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

Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#39026: Nov 8th 2012 at 8:24:38 AM

[up][up]

Honestly,. even as an extremely leftist liberal I want the old republican party back. The kinds of conservatives who can serve as a buffer on my kinds excesses while offering good ideas of their own. The current party strikes me as a monster borne of hate and a need to turn everything into a wedge issue.

GlennMagusHarvey Since: Jan, 2001
#39027: Nov 8th 2012 at 8:27:47 AM

I want the old republican party back. The kinds of conservatives who can serve as a buffer on my kinds excesses while offering good ideas of their own. The current party strikes me as a monster borne of hate and a need to turn everything into a wedge issue.

THANK YOU

What happened to the old Republican Party that understood that conservation was part of conservatism?

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#39028: Nov 8th 2012 at 8:28:57 AM

The modern Republican party has also demonstrated a wanton disregard for facts and factual analysis. Even if their positions were shining pillars of reasonable compromise, they would lose my vote for being unrepentant liars.

Nowhere was this more evident than on Tuesday when Karl Rove had his little meltdown. I mean, when a Fox News anchorwoman calls you on your bullshit, you know you have gone off the deep end.

edited 8th Nov '12 8:30:15 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#39029: Nov 8th 2012 at 8:32:12 AM

[up]

Yeah. Kelly asking him on air if he was lying to himself to make himself feel better was pretty much I think the opening shot of Conservatives versus Regressives.

Rove finally said something so stupid even other republicans were like "are you fucking crazy?"

edited 8th Nov '12 8:33:36 AM by Midgetsnowman

HilarityEnsues Since: Sep, 2009
#39030: Nov 8th 2012 at 8:33:12 AM

In fairness to Jones, the fact that the Patriot Act and such are bipartisan bills only strengthens his case that the entire government is out for a power grab. He's not wrong in believing that people in power do things to gain more power; there's nothing really controversial about that. What's crazy is the conclusions that he draws from this, as well as the hyperinflated amount of competence and malevolence he ascribes to those in power.

I think the reason things like the NDAA provision and the Patriot Act were even considered was that we have a very fundamentally flawed way of combating terrorism. The mindset of a neocon is that we can win if we just have enough wars for a long enough time, and pry at our citizens enough. This should really be treated as an international crime problem, not as a war. Capturing key terror targets - or assassinating them, when capture is not a realistic option - should really be the prime method by which we operate. At least, I think so.

On another note, I would honestly give Republican candidates some very serious consideration if their party line was similar to that of, say, Jon Huntsman. That's the only example I can come up with right now.

LMage Since: May, 2011
#39031: Nov 8th 2012 at 8:43:51 AM

My politics teacher pointed out something interesting: If the Republican party does split between their most hard core base and their Moderets then it will all but guaranteeing Democrat control of Senate and White house for the next few decades.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#39032: Nov 8th 2012 at 8:44:16 AM

I would honestly give Republican candidates some very serious consideration if their party line was similar to that of, say, Jon Huntsman.
As would I, but a GOP capable of nominating Huntsman for President would not be the GOP of today; we'd have a functional government, for one thing. Also, to be frank, a more moderate Republican Party would allow the Democrats to move back toward the liberal side, something I highly desire.

I think Karl Rove may be done. One article I read estimated the rate of return on investment at 1% and 13% for his two big SuperPACs, Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, respectively. That's abysmal. If I were a Republican donor I would think long and hard before putting any money in his hands ever again.

Frankly, I'm hopeful that this defeat forces the GOP to split. I think that would be the best overall outcome for American politics.

edited 8th Nov '12 8:46:01 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#39033: Nov 8th 2012 at 8:45:41 AM

[up]

yeah. reports are coming in that pretty much all karl's donors are PISSED.

Granted, if I spent 300 million dollars and got NOTHING on my investment, I'd be slightly (volcanically) angry.

edited 8th Nov '12 8:46:06 AM by Midgetsnowman

nightwyrm_zero Since: Apr, 2010
#39034: Nov 8th 2012 at 9:19:55 AM

If I was one of Karl's donors, I'd be wanting to send over some accountants to see how much he pocketed.....and asking for a refund.

RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#39035: Nov 8th 2012 at 9:49:30 AM

Little to show for the cash flood unleashed this election. All those Super PAC-backed Tea Party candidates?

The biggest single donor in political history, the casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson, mingled with other Romney backers at a postelection breakfast, fresh off a large gamble gone bad. Of the eight candidates he supported with tens of millions of dollars in contributions to “super PA Cs,” none were victorious on Tuesday.

Four-star general debunks Benghazigate pseudoscandal

Going off of Fighteer's response to The Ridiculous Article: I don't want to hear Libertarians of all people complaining about #4 and #8. What, are you guys suddenly going to start supporting the regulation on corporations that would prevent these problems? No? Then STFU. Likewise for #2 and #7 coming from the people who back Stand Your Ground laws. Clearly, it's so much better to have public shootings of young black males by neighbourhood vigilantes than secret arrests by police. If you want security and liberty for everyone, that starts with the citizen as much as with the government.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#39036: Nov 8th 2012 at 9:53:59 AM

It's a curious psychological disconnect where one can back Big Corporations and yet simultaneously be for negative liberty on an individual basis. It's like they absolutely refuse to believe that businesses can oppress rights, despite this exact problem being the inspiration for the labor movements of the early 20th century.

