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

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#278176: Apr 22nd 2019 at 8:05:00 AM

I think I see Trump's logic on this.

  • Best case scenario (for him): he gets a court order forbidding Democrats from ever trying to look at his tax returns again. Like a restraining order but for the document.
  • Worst case scenario: He still manages to stall for time by making it so they can't look at his tax returns until the case is decided, which he can drag on for months if not years.

Both of these ideas sort of make sense if he were a businessman dealing with other businessmen. But I don't see either of those scenarios actually working the way he probably thinks they will because, as noted, the court is forbidden from ruling on internal congressional procedure.

For exactly this reason, no less.

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
smokeycut Since: Mar, 2013
#278177: Apr 22nd 2019 at 8:05:58 AM

Has a president ever been involved in as many lawsuits as Trump has while in office? Cuz it seems like a lot.

fruitpork Since: Oct, 2010
#278178: Apr 22nd 2019 at 8:23:43 AM

Okay, my top choice is warren for now. I still like harris (and frankly, going from a white man to a white woman is only a small step in the right direction) but warren has seriously impressed me. I just wish Bernie would step down, he’s going to get the sexist Bernie bros to hate her.

smokeycut Since: Mar, 2013
#278179: Apr 22nd 2019 at 8:32:37 AM

Harris is my second choice at this point.

wisewillow She/her Since: May, 2011
She/her
#278180: Apr 22nd 2019 at 8:33:45 AM

Another quote from Warren this morning regarding her focus on policy.

Since announcing an exploratory campaign on New Year's Eve, Warren has released sweeping policy proposals at a rapid clip. They include the wealth tax, universal child care and a proposal to break up the biggest tech companies.

Warren is unapologetic about her heavy focus on policy.

"Look. Policy is personal. It touches people's lives," she said. "People come up to me in tears talking about their student loan debt. People talk to me about their fear that healthcare is going to be taken away. People talk to me about drugs, prescription drugs that they take that they simply can't afford. The way we fixed these problems? It's with policy. It's policy that touches where people live."

Edited by wisewillow on Apr 22nd 2019 at 8:34:24 AM

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#278181: Apr 22nd 2019 at 8:35:19 AM

I have had reservations about Elizabeth Warren in the past, but I would have no objections to her winning the primary and would unreservedly back her for President. It's just too bad that "serious about policy" doesn't play to what the media want in candidates: namely scandal and drama.

"Break up the tech companies"... I really want to learn more about this, though. I've never been a fan of arbitrarily chopping up corporations just because they reach a certain size.

Edited by Fighteer on Apr 22nd 2019 at 11:36:17 AM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Clarste One Winged Egret Since: Jun, 2009 Relationship Status: Non-Canon
One Winged Egret
#278182: Apr 22nd 2019 at 8:36:51 AM

I think telling a huge fraction of the voting population that they'll get 50,000 dollars for free if they vote for her should probably be useful. It plays into people's self-interest in a concrete and tangible way.

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
#278183: Apr 22nd 2019 at 8:45:06 AM

Warren seems to be walking the line of popularism is a very skilful way. Every so often she puts forward an idea that seems to lack substance but make “common sense” even though it may not actually work. Yet she is also the candidate with the most solid policy platform and well formed ideas.

I’m honestly starting to think that Warren might be masquerading as a popularist, she speaks like a popularist but acts like a policy wonk.

If that’s what it takes to win I’m kinda okay with that. The people who buy the popularism message aren’t going to see if she did specific popularist big ideas she promised, they will just see if their life got better or not.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
wisewillow She/her Since: May, 2011
She/her
#278184: Apr 22nd 2019 at 8:50:20 AM

Here’s her tech proposal again.

It mostly rests on the idea of actually enforcing existing anti-trust laws.

In the 1990s, Microsoft — the tech giant of its time — was trying to parlay its dominance in computer operating systems into dominance in the new area of web browsing. The federal government sued Microsoft for violating anti-monopoly laws and eventually reached a settlement. The government’s antitrust case against Microsoft helped clear a path for Internet companies like Google and Facebook to emerge.

