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

AlleyOop Since: Oct, 2010
#324676: Aug 21st 2020 at 1:39:50 PM

I looked up Rose Mcgowan's supposed Trump support and found this article where she claims that she's not a Trump supporter, just anti-US in general, but in spite of her comments about not being a pro-Republican, she's apparently an officially registered Republican anyway. And that's on top of her history of TERF statements which she supposedly walked back but which others have expressed doubt in her sincerity over.

Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#324677: Aug 21st 2020 at 1:43:04 PM

I realize this will revive a dead discussion but I just have to, Pelosi has explained her reasoning for supporting Kennedy over Markey. And it's a doozy.

Apparently the reason is that Markey "crossed hallowed ground" in his 'attack' on the Kennedy Clan.

This... is incredible. Either Pelosi is a liar with an extremely poor choice of lie or she seriously thinks that Lese majeste is a terrible electoral sin. Either way, this is ridiculous and I think firmly vindicates my anger.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
3of4 Just a harmless giant from a foreign land. from Five Seconds in the Future. Since: Jan, 2010 Relationship Status: GAR for Archer
Just a harmless giant from a foreign land.
#324678: Aug 21st 2020 at 1:45:29 PM

I'm sorry I got distracted by her asking Iran not to invade the US but she's - according to the article - also being found with cocaine in her wallet and given the erratic nature of her statements I'll draw my conclusions and ignore her.

"You can reply to this Message!"
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#324679: Aug 21st 2020 at 1:46:11 PM

Yeah, she sounds like a deeply kooky person.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
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
#324680: Aug 21st 2020 at 1:53:42 PM

Yeah that shows a serious lack of professionalism on Pelosi’s part, she decided to break tradition and use her position as speaker to try and oust an incumbent senator, because he criticised the “ask what you can do for your country” line?

That level of veneration, it’s not healthy.

If Republican leadership moved to oust one of their own for criticising a Reagan line, we’d be beside ourself with laughter at how cult-like such behaviour was.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
3of4 Just a harmless giant from a foreign land. from Five Seconds in the Future. Since: Jan, 2010 Relationship Status: GAR for Archer
Just a harmless giant from a foreign land.
#324681: Aug 21st 2020 at 1:56:02 PM

While I generally don't care that much, I note that the Wapo article said Pelosi is close to the Kennedy's and has been involved with them for a long time, so it's not just lese majeste but probably also on some level personal.

"You can reply to this Message!"
TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#324682: Aug 21st 2020 at 1:56:30 PM

Yeah, people spent centuries talking about how politicians are all dishonest liars and then are surprised when a dishonest liar gets into power.

It's because people don't realize that "all politicians are liars" isn't actually true. The conventional wisdom is 100% right-wing propaganda. It sounds good to centrists and bothsiders, who propagate it on conservatives' behalf because it makes their refusal to actually become educated about the two parties and take a side look wise and meaningful. But it's propaganda nonetheless.

See, the thing about "all politicians are liars" is that it disproportionately benefits conservative philosophy. The right is all about self-interest, and are convinced that everyone else is too. Saying whatever benefits them in the moment is standard operating practice. In fact, many of the right-wingers who push this idea actually believe it, because the right cannot comprehend the idea that an altruistic motive, goal, or policy would exist if the person advancing it didn't plan to get something out of it.

It benefits the right because the right is comfortable with it. A right-winger hears that and they're okay with that. It suits their worldview. They know their guy is lying to them or, at least, they expect it. They believe he's saying whatever he thinks will get elected. In 2016, one of the narratives passed around about Trump was that he's just talking down to the lowest common denominator with his rhetoric; that once he takes office, he'll step right into the role of President without missing a beat.

Part of the reason QAnon became popular is because many Conservatives to this day desperately need to believe that Trump's dumbass statements, ridiculous Tweets, and generally embarrassing demeanor are all lies. On an emotional level, they need him to be a facade, disguising a cunning and calculating manipulator who's playing us all for fools. The alternative is to admit they were wrong, not just about Trump but about the entire idea that every politician, Trump included, is just "playing the game".

