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

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#287726: Aug 15th 2019 at 1:47:05 PM

[up]Well, I have I no probably says that's a pretty big distortion of the actual viewpoint posited by those people.

I will say that I felt that Kamala Harris was put on a bit of a pedestal for time, but that time is long gone now.

LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#287727: Aug 15th 2019 at 1:47:27 PM

The fact that you're trying to separate liberal progressives and centrists to such a stark degree and trying to put Clinton in the centrist party line camp speaks volumes about your understanding of candidate's policies.

Edited by LeGarcon on Aug 15th 2019 at 4:47:48 AM

Oh really when?
Grafite Since: Apr, 2016 Relationship Status: Less than three
#287728: Aug 15th 2019 at 1:49:26 PM

It was also a time where, apparently, considering supporting Elizabeth Warren as a progressive was labeled sexism, go back and read it if you don't believe me. So do as I did and accept that the consensus has fortunately moved on from that.

Life is unfair...
Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#287729: Aug 15th 2019 at 1:50:57 PM

People are more apathetic to Hillary than soft. She's said some things recently that would make some people here blow a gasket but nobody cares enough to post them.

If you're talking about 2016, then that's another story. More a rollercoaster than a story. At the start, most people just seemed resigned to her candidacy since it seemed a forgone conclusion shed win without ginning up any excitement. Sanders flipped that over and some genuine defense of her clashed with outright hostility over Clinton. The rise of Trump and Sanders' refusal to give up even when it became obvious he wasn't going to win made the thread turn on Sanders and from that point onwards it was a mix of now hyper Hillary supporting or people who hated Trump more than they disliked Clinton.

Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#287730: Aug 15th 2019 at 1:52:26 PM

Last year Ambar and a lot of other posters basically implied that liberal progressives were "unicorn brigade" who had stupid ideas. It felt like "shut the fuck up and toe the centrist party line." That they also ignored that Hillary's record on race is even WORSE than Sanders to a degree (as well a gay rights) was galling

This is all incorrect.

I was there, Unicorn Brigade was used about a specific type of (unreasonable) progressive. It's simply false to claim that it was used against all progressives, many people in the thread (such as myself and Ambar) are progressives. We simply dislike the types of progressives who would smear candidates like Clinton who had progressive records and platforms just because they weren't some Perfect Progressive Messiah (TM).

Furthermore, I need some major [CITATION NEEDED] on her record with race being worse than Sanders. And no, the superpredator comment from decades ago is not evidence.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 15th 2019 at 1:55:29 AM

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
LordYAM Since: Jan, 2015
#287731: Aug 15th 2019 at 1:53:36 PM

[up][up]Hillary openly defends AIPAC even though they support a lunatic like Netanyahu, was majorly behind the crime bill advocated going easy on wall street and refused to support gay rights until it became acceptable. She's no progressive. She has progressive elements but she's a centrist at heart.

[up][up][up]Not really. Pelosi seems more bothered by centrists being attacked by the Squad then the fact that those centrists kinda suck

She also supported Clinton's crime bill like everyone else in the 90s. Sanders tried to amend the crime bill and mostly supported the violence against women portion. He also led a sit in in chicago as part of core and got arrested for it.

Edited by LordYAM on Aug 15th 2019 at 1:57:06 AM

Hodor2 Since: Jan, 2015
#287732: Aug 15th 2019 at 1:55:40 PM

Didn't Sanders actually sign that crime bill? If so, why does he get a pass?

This is Sincerity Mode.

I know Biden signed it and was basically the impetus for it, and he has tended to get a pass (not from leftists, but definitely from a lot of anti-Hillary people).

Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#287733: Aug 15th 2019 at 1:55:41 PM

Pelosi has spent more time attacking Occasio Cortez and the other members of the squad than attacking Donald Trump, and has openly said "don't criticize centrists in public."

The first part of your post is entirely unsourced, so I'm going to dismiss it.

Of course, she tells them not to attack centrist Democrats. The only reason we control the House, and have any chance of controlling the Senate, is because of Centrist Democrats.

As the majority leader it's her duty to make sure that the members of the party are protected, which means that arch-progressives in safe seats shouldn't publicly attack centrist democrats in significantly more dangerous seats.

Hillary openly defends AIPAC even though they support a lunatic like Netanyahu, was majorly behind the crime bill advocated going easy on wall street and refused to support gay rights until it became acceptable. She's no progressive.

Nope, supporting AIPAC is not evidence of having a poor record on race.

Nor did you provide any evidence of her refusing to support gay rights.