The story demonstrates why promoting competition is so important: it allows new, groundbreaking companies to grow and thrive — which pushes everyone in the marketplace to offer better products and services. Aren’t we all glad that now we have the option of using Google instead of being stuck with Bing?

Today’s big tech companies have too much power — too much power over our economy, our society, and our democracy. They’ve bulldozed competition, used our private information for profit, and tilted the playing field against everyone else. And in the process, they have hurt small businesses and stifled innovation.

...

How the new tech monopolies hurt small businesses and innovation

America’s big tech companies provide valuable products but also wield enormous power over our digital lives. Nearly half of all e-commerce goes through Amazon. More than 70% of all Internet traffic goes through sites owned or operated by Google or Facebook.

As these companies have grown larger and more powerful, they have used their resources and control over the way we use the Internet to squash small businesses and innovation, and substitute their own financial interests for the broader interests of the American people. To restore the balance of power in our democracy, to promote competition, and to ensure that the next generation of technology innovation is as vibrant as the last, it’s time to break up our biggest tech companies.

America’s big tech companies have achieved their level of dominance in part based on two strategies:

Using Mergers to Limit Competition. Facebook has purchased potential competitors Instagram and Whats App. Amazon has used its immense market power to force smaller competitors like Diapers.com to sell at a discounted rate. Google has snapped up the mapping company Waze and the ad company Double Click. Rather than blocking these transactions for their negative long-term effects on competition and innovation, government regulators have waved them through.

Using Proprietary Marketplaces to Limit Competition. Many big tech companies own a marketplace — where buyers and sellers transact — while also participating on the marketplace. This can create a conflict of interest that undermines competition. Amazon crushes small companies by copying the goods they sell on the Amazon Marketplace and then selling its own branded version. Google allegedly snuffed out a competing small search engine by demoting its content on its search algorithm, and it has favored its own restaurant ratings over those of Yelp.

Weak antitrust enforcement has led to a dramatic reduction in competition and innovation in the tech sector. Venture capitalists are now hesitant to fund new startups to compete with these big tech companies because it’s so easy for the big companies to either snap up growing competitors or drive them out of business. The number of tech startups has slumped, there are fewer high-growth young firms typical of the tech industry, and first financing rounds for tech startups have declined 22% since 2012. With fewer competitors entering the market, the big tech companies do not have to compete as aggressively in key areas like protecting our privacy. And some of these companies have grown so powerful that they can bully cities and states into showering them with massive taxpayer handouts in exchange for doing business, and can act — in the words of Mark Zuckerberg — “more like a government than a traditional company.”

We must ensure that today’s tech giants do not crowd out potential competitors, smother the next generation of great tech companies, and wield so much power that they can undermine our democracy.

A century ago, in the Gilded Age, waves of mergers led to the creation of some of the biggest companies in American history — from Standard Oil and JP Morgan to the railroads and AT&T. In response to the rise of these “trusts,” Republican and Democratic reformers pushed for antitrust laws to break up these conglomerations of power to ensure competition.

But where the value of the company came from its network, reformers recognized that ownership of a network and participating on the network caused a conflict of interest. Instead of nationalizing these industries — as other countries did — Americans in the Progressive Era decided to ensure that these networks would not abuse their power by charging higher prices, offering worse quality, reducing innovation, and favoring some over others. We required a structural separation between the network and other businesses, and also demanded that the network offer fair and non-discriminatory service.

In this tradition, my administration would restore competition to the tech sector by taking two major steps:

First, by passing legislation that requires large tech platforms to be designated as “Platform Utilities” and broken apart from any participant on that platform.

...

Second, my administration would appoint regulators committed to reversing illegal and anti-competitive tech mergers.

Read the full article for details; it’s very approachable and well written.

Edited by wisewillow on Apr 22nd 2019 at 8:51:07 AM

Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#278185: Apr 22nd 2019 at 8:56:37 AM

Warren actually has accomplishments to back up her policies in regards to corporate malfeasance and monopolies. Wisewillow's article on her current proposals shows she has been thinking on this for a long while and are built up from those past accomplishments, and actually has plans on how to put them in effect rather than just promising stuff she'll work out later.

