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

singularityshot Since: Dec, 2012
#289951: Sep 13th 2019 at 3:57:46 AM

You can count me in the sceptical camp for removing the filibuster - but that's not to say that it is sacrosanct. From a UK perspective I'm always a fan of the Salisbury convention - which is to say that the House of Lords should not oppose anything that was part of the manifesto that the Government of the day was elected on.

So, adapting that for US politics would be to say that the Senate cannot filibuster any bill that originates from the House of Representatives that goes towards fulfilling a portion of the party platform that the current House Majority was elected on.

This hopefully gets around the problem of the filibuster being used to block a progressive agenda whilst retaining the filibuster should it be needed. It means that if the Republicans do want to push through something abhorrent that we'd want the filibuster to block - well they have to go public first giving ample opportunity to warn the voters who would get a say.

The obvious downside is that this elevates the party platform from a meaningless wish-list to a quasi-constitutional document with very serious legal consequences - and so would almost certainly end up in front of a court to determine if a filibuster could or could not be used in each circumstance.

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#289952: Sep 13th 2019 at 4:23:04 AM

Well, a court would not get involved here - the Constitution is explicit that Congress's internals are things that may not be adjudicated outside of it.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
singularityshot Since: Dec, 2012
#289953: Sep 13th 2019 at 4:25:55 AM

Hrm, not sure that is a good thing or a bad thing. Good that courts don't get involved. Bad that there wouldn't be a clear resolution to the problems my solution may create - namely that it would be a matter of interpretation as to when a filibuster may be invoked.

Steven (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
#289954: Sep 13th 2019 at 5:02:32 AM

Apparently, there was a Republican ad running during the Democratic debate that shows a pic of AOC catching on fire and trashing her for her socialist views. She didn't take too kindly to it according to her tweet.

Remember, these idiots drive, fuck, and vote. Not always in that order.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#289955: Sep 13th 2019 at 6:41:31 AM

I have to wonder what ABC was thinking with that. Are their ad people really so dense?

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Ultimatum Disasturbator from the Amiga Forest (Old as dirt) Relationship Status: Who needs love when you have waffles?
Disasturbator
#289956: Sep 13th 2019 at 6:43:49 AM

Ads like that are meant to draw controversy,which means views,so of course they're going to air it

have a listen and have a link to my discord server
TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#289957: Sep 13th 2019 at 7:05:19 AM

I assume the GOP paid for an ad so ABC ran it, and no further thought was given on the matter.

Conservatives have been buying adspace on opposition media for a couple years now. I constantly see pro-Trump ads on YouTube when, and only when, I'm watching liberal talk shows like the Daily Show, Late Show, or Some More News (Cody's Showdy). It's also pretty much a guarantee that if you make a pro-LGBT video of any sort, someone's going to buy a "GAYS ARE SATAN" ad and run it in front of your video. People have just had to get used to this.

Edited by TobiasDrake on Sep 13th 2019 at 8:06:00 AM

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
PhysicalStamina i'm tired, my friend (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
i'm tired, my friend
#289958: Sep 13th 2019 at 7:12:03 AM

At least for youtube, you can get Adblocker.

i'm tired, my friend
Larkmarn Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Hello, I love you
#289959: Sep 13th 2019 at 7:24:44 AM

My feeling is that Biden's the big winner of the debate.

Not because he did well, but because he's done so poorly in the previous ones and is so far ahead that "somewhat passable" is enough to really count as a win. He's in a position where he just needs to not fuck up and he managed to do that.

Throw in the fact that no one else totally stole the show means I'd say the debate was a net win for him more than anyone else.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
speedyboris Since: Feb, 2010
#289960: Sep 13th 2019 at 7:24:47 AM

I have to wonder what ABC was thinking with that. Are their ad people really so dense?
That particular ABC affiliate, WJLA, is owned by Sinclair. Nuff said.

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#289961: Sep 13th 2019 at 7:27:31 AM

[up][up]As for the "loser" of the debate...I'd say it's Sanders. Mainly because he sounded like he needed a lozenge or something.

Disgusted, but not surprised
TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#289962: Sep 13th 2019 at 7:30:33 AM

At least for youtube, you can get Adblocker.

If you don't want content creators to get paid for their work, sure. Not a big deal for the big media enterprises like the Late Show, but I'm not about to take money away from an indie You Tube producer.

If the Church of Dickheads wants to pay MMMMACK to make me watch five seconds of homophobic nonsense before clicking Skip Ad, I can tolerate that to put the money in his pocket.

That particular ABC affiliate, WJLA, is owned by Sinclair. Nuff said.

Ah. Yeah, that does explain a lot right there. Sinclair is trying to make all local news outlets across the country into Fox News, regardless of their channel.

Edited by TobiasDrake on Sep 13th 2019 at 8:35:03 AM

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
PhysicalStamina i'm tired, my friend (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
i'm tired, my friend
#289963: Sep 13th 2019 at 7:32:40 AM

[up]You do you.

i'm tired, my friend
RainingMetal (Handed A Sword) Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#289964: Sep 13th 2019 at 7:35:11 AM

I don't and wouldn't advertise on my You Tube videos anyway.