This nonsense about Hillary not being progressive is disconnected from reality, her record is most certainly progressive.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 15th 2019 at 2:01:01 AM

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
PhysicalStamina i'm tired, my friend (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
i'm tired, my friend
#287734: Aug 15th 2019 at 2:01:01 PM

That's your opinion, I see the exact opposite of a shoddy record when it comes to Sanders and racial issues

Like the time he not only tried to separate the problems black and Latinx people (as well as the LGBT+ community for extra fun) face from those of "ordinary Americans", but then tried to float the idea that they were more important?

Or the time he tried to claim that people who weren't comfortable voting for a black person were racist?

Or tried to undermine the achievements of the first black president on MLK Day?

And these are just examples off the top of my head. There are probably more that I haven't thought of. My point is, it's clear to everyone paying attention that black and brown people will be made to sit at the back of Sanders' revolution bus, and his base simply refuses to deal with that in any way, shape, or form.

i'm tired, my friend
LordYAM Since: Jan, 2015
#287735: Aug 15th 2019 at 2:02:01 PM

[up][up] Considering that AIPAC seems to view Palestinians as the ones responsible for the conflict (and if you believe that than by definition you think palestinians are subhuman vermin)....yes. If you support AIPAC you think Palestinians are subhuman animals at worst or are ok with Israel brutalizing them at best. There's no middle ground there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I1-r1YgK9I

Defines marriage as between Man and Women. This was in 04 by the way. Of course she was singing a different tune in 2013. She also supported the Defense of Marriage act in 1998 as well as don't ask don't tell.

https://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/

Edited by LordYAM on Aug 15th 2019 at 2:04:04 AM

ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#287736: Aug 15th 2019 at 2:02:59 PM

[up]

I think the argument being made regarding AIPAC is that they support Netanyahu, who has an abysmal record on race relations (primarily in regards to Muslims and non-Jewish Arabs), and Clinton defends them despite that. Not saying the logic necessarily holds up, but I can see the perspective at play.

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#287737: Aug 15th 2019 at 2:03:52 PM

People are more apathetic to Hillary than soft. She's said some things recently that would make some people here blow a gasket but nobody cares enough to post them.
At this point Hillary Clinton is functionally irrelevant, so that's not a surprise to me.

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#287738: Aug 15th 2019 at 2:04:11 PM

I will never understand this position that politicians not being 100% unshakable on things they've said, or that it's somehow wrong for them to be able to take different positions from ones they've taken years before.

PhysicalStamina i'm tired, my friend (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
i'm tired, my friend
#287739: Aug 15th 2019 at 2:05:11 PM

Thinking about it, I have to wonder why we're bothering to engage someone trying to beat the dead "BUT HILLARY!!!111!11!" horse in order to deflect criticism of Sanders in the first place. I dunno about anyone else here, but I don't see arguments being made in good faith here.

i'm tired, my friend
LordYAM Since: Jan, 2015
#287740: Aug 15th 2019 at 2:05:32 PM

[up][up]It's timing (only changing when public opinion shifts) and the fact she does it a LOT.

[up] Well there's the fact that people tried to play up Hillary as a progressive when she wasn't. Same with Pelosi and Harris

Edited by LordYAM on Aug 15th 2019 at 2:06:24 AM

Draghinazzo (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I get a feeling so complicated...
#287741: Aug 15th 2019 at 2:06:15 PM

There was a statement she made I think about immigrants in Europe that got posted some months ago and people here were quite displeased with her, but yes in general Clinton is not particularly relevant anymore so that's probably why any potentially problematic recent statements made by her haven't been posted.

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#287742: Aug 15th 2019 at 2:06:17 PM

If memory serves, Hillary did sign praises of the Reagans which owing to their approach to the AIDS epidemic could be interpreted as gay unfriendly.

The infamous crime bill was discussed years ago in this thread. and per this and this most members of the Congressional Black Caucus voted for it with reticence and Bernie did as well for somewhat different reasons that have nothing to do with tough-on-crime matters. Hillary was much more positive about the bill (using the word "superpredators" for example) but didn't vote on it as she wasn't in Congress back then.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#287743: Aug 15th 2019 at 2:06:23 PM

[up][up][up][up]Good point

You can defend Sanders without mentioning Clinton or any other candidate.

Edited by LeGarcon on Aug 15th 2019 at 5:07:22 AM

Oh really when?
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#287744: Aug 15th 2019 at 2:06:51 PM

Well there's the fact that people tried to play up Hillary as a progressive when she wasn't. Same with Pelosi and Harris
If their recent records and actions are progressive, such as Clinton's platform being very close to Sanders' during the primaries, isn't that functionally the same thing?
More relevant side note:

Israel’s government on Thursday barred Democratic Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib from entering the country as part of a landmark visit, in a move that quickly set off a political firestorm in Washington.