Edited by Parable on Apr 22nd 2019 at 8:57:17 AM

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#278186: Apr 22nd 2019 at 9:00:49 AM

I still think it's a tad premature to get really invested in anyone now before we've even had a single primaries debate or campaign speech.

I want to see how these people are able to handle competing with each other and winning each other over when the primaries are done.

Edited by M84 on Apr 23rd 2019 at 12:01:41 AM

Disgusted, but not surprised
TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#278187: Apr 22nd 2019 at 9:01:24 AM

I’m honestly starting to think that Warren might be masquerading as a popularist, she speaks like a popularist but acts like a policy wonk.

That is exactly what we need.

I've been saying it for years. Republicans have awful, awful ideas but are extremely personable and always manage to present their terrible ideas in a way that the public eats up.

Democrats have great ideas, amazing even, but consistently fail at being relatable and interesting people when on-camera. I love Nancy Pelosi to death but watching her and Chuck Schumer try to smile for the camera and talk "on the level" with people is very much like watching two 80-year-olds try and sound "hip to the new kids' lingo, bro-ski!"

What we need are people who have solid, concrete, well-devised policy ideas like a Democrat, but who can stand in front of a mic and present those ideas in a likable and relatable fashion that the common person can understand. Having the best ideas in the world doesn't get you anywhere if you can't explain them to the lay person.

That's exactly what Obama had: that great combination of good ideas and the ability to speak to people in a way that they understood. He had the soul of a policy wonk and the voice of a populist, and that's what made him so great.

If Liz is angling for that dual dynamic, "I would have a beer with her and listen to her talk about healthcare," then I wish her all the best luck in the world.

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#278188: Apr 22nd 2019 at 9:02:54 AM

I see the wisdom in Warren's proposals. I just hope it's done with due consideration for the many advantages consumers gain by having integrated information technology platforms.

For example, I much prefer single sign-on capability across many apps due to Facebook, Google, and Microsoft having standardized logins, assuming that big tech companies can (and do) devote more resources to securing my personal information. Proper regulation would ensure that this is indeed the case.

We shouldn't be quashing innovation and competition in the process, though.

Regarding this [up], it seems that Hillary Clinton's big weakness on the campaign trail was her inability to sound like a populist. This inarguably contributed to her loss despite her policy platform being orders of magnitude superior to any other Democrat's.

If Warren can do both: play the populist to win the crowds and back it up with policy, I'm all in.

Edited by Fighteer on Apr 22nd 2019 at 12:05:50 PM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
wisewillow She/her Since: May, 2011
She/her
#278189: Apr 22nd 2019 at 9:06:41 AM

Exactly. Quoting another section of the proposal...

So what would the Internet look like after all these reforms?

Here’s what won’t change: You’ll still be able to go on Google and search like you do today.

You’ll still be able to go on Amazon and find 30 different coffee machines that you can get delivered to your house in two days. You’ll still be able to go on Facebook and see how your old friend from school is doing.

Here’s what will change: Small businesses would have a fair shot to sell their products on Amazon without the fear of Amazon pushing them out of business. Google couldn’t smother competitors by demoting their products on Google Search. Facebook would face real pressure from Instagram and Whats App to improve the user experience and protect our privacy. Tech entrepreneurs would have a fighting chance to compete against the tech giants.

Of course, my proposals today won’t solve every problem we have with our big tech companies.

We must give people more control over how their personal information is collected, shared, and sold — and do it in a way that doesn’t lock in massive competitive advantages for the companies that already have a ton of our data.

We must help America’s content creators — from local newspapers and national magazines to comedians and musicians — keep more of the value their content generates, rather than seeing it scooped up by companies like Google and Facebook.

And we must ensure that Russia — or any other foreign power — can’t use Facebook or any other form of social media to influence our elections.

Those are each tough problems, but the benefit of taking these steps to promote competition is that it allows us to make some progress on each of these important issues too. More competition means more options for consumers and content creators, and more pressure on companies like Facebook to address the glaring problems with their businesses.

