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

Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#327201: Sep 15th 2020 at 5:52:39 AM

As for the amount of coverage on Biden's gaffe, I think that could also be an eagerness of many of their journalists to write about that particular story, basically covering the same ground several times over. They could indeed be more selective in how many of basically the same reporting they publish.

Also, the Black Lives Matter protests may have influenced how much coverage that story got. The topic of racism is very high on the agenda right now, and Biden making a racist gaffe would naturally attract a lot of attention under the circumstances.

[up] As you can tell, good journalism is quite the tightrope to walk.

Edited by Redmess on Sep 15th 2020 at 3:09:01 PM

Hope shines brightest in the darkest times
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
#327202: Sep 15th 2020 at 6:14:22 AM

The problem isn’t that CNN covers Democrat scandals, it’s that they treat non-equivalent ones as equivalent to Republican scandals, purely because they are done by Democrats.

CNN has the same issue the BBC has, it cares more about appearing unbiased than providing people with accurate information. I’m pretty sure they’ve both done the exact same thing with climate change, where they treat climate change denial as equally valid as actual science. That’s how you’d get panels of one climate change denying ‘scientist’ arguing with one actual climate scientist, despite the scientific community overwhelmingly backing actual climate scientists.

Vetting who you let on air isn’t censorship, it’s basic journalism, the point of the media isn’t to give random assholes a platform, it’s to inform the public. When they give a platform to known liars they are abdicating their journalistic responsibility.

Edited by Silasw on Sep 15th 2020 at 1:15:31 PM

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#327203: Sep 15th 2020 at 6:14:22 AM

And nothing of value was lost?

I'd rather have their voters vote Green than vote Trump out of spite.

And yes, they'd rather vote Trump than Biden, or they'd be voting Biden.

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
#327204: Sep 15th 2020 at 6:18:17 AM

I think you overestimate the amount of thought that goes into such people casting their votes.

I’d expect them to vote Libertarian honestly, third-party voting in the US is more about allowing oneself to not feel responsible for events than actually pushing for any specific ideas.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
tclittle Professional Forum Ninja from Somewhere Down in Texas Since: Apr, 2010
Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#327206: Sep 15th 2020 at 6:24:30 AM

[up][up][up][up] I agree, and I think that is a wider problem with modern day journalism: the idea that everyone should have their opinion heard. It is the same basic issue with "man on the street" reporting.

Edited by Redmess on Sep 15th 2020 at 3:24:52 PM

Hope shines brightest in the darkest times
nova92 Since: Apr, 2020
#327207: Sep 15th 2020 at 6:25:35 AM

[up][up] Well the choice wasn't that hard. Between a person who believes in science and one who... doesn't.

Edited by nova92 on Sep 15th 2020 at 6:25:44 AM

Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#327208: Sep 15th 2020 at 6:29:17 AM

While SA endorsing Biden may be a nice morale boost, I think I'd rather have them stick to science coverage without getting overly political.

Endorse good scientific policy, not any particular candidate.

Hope shines brightest in the darkest times
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#327209: Sep 15th 2020 at 6:31:51 AM

[up][up]Yep, they're doing this not because of "politics" (not that it would be a bad thing per se) but because they care about science (obviously).

Trump is one of the most anti-intellectual Presidents we've ever had and has done a lot to encourage people to not trust science. Which would be bad enough under normal circumstances, and even worse since we're in a fucking pandemic.

Edited by M84 on Sep 15th 2020 at 9:33:06 PM

Disgusted, but not surprised
RedSavant Since: Jan, 2001
#327210: Sep 15th 2020 at 6:36:58 AM

When only one candidate is supporting scientific policy by any definition, there is no "don't be political" argument to be made.

It's been fun.
Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#327211: Sep 15th 2020 at 6:38:17 AM

[up] That's true. I guess it speaks to just how bad things are that they feel they need to now.

Man, things must be real bad when this magazine didn't even get political over eugenics way back when.

Edited by Redmess on Sep 15th 2020 at 3:39:17 PM

Hope shines brightest in the darkest times
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#327212: Sep 15th 2020 at 6:39:49 AM

NVM

Edited by M84 on Sep 15th 2020 at 9:44:45 PM

Disgusted, but not surprised
Steven (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
#327213: Sep 15th 2020 at 6:40:30 AM

Hard to endorse scientific policy when you got a current president actively trying to sabotage it. Of course they are gonna be open with supporting Biden.

Remember, these idiots drive, fuck, and vote. Not always in that order.
Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#327214: Sep 15th 2020 at 6:41:35 AM

Then again, eugenics was the hot new science back then, so maybe better not...

Eugenics is basically the failure of science. I shudder to think what kind of articles Scientific American was writing about it back then...

