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

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#289451: Sep 6th 2019 at 5:34:37 AM

[up][up]The issue for me is that the candidates eschewing nuclear power are doing so with anti-nuclear rhetoric that is rooted in fear as opposed to actually good arguments.

Nuclear energy did get attention...the wrong kind.

[up]Which is why it's kind of disturbing that most of the candidates are going all-in on anti-nuclear talk.

Edited by M84 on Sep 6th 2019 at 8:35:21 PM

Disgusted, but not surprised
nombretomado (Season 1) Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#289452: Sep 6th 2019 at 5:36:24 AM

OK, this really does seem to be going in circles. Let's move along?

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#289453: Sep 6th 2019 at 5:37:13 AM

Reposting from previous page:

538: Why Warren Can’t Count On A ‘Women’s Vote’

So Warren might still win over voters by emphasizing her policies on gender issues — her appeal just won’t be limited to women. In fact, there’s a good chance that the voters who are more likely to prioritize something like gender equality are also more likely to have higher levels of education, according to Hayes. That could partly explain Warren’s rise, since she’s performing especially well among white, educated voters.

But it also suggests that both Warren’s gender and her ambitious menu of policies to help women may not do much to help her broaden her coalition where she needs it most — particularly among black and Hispanic Democrats, who are largely sticking with Biden so far. “Warren might be able to chip away at Biden’s lead — but I wouldn’t expect it to be primarily driven by female voters,” Hayes said.

Also from 538: Don’t Let Crowd Sizes Mislead You

Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s campaign has said she has drawn crowds of up to 15,000. Meanwhile, former Vice President Joe Biden has not exactly been packing them in, even as he continues to lead by a healthy margin in most polls of the Democratic presidential primary. So could Warren’s big crowds be picking up on something that the polls are missing?

The short answer is: No. While the ability to generate big crowds is certainly nice — it may signal enthusiasm among highly engaged voters or produce favorable media coverage — you should ignore any candidate, surrogate or media outlet that tells you that large crowd sizes mean that the polls are underestimating a candidate’s support. It’s just spin; polls are much more accurate at forecasting elections than crowd-size estimates, which don’t tell us all that much.

Disgusted, but not surprised
speedyboris Since: Feb, 2010
#289454: Sep 6th 2019 at 5:49:43 AM

Some news: Howard Schultz has dropped out (thank GOD), saying "“If I went forward, there is a risk that my name would appear on ballots even if a moderate Democrat wins the nomination, and that is not a risk I am willing to take". Glad he finally came to his senses.

And four states have scrapped the GOP primaries entirely, going all in on Trump. So much for freedom, right? Opposition of any kind is not allowed in Trumpland.

Ultimatum Disasturbator from the Amiga Forest (Old as dirt) Relationship Status: Who needs love when you have waffles?
Disasturbator
#289455: Sep 6th 2019 at 5:58:49 AM

So why did he enter all if was a risk like that?Dude is pulling now but the damage is done and he likely knows it

have a listen and have a link to my discord server
tricksterson Never Trust from Behind you with an icepick Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Above such petty unnecessities
Never Trust
#289456: Sep 6th 2019 at 6:00:45 AM

I don't think there was any damage because I doubt anyone realized he was in. I'd forgotten about him entirely

Trump delenda est
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#289457: Sep 6th 2019 at 6:10:56 AM

Isn't at least one state trying to pass laws to deny ballot access without the release of a candidate's tax returns? Given how the Electoral College works, this won't affect the results of the election noticeably (I doubt there is any risk of Trump winning California, for example), but it intrigues me.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#289458: Sep 6th 2019 at 6:12:39 AM

Not try. Did. California already passed that law.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#289459: Sep 6th 2019 at 6:13:47 AM

Right. I wonder if Trump will try to get on the ballot anyway. It's a body blow targeted directly at his ego.

Edited by Fighteer on Sep 6th 2019 at 9:14:01 AM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#289460: Sep 6th 2019 at 6:15:34 AM

I think the law is being challenged, at least

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#289461: Sep 6th 2019 at 6:19:07 AM

Well, I'd expect it to be. But the Constitution explicitly lets states decide who gets on the ballot, so I don't think there's any grounds for that challenge.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#289462: Sep 6th 2019 at 6:19:47 AM

It is. The law also says candidates running for governor have to release their tax returns too so it's less obvious that this is directed at Trump, but everyone knows what's what.

I'm having a hard time seeing how this will not be struck down by the courts.

Grafite Since: Apr, 2016 Relationship Status: Less than three
#289463: Sep 6th 2019 at 6:20:12 AM

Doesn't seem like a good idea either, honestly. Nothing stops other states from passing laws requiring candidates to release their birth certificates or other even more nonsensical things, if politicians decide to go down that path.

Life is unfair...
GoldenKaos Captain of the Dead City from Cirith Ungol Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
Captain of the Dead City
#289464: Sep 6th 2019 at 6:35:03 AM

I mean, it's not that unreasonable to ask for birth certificates of all things. Obama's birth certificate was publically published in short form in June 2008, a few months before the election. It wouldn't really stop anyone who was actually eligible.

I think anything we need to worry about in this area is on a whole different level, and going down the route of a slippery slope argument.

