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

Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#340676: Nov 22nd 2020 at 3:22:06 PM

Guys, a 70/30 split in the popular vote would have won Biden all 50 states. The closest a Democrat has ever gotten to that was FDR, with 46 states and 60% of the vote, and he had to run against a jobber GOP candidate in Alf Landon for something like that to happen. Are we liberals really that delusional that we expect something like that? Just fucking celebrate the win; we hardly get any these days. These idiotic people are unhappy that they didn't get an extreme, borderline impossible outcome. The 73 million people who voted for Trump are who we thought they were.

Of course, it was a win, but it also wasn't the landslide necessary to destroy Trumpism. Both are true and both are worth recognizing.

But recognizing the latter doesn't mean that we should agonize over it, as you say it was never going to happen in the first place.

The actual bad thing is the abysmal down-ballot results.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Nov 22nd 2020 at 3:24:31 AM

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#340677: Nov 22nd 2020 at 3:26:03 PM

Destroying Trumpism would never be caused by an election that they resent if they don't win.

Or period.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Resileafs I actually wanted to be Resileaf Since: Jan, 2019
I actually wanted to be Resileaf
#340678: Nov 22nd 2020 at 3:30:43 PM

I think it's more like Democrats were hoping for a clear, obvious rejection of T****ism and a return to normal, but instead realized that this kind of right wing ideology was well entrenched and will require a long, long time to remove. People have been looking forward to a return to normal and are bummed that there won't be a return to normal, and they're stuck in a cultural war they would rather not have because holy shit, why are we still fighting against fascists?

At least that's my guess.

CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#340679: Nov 22nd 2020 at 3:33:00 PM

Ah. Makes sense.

I think of it as the fact that Trumpism is just the Tea Party with a face.

So yeah, they're the unfunny joke that keeps getting told.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
unknowing from somewhere.. Since: Mar, 2014
#340680: Nov 22nd 2020 at 3:33:41 PM

I mean, defeating nazi germany and killing hitler didnt result in people rejecting nazim forever and ever in time right?, or there is still marxist leninism even when the have see the result of their ideology over and over and over and over.

Exatly what people think that a landside victory would someone destroy trumpism? it feel people are treating him like throwing the one ring into mount doom and trump would just self combust the moment he was defeat, that was always a fantasy.

Also I feel we are going to the typical left problem of "it was perfect and work as I wantted? them it was a waste of time", indeed the dems wins and that defeat is paid dear to GOP even if wasnt destroyed.

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"
Draghinazzo (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I get a feeling so complicated...
#340681: Nov 22nd 2020 at 3:39:39 PM

I think what some people were hoping for was less "trumpism and reactionary politics will be gone forever" and more "trumpism will be severally electorally weakened and the democrats will gain a decent foothold in congress and the senate", or at least that was the most reasonable best case scenario to expect.

Obviously, it didn't pan out. The democrats still won with a solid victory, but lost seats in congress and will have to fight an uphill battle to gain control of the Senate. People are bummed that between all the stupid things he did including mismanaging covid-19, trump would at least not get more votes this time, which he did anyway. That's reasonable and there's plenty to be concerned about, but Zephyr is right that a win is a win.

DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#340682: Nov 22nd 2020 at 3:42:37 PM

@Perseus: He isn't a fascist, and neither are they. He has authoritarian tendencies, and so do they. But they aren't voting for him because of his authoritarian tendencies, they vote for him despite his tendencies because he offers them a more compelling message than we do. And if we believe that the truth is on our side, then the fact that we cannot communicate this persuasively is on us.

I just finished the Elissa Slotkin article, and while I do not agree with her position on many things, I do think she has a valuable insight to share. From the article:

"“You know, the one thing I will say about Donald Trump,” Slotkin began. “He doesn’t talk down to anybody. He is who he is, but he doesn’t talk down to anyone. And I think that there is a certain voter out there because of that who identifies with him and appreciates him.” (This “certain voter,” she noted, is the MAGA enthusiast who appreciates that Trump does not condescend to them while ignoring how he belittles and demeans others.)"

That, I think, gets it exactly, precisely right. They don't notice how he belittles and demeans others, because he delivers a message that appeals to them. They think he is protecting their interests, and the rest of the world can screw itself. But it doesn't have to be that way, because it hasn't been that way in the past. What Slotkin is suggesting isn't so much that progressive values are wrong, as the message is off. For better or worse, people respond to technique, and we need to up our game.

