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

deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#38776: Nov 7th 2012 at 6:15:11 PM

The Green Party, in short, is economically and socially left. The Libertarian Party is, in short, economically right and socially left. They have as much in common as Stalinist Communism and Fascism. Actually, slightly less, since fascists tend to be centrist, when it comes to economic policies.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#38777: Nov 7th 2012 at 6:15:25 PM

Rubio won't be able to sell the GOP to Latino voters unless the party also moderates its immigration platform. They aren't stupid, after all - any more than blacks would vote for a black Republican candidate who wants to end affirmative action.

Edit: I love the Green platform. I'm just afraid that it is too idealistic to sell to the American public at large. If they had a viable chance at the Presidency, I'd vote for them in a heartbeat.

edited 7th Nov '12 6:17:13 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#38778: Nov 7th 2012 at 6:16:18 PM

That's called being socially liberal, Kostya. Which most of us are here, without affiliated with the Libertarians. The libertarians are defined by the specific political policy of "as little government intervention as possible" and also the love of free markets.

Given that Greens are defined as to the left of Democrats, I'm going to say they're at least as socially liberal as the Dems, and probably more so. Again, they have a very socialist platform as regards what they think should be done in society.

The Lib's love of free market clashes directly with what the Greens think need to be done for the good of the environment.

Ekuran Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
#38779: Nov 7th 2012 at 6:18:08 PM

@Triv: Social liberty is is pretty obvious, but people can get confused about what's actual economic liberty and what's just bullshit spewed by rich assholes.

@Kostya: You can either be liberal or conservative on specific issues, not libertarian. Libertarians are a mix, in that they have liberal social views and conservative economic policies, while greens are full on liberal across the board.

@Potatoes: That's somewhat unfortunate, but she's still got my vote for 2016 (unless there's a more liberal/better politician than her running as in the democratic primaries, in which case they've got my vote).

edited 7th Nov '12 6:22:37 PM by Ekuran

deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#38780: Nov 7th 2012 at 6:18:55 PM

The Green Party is way to the left of the Democratic Party on both economics and social issues, as well as on foreign policy. They basically started as Single Issue Wonks for the environment, but have become a generally liberal party.

I, too, love the Green Platform, almost as much as I love the Peace and Freedom Platform.

edited 7th Nov '12 6:20:07 PM by deathpigeon

#38781: Nov 7th 2012 at 6:23:32 PM

Marco Rubio's challenge wouldn't be beating the Democrats. It would be beating the Republican Party.

I can personally attest that the conservative Christians would flock to his banner. Not so sure about the rich corporates. The tea partiers are easy to get, just make a lot of noise about taxes and firearms. And Rubio has the potential to put some cracks in the democrats' stranglehold on minorities as well. Most importantly, he carries weight in Florida, which will as always be key to a GOP win in 2016.

<><
Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#38782: Nov 7th 2012 at 6:25:14 PM

Social liberty is is pretty obvious, but people can get confused about what's actual economic liberty and what's just bullshit spewed by rich assholes.

No, it's not obvious. The idea of regulating a liberty, for its own good, applies in social issues just as it does in economic issues.

We just had several states legalize marijuana. That's a social liberty. Now imagine if marijuana was unrestricted. That results in people that do not want to use marijuana to have their safety violated. Threat to public safety affects marijuana users themselves too. There needs to be some control over it to make it effective.

Gun control also applies here, though strangely the American right and left are reversed on this.

@Kostya: You can either be liberal or conservative on specific issues, not libertarian. Libertarians are a mix, in that they have liberal social views and conservative economic policies, while greens are full on liberal across the board.

You can be libertarian across the board. All it means is more individual freedom and less restrictions and regulations. I would say that's a simpler classification than left/right.

edited 7th Nov '12 6:31:43 PM by Trivialis

Arkasas (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#38783: Nov 7th 2012 at 6:27:03 PM

The question on Rubio is; does he want a good chance of victory in the Senate, or a good chance of loss for the White House? (Yeah, it's possible. Seriously, we just won an election, and you people keep being pessimistic.)