"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#289465: Sep 6th 2019 at 6:35:14 AM

The problem with a slippery slope argument is that it only applies if it does, in fact, lead to a slippery slope. Otherwise it's a fallacy. To require that a candidate for public office be transparent about their finances in order to demonstrate that they are not seeking or likely to seek personal gain from their office, nor are a potential target of compromise attempts, nor have conflicts of interest, is entirely in keeping with the standards of our democracy.

Here's how you ask if something is reasonable: flip the sides and see if you'd be happy with the test being applied to your preferred candidate, or indeed any hypothetical candidate.

Heck, I wouldn't even be terribly upset if producing a birth certificate or naturalization document were a standard applied to all candidates for whom natural birth or naturalization is a Constitutional requirement. It's not that I am worried about Obama failing that test, but the blatantly racist way in which the test was applied.

Edited by Fighteer on Sep 6th 2019 at 9:43:08 AM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#289466: Sep 6th 2019 at 7:01:38 AM

Heck, I wouldn't even be terribly upset if producing a birth certificate or naturalization document were a standard applied to all candidates for whom natural birth or naturalization is a Constitutional requirement. It's not that I am worried about Obama failing that test, but the blatantly racist way in which the test was applied.

That's my thought on it too.

Demanding to see Obama's birth certificate wouldn't be a clearly racist political ploy if John McCain had to provide his too.

And so had George W. Bush, John Kerry, and Al Gore.

Etc. etc.

The problem is not "Birth certificates are ALWAYS RACIST." The problem was that they singled out Obama for special scrutiny to advance a racially-motivated conspiracy theory about him being a secret Kenyan Muslim usurper. If everyone had to provide a birth certificate, it wouldn't be a problem.

In much the same way that California's law does not state, "Donald J. Trump, and only Donald J. Trump, must provide his tax returns to be on our ballot." It says that everyone has to do it.

Edited by TobiasDrake on Sep 6th 2019 at 8:03:09 AM

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
ACW from Arlington, VA (near Washington, D.C.) Since: Jul, 2009
#289467: Sep 6th 2019 at 7:03:18 AM

Sharpiegate is so fucking stupid. Trump just can't admit when he's wrong, can he?

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#289468: Sep 6th 2019 at 7:04:18 AM

Is that what we're calling it?

I liked Colbert's proposal. Since Trump is lying about where the hurricane will be dumping vast amounts of water, he suggested it be dubbed Watergate.

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#289469: Sep 6th 2019 at 7:08:45 AM

@538 articles: That reminds me of an interview on Pod Save America with Axelrod and a Republican strategist, of all people. They both agreed that Warren's best bet for peeling off Biden voters was to turn up the folksy charm she displays on the stump and apply it to TV crowds. We've seen Professor Warren, now show Grandma Betsy from Oklahoma, was their idea, essentially.

Ultimatum Disasturbator from the Amiga Forest (Old as dirt) Relationship Status: Who needs love when you have waffles?
Disasturbator
#289470: Sep 6th 2019 at 7:12:20 AM

> They both agreed that Warren's best bet for peeling off Biden voters was to turn up the folksy charm she displays on the stump and apply it to TV crowds.

My immediate mental image involves Warren playing a banjo to a crowd of people

have a listen and have a link to my discord server
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#289471: Sep 6th 2019 at 7:48:45 AM

Except she is, much like her tax plan is illegal, some of her more recent plans have relied on burying things in a pile of words to hide the fact that they cant be done like that... and as others have mentioned, she isn't even doing that.... She is just buying whole sale into anti-nuclear paranoia.

I don't buy this, yes a specific tax might have been unconstitutional but that doesn't mean that her tax plan as a whole is illegal.

Furthermore, for those recent plans, you'll have to give some examples because it's impossible to properly respond to claims as vague as this.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#289472: Sep 6th 2019 at 7:59:15 AM

"Her tax plan is illegal" seems to be based on the idea of a wealth tax, which is not explicitly provided for by the Constitution according to common interpretation. This is missing the point that we do already have several forms of wealth tax, in the form of state property tax. The question seems to be whether this could be assessed at a federal level, which is not settled law. Therefore, calling it "illegal" is skipping several steps and betrays the individual's bias.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
wisewillow She/her Since: May, 2011
She/her
#289473: Sep 6th 2019 at 8:01:15 AM

Also, her tax plan is not de facto illegal as someone (can’t remember who) keeps boldly asserting without evidence. Like her or not, Warren is a thorough person and she comes from academia. She does her homework.

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#289474: Sep 6th 2019 at 8:28:17 AM

Either it's liable to face a constitutional challenge (and with this Supreme Court...) or it's a thought experiment to get people to think about the wealth gap.

It's not an actual feasible plan either way.

I suspect that if she actually becomes POTUS she'll use a plan that doesn't run the risk of facing the Supreme Court. Maybe something like Rep. Ocasio-Cortez's idea.

Edited by M84 on Sep 6th 2019 at 11:29:32 PM

Disgusted, but not surprised
Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#289475: Sep 6th 2019 at 8:30:20 AM

Every major piece of Democratic legislation is going to face a constitutional challenge. Obamacare is still facing constitutional challenges to this very day.


Total posts: 417,856
Top