But how?

“It’s not just that he eats cheeseburgers at a big celebratory dinner. It’s not just that he does things that the common man can kind of appreciate. And it’s not even because he uses kind of simplistic language—he doesn’t use complicated, wonky language, the way a lot of Democrats do,” Slotkin said. “We sometimes make people feel like they aren’t conscientious enough. They aren’t thoughtful enough. They aren’t ‘woke’ enough. They aren’t smart enough or educated enough to just understand what’s good for them… It’s talking down to people. It’s alienating them. And there’s just certain voters who feel so distant from the political process—it’s not their life, it’s not their world. They hate it. They don’t like all that politics stuff. Trump speaks to them, because he includes them.”

Now, what I notice is that no where in there is there an explicit condemnation of progressive social goals. We want protection for human rights, fair treatment regardless of demographic background, a less exploitative economy, and to save the Earth from global warming (among other things). If polling tells you that this message isn't winning large majorities because half the country thinks you are talking down to them, the takeaway isn't to compromise on the progressive agenda, it's to stop talking down to people. (Maybe we can start by not calling half the country "Fascists") And if we have trouble understanding why they think we are talking down to them, then maybe we should listen to them more carefully and engage their input.

"She fears that Democrats have created a barrier to entry, largely along cultural lines, that makes the party fundamentally unwelcoming to anyone with supposedly retrograde views of the world around them. This is not merely about race and racism. The schisms go far deeper, to matters of faith and conscience, economic freedom and individual liberty. Indeed, for the heavy losses Trump sustained among affluent college-educated whites, he nearly won a second term because of his gains with Black and brown voters. That these Americans were willing to support Trump, often in spite of his rhetoric, reveals an uncomfortable truth for the left. There are millions of voters—working-class whites and working-class minorities—whose stances on social controversies put them out of touch with the Democratic Party. It’s a truth they might be willing to overlook, if only the party could do the same."

Hmm, partly true. If there are barriers to entry to the Democratic camp, the barriers are matters of style not substance. What we want will not hurt anyone in the long run. Previously I quoted a Latino Trump voter who claimed that he believes that the Republicans allow Americans more freedom to work where they want, open any business they want, and express themselves any way they want. The point isn't that he is right (I don't think he is). The point is that his believing those things is our fault, because as he also notes, no one went into his neighborhood to talk to him or to explain how the other side might benefit him or his family.

And if you think that it should be obvious to him, consider this. When a manufacturer of a new product discovers that their marketing campaign isn't working, they don't say "Well consumers should try harder to educate themselves regarding what's good for them." They understand that selling their product is their job, that the consumers owe them nothing. If we fail to sell social justice effectively, then it's our job to market it better. Maybe we can start by not calling the other side "irredeemable".

By the way, the Republicans do not rely on lies. Lies are easy to refute, instead they have become masters at spinning partial truths. How do you fight that? By spinning whole truths in a way that someone with just a high school education can understand.

Statistics indicate that the Democrats are becoming the party of people with a college degree. Are we comfortable with that? Do we want the Dems to represent not people as a whole, but just a different elite than the Reps do?

Last quote:

“I remember, long before, literally, Donald Trump was even a twinkle in our eye, the way that people in my life here couldn’t stand political correctness. And I think [this is] the same kind of sentiment,” Slotkin explained. “Because the political correctness is thinking you’re better than somebody else—it’s correcting someone. Now, I happen to believe that we live in a different era, and that we have to be better than we were in previous eras. … But people do feel looked down upon.”

This reality, Slotkin said, “makes it really hard” to understand the results of this election. A postmortem examining demographic trends and policy disagreements cannot register the visceral rejection of today’s Democratic Party any better than the hundreds of preelection polls that were commissioned by the smartest minds in the political business. At the root of our polarization, Slotkin argued, is one half of the country believing it is enlightened and the other half resenting it. I asked her whether there’s any escaping this dichotomy. Can the Democratic Party change? Can it embrace a “different era,” one that demands rapid and unremitting evolution on all things cultural, without condescending to those who are slow to come around?"

We are engaged in a war with very high stakes. We have just won a minor battle in that war, but we are not necessarily winning the war itself. The Republicans like the hand we left them with. It is not hyperbole to fear that millions of lives world-wide might be at stake, and the individual rights of millions more. The other side has a very clear and simple vision, a lot of money, and all the talent that money can buy. Self-handicapping ourselves by not reaching out to moderate conservative voters just makes beating these people even harder. We don't have to compromise our goals to do this, just our methods.