Omar and Tlaib — the first two Muslim women in Congress — were slated to arrive this weekend, but President Donald Trump had lobbied Israeli leaders to block them from entering the country and again lashed out at the pair on Thursday.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/15/israel-ilhan-omar-rashida-tlaib-netanyahu-1463655

Edited by sgamer82 on Aug 15th 2019 at 3:09:49 AM

Forenperser Foreign Troper from Germany Since: Mar, 2012
Foreign Troper
#287745: Aug 15th 2019 at 2:08:36 PM

As for Clinton, my personal opinion is that she was certainly, definitely the better alternative compared to Trump.....but thats not much of a high bar.

I think she would've been a terrible president, and yeah, I also think that people around here are a bit too soft on her.

What I dislike the most about her are her hawkish tendencies. And if she really qualifies as a "progressive", then that term certainly needs some higher standarts.

Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% Scandinavian
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#287746: Aug 15th 2019 at 2:09:26 PM

Considering that AIPAC seems to view Palestinians as the ones responsible for the conflict (and if you believe that than by definition you think palestinians are subhuman vermin)....yes. If you support AIPAC you think Palestinians are subhuman animals at worst or are ok with Israel brutalizing them at best. There's no middle ground there.

I want some actual context for her 'defense' of AIPAC, I simply don't buy the idea that defending them is the same thing as automatically supporting racism against Palestinians.

Defines marriage as between Man and Women. This was in 04 by the way. Of course she was singing a different tune in 2013. She also supported the Defense of Marriage act in 1998 as well as don't ask don't tell.

The entire nation changed its position in regards to same-sex marriage practically overnight, it's extremely disingenuous to act as if she was somehow unique in that regard.

Don't Ask Don't Tell was a progressive policy at the time of its inception, it made life easier for Gay and Lesbian servicepeople. Obviously, full legalization would've been preferable but it requires willful ignorance of the historical context to consider that plausible.

As for Clinton, my personal opinion is that she was certainly, definitely the better alternative compared to Trump.....but thats not much of a high bar.

I think she would've been a terrible president, and yeah, I also think that people around here are a bit too soft on her.

What I dislike the most about her are her hawkish tendencies. And if she really qualifies as a "progressive", then that term certainly needs some higher standarts.

I'm not too soft on her, she was a great politician who stood for many good things. There is nothing to be soft on.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 15th 2019 at 2:11:01 AM

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#287747: Aug 15th 2019 at 2:11:23 PM

[up][up]Frankly Clinton's hawkish tendencies are what we need right now.

This situation with Russia has gotten completely out of hand. Fighting them and their interests abroad is the same as advancing progressive movements back here at this point.

Edited by LeGarcon on Aug 15th 2019 at 5:14:41 AM

Oh really when?
LordYAM Since: Jan, 2015
#287748: Aug 15th 2019 at 2:14:51 PM

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/11/gaza-aren-mourning-clinton-loss-161117123959810.html https://972mag.com/what-clinton-gets-so-wrong-about-israel-palestine/122678/ https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/09/harder-times-palestine-clinton-wins-election-160912073343128.html

Quite frankly Hillary's stance is "Israel good palestinians bad." She backs the idiotic idea that Israel offered a state in 2000 (when in reality it was a bantustan.) https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2002/04/was-arafat-the-problem.html

She has some accomplishments but fourthspartan is delusional if he thinks there's nothing to criticize her about.

Supporting AIPAC is basically saying "palestinians are subhuman vermin who don't matter."

Edited by LordYAM on Aug 15th 2019 at 2:21:02 AM

Ludlow Since: Apr, 2013
#287749: Aug 15th 2019 at 2:17:35 PM

@Le Garcon

Well, I'm glad you're not in control of foreign policy right now, then. Fighting endless proxy wars against third world countries just because they won't bend over backwards for American political and business interests has led to nothing but the pointless slaughter of innocent civilians and the installation of horrifying, sometimes genocidal regimes throughout the world.

You want to fight a war with Russia, fight a war Russia. It will doom us both, but at least the rest of world would be safe from our endless, self-serving imperialism.

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#287750: Aug 15th 2019 at 2:17:41 PM

[up][up]I'm not well versed on their bias, but is an al jazeera opinion piece really the best source to use?

Edited by sgamer82 on Aug 15th 2019 at 3:17:52 AM


Total posts: 417,856
Top