So the Right propagates this idea. And the centrists propagate this idea, because it justifies their intellectual laziness. But the Left chafes under it. Because here's the thing: the Left is genuinely trying to improve this country for the myriad people that live in it. Leftists may not agree on what the most important issue is or on the best path to get there, but most Leftists have at least one cause they're passionate about, and it's something that needs people passionate about it pursuing change.

The Left is trying to repair a system that has been sorely insufficient from the beginning, by design. The Left needs the faith of the voters. When Leftists internalize, "All politicians are liars," they lose that faith. If all politicians are liars, why believe that a politician is going to fight for my cause? Why believe they care about my rights? Why believe anything they say, any promise they make? They're a liar.

If all politicians are liars, then why should I vote?

The demonization of politicians plays a heavy role in the apathy of left-leaning voters. It rolls off a right-winger's back because it meshes with their worldview, but it strongly discourages left-wingers from putting in the necessary effort. And when leftists don't vote, the necessary changes don't happen.

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
#324683: Aug 21st 2020 at 1:57:42 PM

nvm

Edited by PhysicalStamina on Aug 21st 2020 at 5:01:09 AM

i'm tired, my friend
3of4 Just a harmless giant from a foreign land. from Five Seconds in the Future. Since: Jan, 2010 Relationship Status: GAR for Archer
Just a harmless giant from a foreign land.
#324684: Aug 21st 2020 at 1:58:59 PM

At the tail end.

In 2019, she pled “no contest” to a misdemeanor drug charge related to being found with cocaine in her wallet at the Dulles International Airport. She got a $2,500 fine and a suspended jail sentence.

"You can reply to this Message!"
PhysicalStamina i'm tired, my friend (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
i'm tired, my friend
#324685: Aug 21st 2020 at 2:00:58 PM

Wait nvm, I think we were talking about different articles

i'm tired, my friend
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#324686: Aug 21st 2020 at 2:45:06 PM

Regarding the point about deficits and that comment by a Biden advisor a few pages back, the amount of stimulus injected into the global economy in the course of the COVID-19 pandemic is enormous, totally unprecedented. It's very clear that modern economies had a LOT more room to absorb economic stimulus than previously thought, but there is almost certainly still a limit beyond which the economy will start overheating, especially when you talk about direct to consumer stimulus packages that don't reduce liquidity like quantitative easing does. currently lockdowns are preventing the huge glut of cash from causing inflation, but the pandemic will eventually end, either because a vaccine has been successfully deployed or because SARS-CoV-2 has become an endemic disease, and at that point the economic consequences of of fiscal stimulus will manifest. If inflation starts rising sharply as lockdowns start coming to an end, then yes, Biden's presidency is going to be limited in terms of how much deficit spending can safely engage in, and it's unlikely the administration will have the necessary political capital for broad tax increases.

Edited by CaptainCapsase on Aug 21st 2020 at 6:09:44 AM

Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#324687: Aug 21st 2020 at 3:17:10 PM

The problem is that there absolutely no reason to assume that our economy is near capacity, per the article Japan's ratio of debt to GDP is 250% almost twice the rate of the US and they're doing fine. It is completely irrational to worry about an unlikely potential problem when we have very real actual problems barreling down on us.

Not to mention that the solution to that is "tax the wealthy and corporations more", not refuse to address the systemic issues which are harming (and are going to harm) our society.

Calling for austerity now is morally abhorrent and intellectually incoherent, it's lunacy.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 21st 2020 at 3:17:52 AM

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#324688: Aug 21st 2020 at 3:21:07 PM

Pelosi is an 80 year old Democrat. Kennedy's presidency was presumably defining for her- and then RFK's death years later. Ted Kennedy was close to a lot of Democrats. It might genuinely have upset her that Markey went that route.

