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.
#290001: Sep 13th 2019 at 12:01:11 PM

Stockholm syndrome is a condition which causes hostages to develop a psychological alliance with their captors during captivity.

So yes, being a captive is a requirement.

USA citizens are not captives of the USA.

Edited by M84 on Sep 14th 2019 at 3:03:15 AM

Disgusted, but not surprised
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#290002: Sep 13th 2019 at 12:01:51 PM

I thought it was. I've always known Stockholm Syndrome as "sympathizing with your captors/abductors"

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
#290003: Sep 13th 2019 at 12:04:22 PM

Right, but them wanting to leaving is irrelevant. Actually, I think the desire to leave is actually a point against Stockholm Syndrome being the case.

I agree that being a captive is a requirement. I never said otherwise. However, "being a captive" is not the same as "seeing yourself as a captive".

Or am I just thinking of a different syndrome, and getting the names swapped in my head?

Edited by ShinyCottonCandy on Sep 13th 2019 at 3:07:15 PM

My musician page
Larkmarn Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Hello, I love you
#290004: Sep 13th 2019 at 12:23:06 PM

Yeah, the "captive" is a pretty major part of Stockholm Syndrome.

Really, the thing at play here is plain ol' inertia. Change is hard and scary.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#290005: Sep 13th 2019 at 12:25:18 PM

To be fair, I think it can be used hyperbolically in some situations to describe a person in a bad situation adamantly refusing to realize it. I wouldn't say the American public is Stockholmed, however.

Leviticus 19:34
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
#290006: Sep 13th 2019 at 12:27:31 PM

I still consider captivity to include being captives of the idea that the way things are is a good thing, but perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree. My cynicism is bleeding through.

My musician page
ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#290007: Sep 13th 2019 at 1:33:58 PM

The more applicable trope is by far Appeal to Tradition - Stockholm Syndrome has an entirely different connotation.

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
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
#290008: Sep 13th 2019 at 1:38:24 PM

IMO, buying into the Appeal to Tradition is not functionally any better than developing Stockholm Syndrome while physically captive, but that's probably a "me" problem.

My musician page
Imca (Veteran)
#290009: Sep 13th 2019 at 1:51:00 PM

1st, your implying that every one agianst its torching doesnt know any different when someone us supporting its remaining arent Amercian natives.

2nd

And ideally, the lawmaking process should actually be able to, you know, make laws. Especially ones that might be contested more than "Kicking puppies is now illegal".

The problem is that one party wants to do that, the other party ... which WILL return to power one day, and in fact has it now wants to pass laws that mandate you kick every puppy you see until its dead.

Us who suport it remaining in the table aren't agianst quicker action for the democrats, were opposed to removing one of the final checks the Republicans have on there power to do things like literaly put children in concentration camps.

Edited by Imca on Sep 13th 2019 at 1:51:18 AM

Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#290010: Sep 13th 2019 at 1:57:40 PM

The problem is that one party wants to do that, the other party ... which WILL return to power one day, and in fact has it now wants to pass laws that mandate you kick every puppy you see until its dead.

Us who suport it remaining in the table aren't agianst quicker action for the democrats, were opposed to removing one of the final checks the Republicans have on there power to do things like literaly put children in concentration camps.

Yes, and if they do that then they'll get voted out of office.

Fundamentally, allowing greater harm to happen because you're afraid of Republicans causing lesser harm will never not be a losing proposition.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
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
#290011: Sep 13th 2019 at 2:02:01 PM

True, I did forget to mention one important factor in my desire to remove the filibuster: it's removal would have to begin a process that would rapidly eliminate any chance of the republican party taking power ever again, in their current form at least, by overhauling the election system to be fair and secure. And admittedly, I can't say the democratic party, at least in their current form, is capable of organizing that type of coordinated assault well enough that it's worth the risk. Though I will say that the other benefits from removing the filibuster are, in my mind, worth it.

Edited by ShinyCottonCandy on Sep 13th 2019 at 5:03:00 AM

My musician page
PhysicalStamina i'm tired, my friend (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
i'm tired, my friend
#290012: Sep 13th 2019 at 2:10:15 PM

I'm with Spartan on this. How long are we gonna let Republicans bully us into non-action or insufficient action?

i'm tired, my friend
Imca (Veteran)
#290013: Sep 13th 2019 at 2:12:30 PM

That assumes the avrage voter is a good person, and that the Republicans doing things will upset them into voting them out.

Bluntly they are not, and they won't.