TheStarshipMaxima NCC - 1701 Since: Jun, 2009
NCC - 1701
#38784: Nov 7th 2012 at 6:27:52 PM

re: The Fall of the Republican Party.

Jhimmbob spoke with more eloquence and authority than I could have on the subject, but I'll add my two cents.

The left would like to think that there are people out there who don't believe in secure borders, who expect immigrants in this country to legally become citizens, who don't think "Hope and Change" are financial plans, who resent being told they must take the government's healthcare, who think life is precious no matter how young or old it is, who think being Christian doesn't make them racists and misogynists, and who don't think they should be labelled "hate speechers" because they dare to say they don't agree with homosexuality.

They exist. We exist. We're not as few as MSNBC or Jon Stewart would lead you to think. And we're not going away.

Let's be clear, we will not be petty. We will be loyal to the President and support him as much as we can, for he is our President as well. We will be loyal to the new Democratic controlled Senate, for they are are our Senate as well. We will stand with you in fighting climate change, in providing equal rights even to those whose lifestyles we oppose, in providing a fair means for the undocumented residents in this country to become citizens, and in bringing the greedy arrogance of Big Business to heel. Because you're our brothers and sisters and this is our country also.

But, we won't devolve into irrelevance. And we're going to fight for what we believe is best for this country. As will you.

We'll see you in 2016.

It was an honor
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
#38785: Nov 7th 2012 at 6:30:32 PM

[up]And we on the left look forward to it. What we would rather not happen is the continuing trend of the people like YOU being buried under a wave of nutcases.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
#38786: Nov 7th 2012 at 6:31:25 PM

Rubio won't be able to sell the GOP to Latino voters unless the party also moderates its immigration platform.

I agree. The GOP needs to radically change its position on immigration, take on issues like human trafficking and free speech, tell the racists to go jump in a lake, and reassert themselves as the party of traditional values. Economic conservatism and militarism are all fine and good, but those conservatives aren't going to vote for democrats anyway, and they don't live in swing states.

In other words, less pandering to the other parts of their base, and more pandering to my part of it! tongue

<><
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#38787: Nov 7th 2012 at 6:31:46 PM

The GOP needs to lay off on immigration or they are going to have a hard time down the road. If Texas actually starts coming into play as a swing state that won't be fun at all for them. Bush 43 tried to pull it off but 9/11 and his own party got in the way.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#38788: Nov 7th 2012 at 6:32:52 PM

@Triv: It was two states. That's.. good but it's not several. Only three even had it on the ballot.

[up]I'm looking forward to that.

edited 7th Nov '12 6:33:22 PM by AceofSpades

Arkasas (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#38789: Nov 7th 2012 at 6:33:00 PM

I honestly think the Republicans will keep the party line in 2016. I have no projections after that, excepting a chance the Republicans as we know them will collapse.

Ekuran Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
#38790: Nov 7th 2012 at 6:34:32 PM

@Triv: I don't see the point your trying to make. Non-enforced social liberty will almost certainly lead to no social liberty/anarchic bullshit (i.e. no social liberty). I thought this would be obvious to everyone on this thread.

I also said specific issues, not a general ideology like libertarianism.

edited 7th Nov '12 6:36:47 PM by Ekuran

DrTentacles Cephalopod Lothario from Land of the Deep Ones Since: Jul, 2012 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Cephalopod Lothario
#38791: Nov 7th 2012 at 6:35:11 PM

@Starship. It's a nice sentiment, but from what I've seen, you're...not representative of the far-right base, the people who are being pandered to. You're defending the majority, a group of people who view any attempt to live differently than them as some sort of persecution. People who think the gradual loosening of years of historic privilege constitutes oppression. People who put backward, oligarchic, empirically unsound economic policies above what benefits everyone, (some less, and some more, but everyone), not just a select, lucky, few.