Healthy competition can solve a lot of problems. The steps I’m proposing today will allow existing big tech companies to keep offering customer-friendly services, while promoting competition, stimulating innovation in the tech sector, and ensuring that America continues to lead the world in producing cutting-edge tech companies. It’s how we protect the future of the Internet.

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#278190: Apr 22nd 2019 at 9:12:49 AM

Warren seems to be walking the line of popularism is a very skilful way.

It's a very thin line indeed. And while I get why Warren is doing it, I can't say I'm thrilled she is.

TBF, I wasn't thrilled when Obama did it either, and he won by a considerable margin.

Edited by M84 on Apr 23rd 2019 at 12:12:59 AM

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
#278191: Apr 22nd 2019 at 9:12:59 AM

[up][up]Well hell, I might have written that statement myself.

Edited by Fighteer on Apr 22nd 2019 at 12:13:15 PM

"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.
#278192: Apr 22nd 2019 at 9:17:08 AM

The real test IMHO will be when the candidates debate each other and how they run their campaigns. I am curious to see how all of them will approach this, and whether they will do it in a way that doesn't risk dividing the voter base.

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
#278193: Apr 22nd 2019 at 9:21:19 AM

I just hope we don't get the Unicorn Brigade out again, heckling everyone who doesn't come across as "progressive enough", and decrying any form of corporate donation as the scourge of the Devil.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
wisewillow She/her Since: May, 2011
She/her
#278194: Apr 22nd 2019 at 9:21:48 AM

I can’t wait for the debates. It’ll be a glorious mess with this many people. Really hoping we’ll get to see some good policy arguing. I’d love to see Warren verbally obliterate Biden.

[up] Warren’s finance director quit because she swore off big donor events; she’s been calling small donors every night instead to thank them and chat about what they care about.

Edited by wisewillow on Apr 22nd 2019 at 9:22:47 AM

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#278195: Apr 22nd 2019 at 9:22:04 AM

[up][up]Oh they definitely will. Shit, I think they've already started bashing Warren because she's not a full blown socialist or some shit.

[up]It'll be a mess. Whether it's glorious...eh.

Edited by M84 on Apr 23rd 2019 at 12:22:54 AM

Disgusted, but not surprised
Ultimatum Disasturbator from the Amiga Forest (Old as dirt) Relationship Status: Who needs love when you have waffles?
Disasturbator
#278196: Apr 22nd 2019 at 9:23:25 AM

So what happens when "Warren might be masquerading as a popularist" wears off and people who voted for her on a purly populist front find out they've been had? I mean they might appreciate the good she's doing/done but nobody appreciates a ruse, they might turn to actual populist the second time around

have a listen and have a link to my discord server
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#278197: Apr 22nd 2019 at 9:23:53 AM

[up]And that's why walking that thin line is risky.

If you promise a unicorn and "only" deliver a fine thoroughbred racing horse, the people who wanted a unicorn will still feel betrayed even if their lives are objectively better with the horse.

Edited by M84 on Apr 23rd 2019 at 12:25:12 AM

Disgusted, but not surprised
wisewillow She/her Since: May, 2011
She/her
#278198: Apr 22nd 2019 at 9:24:28 AM

[up][up] I don’t understand what on earth that means.

Ultimatum Disasturbator from the Amiga Forest (Old as dirt) Relationship Status: Who needs love when you have waffles?
Disasturbator
#278199: Apr 22nd 2019 at 9:26:32 AM

People who voted for her first time because they believed she was a populist might not vote for her the second time around

Edited by Ultimatum on Apr 22nd 2019 at 4:29:45 PM

have a listen and have a link to my discord server
wisewillow She/her Since: May, 2011
She/her
#278200: Apr 22nd 2019 at 9:29:19 AM

I’m confused.

So, if she manages to accomplish some of her proposals, which will immediately help them, they won’t vote for her again because... she’s ... not a populist??? Her entire thing is about the power of everyday people, and as we’ve said before, the term populist is foggy at best.


Total posts: 417,856
Top