Trump made no qualms about being a sexist, racist asshole... he won the office (even on a technicality he was still within 2%) because that many voters agreed with his message.

They weren't stupid, they werent duped, that crap is exactly what they want..

Oh and trumps technicality? It applies to Senate in a way that election reform cant fix, because the problem of states being disproportionate in power is intrinsic to senate.

The worst mistake a political party can make is to assume they will be the ones in power forever.

Edited by Imca on Sep 13th 2019 at 2:14:34 AM

Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#290014: Sep 13th 2019 at 2:14:41 PM

True, I did forget to mention one important factor in my desire to remove the filibuster: it's removal would have to begin a process that would rapidly eliminate any chance of the republican party taking power ever again, in their current form at least, by overhauling the election system to be fair and secure. And admittedly, I can't say the democratic party, at least in their current form, is capable of organizing that type of coordinated assault well enough that it's worth the risk. Though I will say that the other benefits from removing the filibuster are, in my mind, worth it.

Considering the Democratic Party's strong support for electoral reform I do not see how they would prove inadequate.

That assumes the avrage voter is a good person, and that the Republicans doing things will upset them into voting them out.

Bluntly they are not, and they won't.

Trump made no qualms about being a sexist, racist asshole... he won the office (even on a technicality he was still within 2%) because that many voters agreed with his message.

They weren't stupid, they werent duped, that crap is exactly what they want..

Oh and trumps technicality? It applies to Senate in a way that election reform cant fix, because the problem of states being disproportionate in power is intrinsic to senate.

The worst mistake a political party can make is to assume they will be the ones in power forever.

If the average voter is a bad person we're fucked either way so we might as well remove the filibuster and do what we can.

But frankly, this is nonsense, Republican policy is highly unpopular. The idea that a majority of the electorate approves of them and wouldn't mind their policy is entirely unfounded.

If Republicans take away people's healthcare, or slash standards, or do any of the other things they do when given power people will oppose them. Furthermore, that disproportionate nature of the Senate is made far worse by the filibuster. We're the ones who are actually advocating for things getting better.

You have entirely failed to engage with the cost of leaving the filibuster in place. How is doing nothing to stop Climate Change possibly worth it?

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Sep 13th 2019 at 2:19:39 AM

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#290015: Sep 13th 2019 at 2:15:52 PM

"were opposed to removing one of the final checks the Republicans have on there power to do things like literaly put children in concentration camps."

I feel like this argument is out of date now.

Imca (Veteran)
#290016: Sep 13th 2019 at 2:25:20 PM

[up] How it's still going on, the news just moved on because Trumps shittyness is like a bed of nails.

No nail is going to puncture through unless pressure is applied to one, and TBH that's the most damning thing this administration has done that is easily pointed too.

Edited by Imca on Sep 13th 2019 at 2:26:38 AM

Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#290017: Sep 13th 2019 at 2:36:53 PM

Maybe I'm misreading what you said. Is the quoted section in my last post saying that the filibuster should be kept because it prevents Republicans from putting children in concentration camps?

Imca (Veteran)
#290018: Sep 13th 2019 at 2:40:41 PM

It stalls them out, and prevents other things like it from happening, it doesnt catch every thing, just like it wont stop us from doing every thing (if it was going too do that it would have also stoped this since the republicians dont have a filibuster proof majority)

Its basicly a vital peice of damage control that stops a party with nothing but malicious intent from ramming every single thing they want through.

And it does do that, just look at how often Cocaine Mitch has to defend it from his own party as well.

Edited by Imca on Sep 13th 2019 at 2:41:15 AM

Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#290019: Sep 13th 2019 at 2:43:57 PM

It stalls them out, and prevents other things like it from happening, it doesnt catch every thing, just like it wont stop us from doing every thing (if it was going too it would have also stoped this since the republicians dont have a filibuster proof majority)

Its basicly a vital peice of damage control that stops a party with nothing but malicious intent from ramming every single thing they want through.

And it does do that, just look at how often Cocaine Mitch has to defend it from his own party as well.

Ok, this is objectively wrong.

The most we will have in 2020 will be a majority, ergo as long as the filibuster exists absolutely nothing will get done. Because we'd need Republican Senators to defect and they've clearly shown in the Obama years how likely that is.

Republicans would have absolutely no problem removing the filibuster if they felt like it benefited them, but they don't because they understand that change being obstructed and government not being able to do anything is good for them but very bad for us.

