accounts-250-million/3209590002/


Total posts: 417,856
Top