I know, from what I've seen of your posts that you're better than that. But the people that the Republican party is currently representing are not. They're not conservatives. They are regressionists. The faster they die out, and are replaced with an honestly conservative party, the better for both of us, and the better for America.

edited 7th Nov '12 6:38:54 PM by DrTentacles

LooseCannon The Groose Is Loose from Everywhere and Nowhere Since: Jun, 2012
The Groose Is Loose
#38792: Nov 7th 2012 at 6:36:02 PM

So have all of the House seats been taken yet? Huffington Post says 7 are still up for grabs.

Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me.
Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#38793: Nov 7th 2012 at 6:37:10 PM

@Triv: I don't see the point your trying to make. Non-enforced social liberty will almost certainly lead to no social liberty/anarchic bullshit (i.e. no social liberty). I thought this would be obvious to everyone on this thread.

I also said specific issues, not a general ideology like libertarianism.

I'm saying that non-regulated social liberty isn't true social liberty, just as the unrestricted free market capitalism isn't true economic liberty (which everyone in this thread plainly knows).

Have to clear this up because of the bashing getting thrown at free markets here as people talk about "true" economic freedom. Markets are right-leaning and aren't bad.

I think you can be libertarian on each individual issue: just pick position that is most individualistic and non-interventionist.

edited 7th Nov '12 6:39:51 PM by Trivialis

Arkasas (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#38794: Nov 7th 2012 at 6:37:11 PM

@Loose Cannon: Nope. However, there was definitely a Democratic gain, slight as it may be.

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#38795: Nov 7th 2012 at 6:38:13 PM

I just realized. The Red Skins rule has been broken for the first time in 70+ years. Huh, I guess this election was historic in a lot of ways.

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#38796: Nov 7th 2012 at 6:39:45 PM

[up]

The Redskins were wrong in 2004!

How do people keep forgetting this?

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#38797: Nov 7th 2012 at 6:41:00 PM

Well, it certainly proves you can't rely on old superstitions to determine who wins the election. Certainly not something as unrelated and coincidental as a football game.

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#38798: Nov 7th 2012 at 6:41:06 PM

[up][up]They modified the rule so that it was upheld (see Wikipedia). The modified and original version are both wrong this time.

[up]I wasn't relying on it I just find it strange that in such a historic election it was finally broken.

edited 7th Nov '12 6:41:37 PM by Kostya

deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#38799: Nov 7th 2012 at 6:41:46 PM

Ah, people get around 2004 by arguing that it's about which party won the previous election's popular vote in relation to which party will win this elections electoral vote.

RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#38800: Nov 7th 2012 at 6:42:26 PM

I can personally attest that the conservative Christians would flock to his banner.
Can he compete with a Ryan, a Bachmann, or a Santorum in this regard?
Not so sure about the rich corporates.
These are the threat. He can't appease these guys and actually make a dent in the Democrats' hold on Latinos at the same time - competing policy interests. And they will sabotage Rubio for a different nominee if they don't think he can serve their interests.
The tea partiers are easy to get, just make a lot of noise about taxes and firearms.
And border concerns? How much of the "landmines for miles" crowd in Texas will refuse point-blank to vote for a Latino?
And Rubio has the potential to put some cracks in the democrats' stranglehold on minorities as well.
As stated above, this will depend on his policies. If he eases up on immigration and the safety net, he could make strides here, at the cost of other Republican demographics. But if he runs on repealing the DREAM Act, Obamacare, and the New Deal? Lo siento hermano, pero va ganar los Cubanos y nadien mas con eso. Trust me, I'm a Massachusetts-born Dominican. Looking like a sellout won't help him; you didn't see African Americans going wild over Herman Cain.
Most importantly, he carries weight in Florida, which will as always be key to a GOP win in 2016.
Eso si lo sirve bien. I will grant that.

EDIT:

I agree. The GOP needs to radically change its position on immigration, take on issues like human trafficking and free speech, tell the racists to go jump in a lake, and reassert themselves as the party of traditional values. Economic conservatism and militarism are all fine and good, but those conservatives aren't going to vote for democrats anyway, and they don't live in swing states. In other words, less pandering to the other parts of their base, and more pandering to my part of it!
Well wow this response ninja'd me hard.

edited 7th Nov '12 6:44:15 PM by RadicalTaoist

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Total posts: 417,856
Top