Hope shines brightest in the darkest times
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#327215: Sep 15th 2020 at 6:49:28 AM

Scientific American's failing concerning eugenics back in the days was that they weren't "political" enough. They treated it as a "bothsides" issue rather than treat it as the dangerous pseudoscience that it was.

Scientific American: Reckoning with Our Mistakes

Scientific American also covered eugenics extensively. The intellectual roots of eugenics sought to improve the human species through breeding. Long before it became the obsession of the Nazi regime, the bias along racial and class lines had become apparent—yet we continued covering eugenics neutrally rather than critically. With the proliferation of both-sides-ism, we allowed contributors to hide racist political agendas under the guise of science. Articles written against eugenics were often labeled “the opposition.”

Even after a staff writer argued, in 1932, that a lack of knowledge in genetics and environmental influences and unreliable intelligence tests meant that eugenicists were misleading “the fallacy-ridden human race,” articles promoting eugenics as scientific consensus continued to appear in the magazine. In 1933 a neo-Malthusian promoted birth control but only to prevent the reproduction of “defectives.” (The two accompanying photographs are a crowd of people in what looks like a bread line next to a cluster of caged guinea pigs.) The following year the president of the Human Betterment Foundation wrote that the “trend toward race degeneracy is evident in statistics so well known that they need not here be rehearsed.” (A pull quote from the article features “the famous Viennese surgeon” Adolf Lorenz asserting that eugenic sterilization “eventually will come to all civilized countries as a means of getting rid of the scum of humanity.”) In 1935 an article was ominously entitled “The Oddest Thing about the Jews.”

We are not saying the magazine should have ignored the topic of “human betterment”—it was part of the zeitgeist and its false ideas about genetic inferiority attached to race, ethnicity and class needed to be debunked. But the same editors who recognized that eugenics was a dangerous pseudoscience should not have given eugenicists a platform at all.

Edited by M84 on Sep 15th 2020 at 9:51:32 PM

Disgusted, but not surprised
TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#327216: Sep 15th 2020 at 8:50:50 AM

Yeah, adding on to what others were saying, CNN isn't Liberal Fox News. Conservatives just think it is, because they're so drunk on the kool-aid that saying something like "Forcibly sterilizing Mexican women in concentration camps is bad" sounds like an EXTREMIST FAR-LEFT RADICAL OPINION to them.

CNN, as noted, is an unapologetic bothsider. They're on the side of keeping people coming back in, day after day, by manufacturing centrism. This benefits the right far more than the left, as they go out of their way to over-embellish Democrats' minor foibles in order to convince the public that they're in the same ball park as Republican atrocities.

If you're looking for some kind of Liberal Fox News, you'd be looking more towards the comedy news sites such as Colbert, Trevor Noah, or this guy.

People with a very clear and unapologetic bias towards the left, who spend as much time making the case for why we are right and the Republicans are wrong as they do actually reporting the events that happened. But none of them, not even that feral hog guy above (who is actually doing a running joke about wild boars and fear-mongering), are anywhere near the agenda-driven depths of delusion that Most Watched Propaganda Machine constantly churns out, nor do they claim any pretense of being Legitimate News Sources (TM).

For actual news sources like CNN, WaPo, and New York Times, their main problem is not being willing to call a Nazi a Nazi because they want people to come back each day for clarification on whether or not that person's a Nazi, and whether it's possible that their rival may in fact be the Nazi.

That and speculative news. Oh my god, I am so over speculative news. "There MIGHT be a bill in Congress soon MAYBE." "We're seeing signs that this person may turn on Trump." "Someone wrote a letter opposing Trump; could it be THIS guy?" "Who is next to be arrested in the investigation? We're looking at these people!" "Could Trump be signaling a possible new horrible action? This thing he said suggests he might be."

Speculative news is what burns people out on controversies.

Edited by TobiasDrake on Sep 15th 2020 at 8:52:52 AM

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#327217: Sep 15th 2020 at 8:52:19 AM

You have to take into account that for a long time it was considered actual science, practised by serious scientists (and philosophers, for that matter). The problem was that while many of these scientists took the subject very seriously, few actually questioned the underlying assumptions. Pseudoscience can look convincing when you accept faulty underlying assumptions. The article you quote is from later, when these assumptions were already being questioned. Half a century earlier these ideas would have been much more widely accepted. Phrenology is another example of pseudoscience taken seriously because underlying assumptions were not questioned (in this case, that skull shape is related to personality and intelligence).

For a less politically fraught example, astrology is also such a pseudoscience based on faulty assumptions and limited information. Had Scientific American existed back then, they would have had many articles on celestial spheres, the hierarchy of nature, and the influence of planets.

[up] I'm not sure that is entirely fair, Colbert and Noah have no problem making fun of Biden or Democrats in general. It's just that Trump is such a big, irresistible target. Though admittedly I don't know what they're like under a more normal presidency.