I repeat, either we spend many more years doing absolutely nothing to stop climate change or we abolish the filibuster. I cannot imagine how the former is more acceptable then Republicans being able to pass stuff in the future.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Sep 13th 2019 at 2:44:26 AM

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
Imca (Veteran)
#290020: Sep 13th 2019 at 2:54:08 PM

Because the stuff they pass in the future will just undo every thing we accomplish, and agian the republicians dont have a filibuster proof majority and are doing things, which means we can to.

But not only will they undo it, they will make it worse... any climate change bills will be scraped to allow things like open strip mining, any healthcare reform will be rolled back to pre-Obama, and things like LGBT rights will be utterly torpedoed with shit like nation wide bathroom bills... with absolutely no way to stop it, because enough people agree with this crap, and are distributed properly enough that to the republicians will keep coming back to senate.

It doesnt mater if you get 8 years of action and repair, if the next guy comes in and imediatly bulldozes it with 16 years worth of damage.

Edited by Imca on Sep 13th 2019 at 2:55:07 AM

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
#290021: Sep 13th 2019 at 3:01:50 PM

the republicians dont have a filibuster proof majority and are doing things, which means we can to.

The filibuster is currently set up such that you can’t use it to block all Republican policy but can use it to block all democrat policy, it’s effectively a rule saying “republicans can only pass the occasional things and democrats can never pass anything”, that’s a key part of why keeping it as is is insane.

Also you’re ignoring the real risk that to scrapping the filibuster will give republicans a filibuster proof majority, if democrats win in 2020 and final to pass a single key policy they’re going to be hurt massively come 2022 and 2024.

Doing nothing isn’t an option.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#290022: Sep 13th 2019 at 3:06:51 PM

Because the stuff they pass in the future will just undo every thing we accomplish, and agian the republicians dont have a filibuster proof majority and are doing things, which means we can to.

But not only will they undo it, they will make it worse... any climate change bills will be scraped to allow things like open strip mining, any healthcare reform will be rolled back to pre-Obama, and things like LGBT rights will be utterly torpedoed with shit like nation wide bathroom bills... with absolutely no way to stop it, because enough people agree with this crap, and are distributed properly enough that to the republicians will keep coming back to senate.

It doesnt mater if you get 8 years of action and repair, if the next guy comes in and imediatly bulldozes it with 16 years worth of damage.

This assumes that the Republicans will face zero backlash for pushing unpopular policy, which is utterly ridiculous.

That's not how politics works, there's a reason that the ACA is still around. And not because of the filibuster. Pushing unpopular policy is fundamentally dangerous and the Republicans know it, they'll still try to sabotage it but if they did what you're suggesting they'd get face serious trouble in the next election.

Fundamentally you are saying that it's fine to not accomplish anything and let Climate Change ravage humanity, just because you're afraid of Republicans causing damage. The irony is breathtaking.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Sep 13th 2019 at 3:07:05 AM

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#290023: Sep 13th 2019 at 3:11:23 PM

The things we did do with the filibuster intact are the things the Republicans are now rolling back. The filibuster hasn't kept any of those executive orders or programs safe. The only nominally safe things are the laws since the House won't approve destroying those.

Fighteer MOD Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#290024: Sep 13th 2019 at 3:23:35 PM

Folks, we've had this filibuster argument before and it always turns into an interminable back-and-forth with no resolution and hurt feelings. Just drop it.

"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!
(•̀⤙•́)
#290025: Sep 13th 2019 at 3:28:49 PM

Yes, and if they do that then they'll get voted out of office.

Fundamentally, allowing greater harm to happen because you're afraid of Republicans causing lesser harm will never not be a losing proposition.

Uh.

Between the two options

  1. Having to bitterly fight with a tug-of-war rope to create very small amounts of change one way or the other.
  2. 8 years of free unchecked reign to pass whatever laws we want with no limitations. Then, when the wheel rotates, handing the checkbook to White Supremacists and literal Nazis and telling them that the next 8 years are their turn to pass whatever laws they want with no limitations.

The latter seems like the option with greater potential for harm. Eliminating the filibuster is a high-risk high-reward gamble, as increasing the level of power of a given electoral body always is. It's a GREAT idea right up until the next Republican majority comes along, which will happen.

If your plan relies on the idea that voters will never vote for Republicans again and Democrats will simply remain in office forever, then that's a flawed plan.

Edited by TobiasDrake on Sep 13th 2019 at 4:30:16 AM

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.

Total posts: 417,856
Top