Edited by DeMarquis on Nov 22nd 2020 at 6:48:06 AM

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
nova92 Since: Apr, 2020
#340683: Nov 22nd 2020 at 3:44:05 PM

[up][up] Yeah, that's where I'm at. It was never a realistic expectation that Trumpism would disappear with the results of a single election, but I was hoping that Democrats would do well enough to have some breathing room to dismantle some of the systematic advantages Republicans have built in, at both the Congressional and state level races.

It's still an enormous victory Trump lost and Biden won, but some of those downballot race losses really sting, just for how close they were and the enormous negative impact they could have going forward.

Edited by nova92 on Nov 22nd 2020 at 3:44:27 AM

Draghinazzo (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I get a feeling so complicated...
#340684: Nov 22nd 2020 at 3:53:43 PM

He isn't a fascist, and neither are they. He has authoritarian tendencies, and so do they. But they aren't voting for him because of his authoritarian tendencies, they vote for him despite his tendencies because he offers them a more compelling message than we do. And if we believe that the truth is on our side, then the fact that we cannot communicate this persuasively is on us.

I agree the democrats need to do better on messaging/optics and voter outreach, but I also think you're being a little too generous to a lot of these voters and ignoring the fact that many of them are trapped in a disinformation bubble that's extremely hard to get out of (being armed with the truth is of little importance when you are confronted with someone who does not care what it is), or have interests that can't really be compromised on in good conscience (like abortion).

Point being, while it's important to focus on actionable steps moving forward, pretending this is all the democrats' fault isn't accurate either.

Edited by Draghinazzo on Nov 22nd 2020 at 8:56:21 AM

CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#340685: Nov 22nd 2020 at 3:55:53 PM

I define fascism as authoritarian Leader-worship based ethno-nationalism.

So....yes, I would define Trump as a fascist.

It's hard not to say with concentration camps, rejection of democracy, and use of private citizens against political enemies.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Nov 22nd 2020 at 3:56:54 AM

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
unknowing from somewhere.. Since: Mar, 2014
#340686: Nov 22nd 2020 at 4:00:39 PM

[up]Thing is plenty of authoritarian engage that whtout being facist, the fact trump is anti war disquilified from being a facist.

But thins is it dosent make it, trump is racist authoritarian and con, is just that have he would make US become like venezuela rather than a axis power.

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"
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
#340687: Nov 22nd 2020 at 4:10:37 PM

Yes, Trump is obviously a Fascist. And the current Republican party that has modelled itself at least partially in his image (so, not the Mitt Romney/John McCain style neocons) are also fairly fascistic. They line up real neat with a lot of the academically-cited traits of Fascism.

Edited by GoldenKaos on Nov 22nd 2020 at 4:11:12 AM

"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."
nrjxll Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Not war
#340688: Nov 22nd 2020 at 4:13:02 PM

[up][up]It's true Trump doesn't tie himself closely enough to the military to be a conventional fascist, but I wouldn't call him anti-war. If there's any actual principle underlying his foreign policy - and I'm not really sure there is - it's some form of unilateralism.

DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#340689: Nov 22nd 2020 at 4:15:48 PM

"but I also think you're being a little too generous to a lot of these voters and ignoring the fact that many of them are trapped in a disinformation bubble that's extremely hard to get out of (being armed with the truth is of little importance when you are confronted with someone who does not care what it is), or have interests that can't really be compromised on in good conscience (like abortion)."

That's a good point, actually, and I mostly agree, although I don't think it means that we have to give up trying to organize a more sizable majority in support of our agenda.

"I define fascism as authoritarian Leader-worship based ethno-nationalism."

You can, of course, define it any way you like, but that's not what most people mean when they use the word. I personally don't bother defining it at all, because I don't think the concept is very useful.

Edited by DeMarquis on Nov 22nd 2020 at 7:17:01 AM

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
nova92 Since: Apr, 2020
#340690: Nov 22nd 2020 at 4:16:16 PM

Maybe I'm off-base here, but in a lot of these conversations, I feel like people often conflate the actions of the Democratic Party with the actions of its voters (or otherwise left-wing people).