That and Kennedy is a House Dem. Pelosi is very protective of her caucus

Edited by Lightysnake on Aug 21st 2020 at 3:21:22 AM

Imca (Veteran)
#324689: Aug 21st 2020 at 3:41:24 PM

To be fair to carpace even though I would agree with your overall point spartan.... The Japanese economy is not exactly something you would want to emulate, its pretty.... unwell on the whole actualy living there side of things.

DingoWalley1 Asgore Adopts Noelle Since: Feb, 2014 Relationship Status: Can't buy me love
Asgore Adopts Noelle
#324690: Aug 21st 2020 at 3:52:33 PM

The 2nd Circuit Court Will Not delay a lower Courts ruling that Trump must hand over Tax Returns to Manhattan Investigators. The only Court left that can is the Supreme Court, and the odds are low they will.

Soon, the State of New York will have Trump's Tax information.

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#324691: Aug 21st 2020 at 4:00:48 PM

Not to mention that the solution to that is "tax the wealthy and corporations more", not refuse to address the systemic issues which are harming (and are going to harm) our society.

Calling for austerity now is morally abhorrent and intellectually incoherent, it's lunacy.

Taxing the wealthy for all their assets won't provide even close to enough funding for major spending programs, and isn't remotely sustainable. It's a nice thought, and could certainly be part of the solution, but at the end of the day paying for new spending programs with tax increases will involve substantial tax hikes on the middle and lower classes of society, which are about as politically toxic as austerity policies. The theoretical case for point "tax the wealty" isn't the extra tax revenue, it's about reducing wealth inequality, though I have very little confidence that a politically feasible policy regime would do more than slightly bend the current trajectory.


There is of course the option of pushing forwards with deficit spending and damn the torpedoes, but especially when you don't take measures to constrain liquidity that results in inflation; deliberately inflating away the deficit is actually an option, but it happens to be something that's politically toxic to older and wealthier voters with substantial assets who stand to lose in that situation, two cohorts that are among the most dependable voting blocs, and would also require a complete regime changes at the Federal Reserve for that to be feasible.


The path of least resistance, and thus the most likely outcome to me seems to be a bunch of half measures that amount to little to nothing in the grand scheme of things.

It is completely irrational to worry about an unlikely potential problem when we have very real actual problems barreling down on us.

There are certain unavoidable economic realities we have to contend with that are no less real than the biological realities of the pandemic. An increase in money supply without decreases in liquidity causes inflation in the long run. The current spending regime is increasing the money supply, and while the COVID-19 lockdowns are keeping the velocity of that money down, that won't last forever.

Edited by CaptainCapsase on Aug 21st 2020 at 8:18:58 AM

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#324692: Aug 21st 2020 at 4:11:57 PM

Taxing the wealthy for all their assets won't provide even close to enough funding for major spending programs.
Uh, just the tax cuts Trump got for the wealthy a few years ago cost 2.3 trillion (not billion) over ten years. So even just returning to pre-Trump tax levels would fund a lot. Actually raising the taxes would, of course, do even more.

You're repeating right-wing talking points, you're just justifying it with bad math instead of bad ideology.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#324693: Aug 21st 2020 at 4:19:13 PM

[up] Trump's tax cuts strongly favored the wealthy. They weren't exclusively tax cuts for the wealthy, that's a left wing talking point. That they were an incredibly ill-advised bit of policy doesn't change the fact that reversing them means increasing basically everyone's taxes, which is politically toxic, though probably doable given how unpopular Trump is and how effective the democrats have been at focusing public attention on the clear favoritism towards wealthy taxpayers over the comparatively small tax cuts given to median voters. A big ticket spending plan meanwhile over the same time scale (10 years) like Medicare For All calls for tax increases of between 30-40 trillion dollars. Yes, people won't be paying healthcare premiums, but a significant amount of people in the middle class will end up paying more for healthcare in order to subsidize the previously uninsured/underinsured parts of the population who cannot afford quality healthcare.


On the whole it's a good policy but there are always tradeoffs in economics and policymaking*, I'm just being frank about them and about the political challenges they present. I don't see the kind of mass societal mobilization that would be necessary to overcome the political roadblocks, just the same impasse the United States and the better part of the western world has been stuck in for at least a decade, so I'm keeping my expectations low.