I also find it rather telling that the best impression Colbert could come up with was putting on a pair of sunglasses. Talk about a Stealth Insult.

As for the fear of degeneracy, you can chalk that up to the 19th century and the rise of Darwinism. People did not react well to realizing that humans were not exempt from evolution.

Edited by Redmess on Sep 15th 2020 at 6:06:06 PM

Hope shines brightest in the darkest times
FluffyMcChicken My Hair Provides Affordable Healthcare from where the floating lights gleam Since: Jun, 2014 Relationship Status: In another castle
My Hair Provides Affordable Healthcare
#327218: Sep 15th 2020 at 9:05:49 AM

Foreign policy wise, CNN is surprisingly the most friendly of all American news outlets (besides right-wing sources like Fox) to harder stances against China, especially in presenting Taiwan positively to its massive audience.

CNN is so friendly to Taiwan that its given air time to:

Edited by FluffyMcChicken on Sep 15th 2020 at 9:07:24 AM

Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#327219: Sep 15th 2020 at 9:08:32 AM

Perhaps that is because part of CNN is geared towards a more international audience? They do strive to be an international news network, rather than strictly US, so it makes sense that they don't always follow the Democratic party line. Which is a good thing, by the way. I don't think news networks should be adhering to any particular political party. That's why it is called independent journalism, after all.

Hope shines brightest in the darkest times
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#327220: Sep 15th 2020 at 9:09:22 AM

Fundamentally, I believe that it is the job of news media to take a stance on what is actually true, using reliable experts to make that determination. News media should not adopt a "what is YOUR opinion" stance where they present "both sides of an argument" and leave it up to their viewers to form an opinion.

If taking a stance on truth means that one is left of center, that is a statement on where the center is, not on the bias of the media.

Edited by Fighteer on Sep 15th 2020 at 12:09:52 PM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#327221: Sep 15th 2020 at 9:22:06 AM

[up] [awesome]

Hope shines brightest in the darkest times
Resileafs I actually wanted to be Resileaf Since: Jan, 2019
I actually wanted to be Resileaf
#327222: Sep 15th 2020 at 9:25:27 AM

I don't think it's really fair to call the likes of Colbert or Trevor Noah as left news reporters when their job is to be comedians and make people laugh. It's just that there are so few reputable news source anymore that people go to those comedians to get news because they're trusted to at least tell true things during their shows.

And to their credit, I think those comedians have realized this and attempt to give the proper screen time to things that deserve it. So Colbert will make a joke or two about Biden when he talks about his gaffes, but he will immediately remind everyone that Trump did something ten times worse the same day, and go into detail about that thing for a much longer period.

Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#327223: Sep 15th 2020 at 9:28:15 AM

I think the Scientific American article is a bit too charitable on the situation, if anything. Trump is not acting the way he does because he doesn't believe in science or follows pseudoscience. That interview with him clearly shows that Trump understands the nature and dangers of the virus perfectly well, even back in February.

The problem is not ignorance of the science. It is malice. Trump is actively sabotaging part of his own efforts, like testing, for political gain.

The science is not the real problem here, the real problem is the completely rotten politics and morals.

This is exactly what I've been saying about not underestimating Trump, by the way. He knows exactly what he is doing. He always knew the virus was dangerous and could become a pandemic. There was no defence of ignorance there, no bumbling idiocy. This was clear and intentional malice. He is not as stupid as he would like you to believe.

Hope shines brightest in the darkest times
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#327224: Sep 15th 2020 at 9:31:41 AM

[up]The article isn't claiming Trump is doing this out of ignorance. They outright call him dishonest.

The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the U.S. and its people—because he rejects evidence and science. The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which cost more than 190,000 Americans their lives by the middle of September. He has also attacked environmental protections, medical care, and the researchers and public science agencies that help this country prepare for its greatest challenges. That is why we urge you to vote for Joe Biden, who is offering fact-based plans to protect our health, our economy and the environment. These and other proposals he has put forth can set the country back on course for a safer, more prosperous and more equitable future.

He's incompetent and malicious.

Edited by M84 on Sep 16th 2020 at 12:36:16 AM

Disgusted, but not surprised
Redmess Redmess from Netherlands Since: Feb, 2014
Redmess
#327225: Sep 15th 2020 at 9:41:21 AM

The ignorance is implicit in talking about his lack of scientific understanding. My point is that he is not nearly as ignorant as he appears. He just chooses to ignore science (or facts in general) when it suits him. He is perfectly capable of understanding it, he just doesn't care.

The same goes for being incompetent, really. It's not that he can't do anything about it. It is perfectly clear he knows enough that he could do something about it. It is just that he doesn't want to. That is not incompetence, it is malice.

Edited by Redmess on Sep 15th 2020 at 6:42:52 PM

Hope shines brightest in the darkest times

Total posts: 417,856
Top