Like when people talk about Trump voters/Republicans/socially conservative people (or Republicanssocially conservative people) "being looked down upon" by Democrats, sometimes they mean the politicians, elected representatives, strategists, consultants of the party, but sometimes they just mean Democratic voters.

And while it's fair and important to discuss how Democratic Party can better message their policy and work on voter outreach to be more appealing to voters who do not naturally favor them (while also recognizing that this is necessary in large part to the inequalities of the political system), I think it's pretty unfair to say that ordinary people should have to change in order to be more welcoming to Trump/Republican voters, who voted for people that worked to take away their rights.

DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#340691: Nov 22nd 2020 at 4:19:46 PM

@Nova 92: Another good point. When I say that it's our responsibility to communicate our agenda more persuasively, I am referring to the activists within the party, not the average liberal voter.

I would also point out that this goes the other way as well, as I see a certain tendency to blame average Republican voters for the actions of the Party establishment and other conservative leaders and spokespersons.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#340692: Nov 22nd 2020 at 4:20:26 PM

Trump portrays himself as against war but tried to start a war with Venezuela and Iran. Circumstances stopped him.

He's also done more drone strikes than any President.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
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
#340693: Nov 22nd 2020 at 4:30:45 PM

You can, of course, define it any way you like, but that's not what most people mean when they use the word.

Interesting, what do most people mean when they use the word? According to you?

"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."
unknowing from somewhere.. Since: Mar, 2014
#340694: Nov 22nd 2020 at 4:37:23 PM

[up][up]And yet he didnt start a way, something even obama did, that along tell you how trump feel about war, even if is because he is a coward at heart.

I mean here in venezuela we like to struck or saber ratting as hard as it can and yet they wont go to war, is the same principle.

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#340695: Nov 22nd 2020 at 4:39:34 PM

Literally, Trump tried to start a war with Iran to distract from his impeachment.

He doesn't get any peacetime credentials.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Draghinazzo (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I get a feeling so complicated...
#340696: Nov 22nd 2020 at 4:41:00 PM

Fascism is a word that gets thrown around to describe any leader/subset of people with strong right wing views that includes militarism, xenophobia, authoritarianism, an appeal to an idealized past, among other things. It doesn't necessarily need to include all of those at once, but multiple ones have to be present in sufficient quantities.

From what I understand the precise definition of what regimes count as fascistic or not is debated in academia, and while that discussion may have merit I think that focusing way too much on specifics is just obscuring the real reason that people find these types of right-wing regimes so abhorrent and the important commonalities these regimes have with the ones that we all agree are fascistic.

The only reason I wouldn't call Trump a fascist IRL is mostly because if you are talking with the intent to persuade someone, fascist is a term that's emotionally loaded and puts people on guard. Calling him an authoritarian or a wannabe dictator gets the point across just as well with less of a chance that they will immediately shut down without considering what you have to say.

clemont107 Mega Togekiss?! from Land of Missed Opportunities (Experienced, Not Yet Jaded) Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
Mega Togekiss?!
#340697: Nov 22nd 2020 at 4:45:57 PM

Tyrantrump claims to be pro-war and a fighter but is really a coward at heart. He dodged the draft multiple times, eventually saying that he had bone-spurs and thus could not fight in the Vietnam War. The Reptile-in-Chief also mocked McCain for being captured in war. If he truly were pro-war, he would respect our fallen soldiers and our veterans, which of course he wouldn't. And if he were pro-war he would not try to start a war unless there was a very good reason to (which there wasn't).

Edited by clemont107 on Nov 22nd 2020 at 7:46:50 AM

"Wow, no Mega Togekiss in Legends Z-A. Or any non-Froslass new Sinnoh Mega Evolutions. Round of applause, everybody." - Dawn
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
#340698: Nov 22nd 2020 at 4:46:16 PM

Depends who you're talking to honestly, sometimes jumping straight to fascist but being very calm and deliberate about it can open up avenues of conversation where you break down and expose the numerous traits and actions that make him a fascist.

"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#340699: Nov 22nd 2020 at 4:46:43 PM

I think there's an odd analogy here. Basically, The Trio from Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Six. They're a bunch of nerds who exploit magic and super-tech to be Harmless Villain types and a Goldfish Poop Gang. Right up until they brainwash a girl who calls them out on their plan to sexually assault her. It's not until she uses the word rape that they seem to realize how far they've gone.

I feel like coddling Trump voters that what they're doing isn't EVIL is worse than making them feel bad about it.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.

Total posts: 417,856
Top