ASAB: All Sponsors Are Bad.
Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#289965: Sep 13th 2019 at 7:39:29 AM

Nobody was really bad this time around. Harris tried too hard for snappy zingers on a few occasions, Sanders was raspy, but that's about it.

Except for that moment Castro attacked Biden on his memory. I feel like that's not going to play over well with the average voter. But he's already only at 1%, so it's not like he had anything to lose by trying.

Which still made him stand out more than the rest of the 1-3%ers. They didn't to bad, but none of them really stood out either. I don't see this debate helping any of them in the polls.

Edited by Parable on Sep 13th 2019 at 7:40:42 AM

KarkatTheDalek Not as angry as the name would suggest. from Somwhere in Time/Space Since: Mar, 2012 Relationship Status: You're a beautiful woman, probably
Not as angry as the name would suggest.
#289966: Sep 13th 2019 at 8:17:49 AM

I do think that Sanders’ content was strong, even if he sounded raspy. Honestly, I’m perfectly fine with him as my second choice.

Oh God! Natural light!
TitanJump Since: Sep, 2013 Relationship Status: Singularity
#289967: Sep 13th 2019 at 8:24:53 AM

I might be missing something, but i keep wondering, from watching all this...

Why can't the democrats just play nice and fair towards one another?

Get up on the debate floor, present your idea and proposals, without attacking anyone else on the stage, and then let the public decide if your idea is convincing and logical enough to follow and support the one proposing it.

Since (and this is personal belief) "if you have to attack anyone else just to make your own stance "stronger", then you must be weaker than the one you're attacking already." The more one attacks, the weaker they come off and the less convincing they become.

So why can't the democrats just play it fair among one another and have the "best candidate" win through the support of the people for their ideas, and not their "kick"(since the symbolic animal for the party is a donkey) against other people?

Am I wrong to believe this to be a better approach to this than what I saw last night?

Ultimatum Disasturbator from the Amiga Forest (Old as dirt) Relationship Status: Who needs love when you have waffles?
Disasturbator
#289968: Sep 13th 2019 at 8:26:12 AM

Its politics also a debate,even if they're in the same party they're not obliged to be nice to each other

have a listen and have a link to my discord server
TitanJump Since: Sep, 2013 Relationship Status: Singularity
#289969: Sep 13th 2019 at 8:29:05 AM

[up] Even at the expense of their own chances to be elected as the main democratic candidate in the process?

Edited by TitanJump on Sep 13th 2019 at 5:29:20 PM

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
#289970: Sep 13th 2019 at 8:29:10 AM

[up][up][up]Because even though they all agree on disagreeing the most with the Republicans, they still disagree with each other and think their plans/views are best, and see it as best for America (or just their own career) to get as far as they can towards the goal, and yes, the ends do justify the means if those "means" are petty shit-flinging.

[up] Ah, that's a calculation they have to make and a risk they have to take. It could backfire on them, it could be a zinger that sinks someone else.

Edited by GoldenKaos on Sep 13th 2019 at 4:30:02 PM

"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."
archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#289971: Sep 13th 2019 at 8:30:45 AM

Attacking other people doesn’t cost you anything in politics. Well, unless you make yourself look bad in the process, but that’s true of everything.

Coming after your opponents is standard practice, you’re trying to prove you’re the better choice.

Edited by archonspeaks on Sep 13th 2019 at 8:31:51 AM

They should have sent a poet.
ShinyCottonCandy Everyone's friend Malamar from Lumiose City (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Who needs love when you have waffles?
Everyone's friend Malamar
#289972: Sep 13th 2019 at 8:31:18 AM

And, let's be honest, every one of us here knows that the bickering proves nothing, but the general public cares way too much about it. If trying to be the voice of reason won primaries, someone would already be doing it.

My musician page
TitanJump Since: Sep, 2013 Relationship Status: Singularity
#289973: Sep 13th 2019 at 8:32:20 AM

[up] Out of curiosity... has anyone of the candidates tried to be the "voice of reason" so far?

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#289974: Sep 13th 2019 at 8:33:20 AM

Am I wrong to believe this to be a better approach to this than what I saw last night?

You're not wrong, exactly, but a principled refusal to go negative is not usually a winning strategy, especially when there are serious reasons not to go for candidate X or Y.

That said, there's rarely the degree of mudslinging in a primary that you see in a general, especially among the Democrats. Attack other candidates' arguments and attack them on points of disagreement, yes, but everyone knows that the Democratic base has no interest in nonscandals regarding email servers. (Plus, the Democrats are unable to, and unwilling to even if they could, put out the kind of solid wall of noise that's necessary to properly manufacture a scandal like that.)

archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#289975: Sep 13th 2019 at 8:35:01 AM

[up][up] Sure, all of them have tried. Everyone wants to be the voice of reason, but at some point you also have to go after your opponents or else they’ll screw you over and make you look bad.

I mean, can you imagine trying to win a debate where you weren’t allowed to say anything about any of your opponent’s positions?

Edited by archonspeaks on Sep 13th 2019 at 8:36:55 AM

They should have sent a poet.

Total posts: 417,856
Top