It seems that working in sweatshops in hock to the company store is the "natural place" of all people who are not "self-made" tycoons.

edited 8th Nov '12 9:55:17 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
DrunkGirlfriend from Castle Geekhaven Since: Jan, 2011
#39037: Nov 8th 2012 at 10:01:09 AM

@Taoist: Wait, what do secret arrests have to do with Stand Your Ground? I always thought that the hysteria over "secret arrests" was due to the presumption that people arrested secretly were going to be denied their right to a fair trial.

Edit: I guess that the argument could be that standing your ground could be considered denying due process to your attacker if they get killed, but I don't really agree that it's the same thing as being (presumably) held in a detention camp for an indeterminate amount of time.

Also, I'm for Stand Your Ground laws, because Duty to Retreat laws are worse, and you have to back one or the other.

edited 8th Nov '12 10:04:26 AM by DrunkGirlfriend

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#39038: Nov 8th 2012 at 10:03:11 AM

It's another of those "Evil Gubmint" psychological disconnects. It's fine to have a legal environment where a private citizen can ambush and kill a kid for being "black and suspicious", but not when the government can detain someone without trial for being a suspected terrorist.

edited 8th Nov '12 10:03:33 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
DrunkGirlfriend from Castle Geekhaven Since: Jan, 2011
#39039: Nov 8th 2012 at 10:05:26 AM

[up] Yes, except it's been explained before that's not what Stand Your Ground laws are supposed to do. The cops completely dropped the ball there, and what Zimmerman did was still outside the scope of law.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#39040: Nov 8th 2012 at 10:11:45 AM

Why do people say the U.S. is right-leaning on a "global political spectrum"? While there are some countries in Europe and a few other places that are more progressive than the United States, the difference between America and them is much smaller than between America and ultra-conservative countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and so on.

edited 8th Nov '12 10:27:47 AM by RavenWilder

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#39041: Nov 8th 2012 at 10:16:33 AM

@Raven: We are talking about the spectrum among first world countries, not the entire globe. It's an attempt to do an apples to apples comparison.

@DG: My point is that if you dislike the idea of detention without due process or being murdered in the street by an overly enthusiastic vigilante, then the Republican Party is not your ally. In fact, they should be Enemy Number One.

edited 8th Nov '12 10:19:27 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#39042: Nov 8th 2012 at 10:19:20 AM

The Democratic Party is just right of the British Conservative Party. They are the furthest left mainstream party in the US.

Swish Long Live the King Since: Jan, 2001
Long Live the King
#39043: Nov 8th 2012 at 10:31:36 AM

[up][up]? Who is against detention of foreign nationals without due process?

The fact that Guantanamo exists in the first place says Republicans probably don't have issues with it. And the fact that it still exists says that Democrats aren't that concerned either.

It's the detention, without due process, of US citizens people get touchy about... And both parties get touchy about it...

edited 8th Nov '12 10:31:59 AM by Swish

shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#39044: Nov 8th 2012 at 10:36:39 AM

[up] The Democrats largely are against it but have not had enough of political majority to do anything about it thanks to Republican filibusters that have shot down Democratic legislation attempting to end it.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#39045: Nov 8th 2012 at 10:40:21 AM

Okay, I just saw one of the most disturbing things in a long while. Did you know that Mike Huckabee has published a children's Christmas storybook? My friend just showed me an ad for a bargain store that features Can't Wait Till Christmas, whose write up is, and I quote: "One of America's most prominent politicians shares his mischievous side in a heartwarming story of a childhood Christmas."

@Swish: if Republicans are against detention of Americans without due process, why did NDAA pass with a veto-proof majority in both houses?

edited 8th Nov '12 10:41:49 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Swish Long Live the King Since: Jan, 2001
Long Live the King
#39046: Nov 8th 2012 at 10:44:28 AM

[up][up] & [up]The Democrats had a veto-proof majority(in both houses) in 2009... That they did not even attempt to change things says they aren't that concerned either(or worse, approve).

Slamming Republicans because they're "preventing"/"against" the changes is disingenuous...

edited 8th Nov '12 10:45:49 AM by Swish

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#39047: Nov 8th 2012 at 10:50:15 AM

Yes, both sides are to blame. However, it is not equal blame. Who pushed the Patriot Act with 9/11 as a scapegoat? Who added the detention clause to NDAA?

edited 8th Nov '12 10:50:27 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
PotatoesRock Since: Oct, 2012
#39048: Nov 8th 2012 at 10:51:50 AM

The fact that Guantanamo exists in the first place says Republicans probably don't have issues with it. And the fact that it still exists says that Democrats aren't that concerned either.
Blame the Blue Dogs for Gitmo being open still. Obama tried to shut it down, but not enough of his own party was willing to let it be shut down. :/

TamH70 Since: Nov, 2011 Relationship Status: Faithful to 2D
#39049: Nov 8th 2012 at 10:52:48 AM

Where did all that Super PAC money go, where did it come from and what is happening to the unspent cash, if any? Anyone have a clue as to what the answers to those questions are?

Karkadinn Karkadinn from New Orleans, Louisiana Since: Jul, 2009
Karkadinn
#39050: Nov 8th 2012 at 10:53:20 AM

If they didn't attempt it, it was most likely because they knew they couldn't get the support of the blue dogs. The Democrat party does not vote the way the Republican party votes.

That said, I think it's better for them to attempt a major policy shift and fail than to not bother. Keeps the base enthusiastic so you have a better chance of actually doing it the next time you try.

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.

Total posts: 417,856
Top