* Which fits given both involve the allocation of scarce resources.

Edited by CaptainCapsase on Aug 21st 2020 at 7:30:05 AM

RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#324694: Aug 21st 2020 at 4:30:48 PM

Why are we talking about economics as if it's a household budget again where we need to balance things out? Start worrying about the debt when there isn't a clear and present need for government action on various points. Anyway, haven't we had this discussion a dozen times on the Economics thread?

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#324695: Aug 21st 2020 at 4:34:01 PM

[up] I am not talking about economics as if it's a household budget, I am talking about the kind of economic constraints that nation states deal with, and especially the political constraints. Large scale deficit spending with the intent of inflating away the current debt is an option that is theoretically available to the government of the United States, which I mentioned. It's politically untenable, given the major nuts and bolt policy changes would be necessary with regards to the Federal Reserve and the larger bureaucracy to do that.

RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#324696: Aug 21st 2020 at 4:37:00 PM

I don't know, it all looks the same when the discussion starts going into "and this can be paid for by [x]".

Anyway:

but a significant amount of people in the middle class will end up paying more for healthcare in order to subsidize the previously uninsured/underinsured parts of the population who cannot afford quality healthcare.

I'd want to find citation for that one given the frankly absurd costs that seem to come up with insurance that even remotely functions without a laundry list of out-of-pocket expenses and traps where the insurance won't cover it.

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#324697: Aug 21st 2020 at 4:46:35 PM

Honestly, this entire conversation reeks of concern trolling. "I agree with your goals, but they're not realistically feasible because [right-wing talking points]. I agree that things are bad, but any attempt to improve things will inevitably make them worse, therefore sticking to the status quo is our best option."

In short, fuck that noise. Arguments that progress is impossible so we should just give up without trying are literally not worth engaging with.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#324698: Aug 21st 2020 at 4:48:21 PM

[up][up] You can start with some of the references in this report (https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3106.html); the tl;dr that overall annual healthcare spending under MFA increases by ~1 trillion/decade. That's not actually that bad, but there's no way to cut MFA where it's a revenue positive policy. It also creates a 30-40 trillion dollar hole in the budget that needs to be filled with tax increases, and about 20% of the population will end up paying more, concentrated in the upper quintile but that's not just millionaires and billionaires.


The margins in congress may or may not be there.


[down] Edited my post. One of those sources includes an estimated breakdown by income in terms of real healthcare expenditures; it's fairly neutral for the median voter, distinctly positive for the poor, and negative for people making >120k or so. Let me find the specific chart.

Edited by CaptainCapsase on Aug 21st 2020 at 7:54:06 AM

RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#324699: Aug 21st 2020 at 4:52:01 PM

I'm not reading the references in a selected report to find the source to your claim that the middle class will pay more in taxation than they do in healthcare now. Particularly if we consider any particulars and like-for-like comparisons, e.g. not having to deal with the absurdity of out of network costs.

[up] If it's only negative for those making 120k or more, then I don't think it's fair to claim that the middle class is paying more. That's the top quintile, isn't it? tongue

Edited by RainehDaze on Aug 21st 2020 at 12:55:23 PM

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#324700: Aug 21st 2020 at 4:58:34 PM

[up] It's not the 1%, that's for sure. That's still (upper) middle class; someone like a successful plumber, electrician, or various professionals, people who still need to work for a living, and more to the point a large enough slice of the population that losing significant support to the GOP would be politically problematic.

edit: here's the breakdown I was thinking of. It's actually specific to New York state, and given the high income per capita in NYS and the high wealth inequality the break even point is probably lower in many other regions of the country; in the NYS case it's actually the top decile that starts paying more, which is more towards the point where it's politically viable.

MFA on a national scale is less clear cut however

Edited by CaptainCapsase on Aug 21st 2020 at 8:12:01 AM


Total posts: 417,856
Top