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

LMage Since: May, 2011
#40101: Nov 13th 2012 at 8:46:24 AM

Personally I think the German military has the the right idea. (They have a law that says that soldiers are obligated to disobey an order they feel violates human dignity or is morally abhorrent.)

Sledgesaul Since: Oct, 2011
#40102: Nov 13th 2012 at 8:49:06 AM

[up] The German military, at that. Once again, Europe is to the left of America. waii

Obama's budget proposals for the Grand Bargain, all of which are spending cuts: $30 Billion in Agricultural Subsidies, $22 Billion in Farm Subsidies, $20 Billion in Mortgage Deductions (no vacation homes, for example), $20 Billion from Highest Earned Deductions (utilizes a limit on how many deductions they get), $20 Billion in Oil and Gas Subsidies, and $3 Billion in Corporate Jets.

However, at the same time, Obama proposes $40 Billion in Federal Pensions, $11 Billion in Military Retirement, between $20 - $120 Billion in food stamps (called Snap Benefits) and between $200 - $300 Billion in Healthcare. These are Obama's proposals, by the way.

If Obama implements the Grand Bargain, I want everyone to admit to Serocco and myself that they were wrong.

edited 13th Nov '12 9:30:26 AM by Sledgesaul

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#40103: Nov 13th 2012 at 9:06:42 AM

Considering we haven't been rude in our disagreements with Serroco, and that disagreements are par the course for this thread, and we've never demanded an apology for Serroco when she/he's been wrong, I'm going to say no. And it's really rude of you to demand such yourself. So stop it, it's fucking obnoxious.

Also, can't say as I object to cutting farm subsidies and the cuts to Big Oil and the corporate jets. (What, they get deductions for buying those or what?) The rest in that section I don't fully understand what it is they do.

Sledgesaul Since: Oct, 2011
#40104: Nov 13th 2012 at 9:17:00 AM

If those, whom everyone thinks is wrong, ends up right, and you refuse to apologize for not believing beforehand, what does that make you?

The reason they're cutting everything else is because - let's keep it real - they don't care about the middle class. They want to cut the social programs and continue to lower taxes so that we get the burden of trying to balance the budget while the plutocrats live on their thrones.

edited 13th Nov '12 9:17:53 AM by Sledgesaul

Linhasxoc Since: Jun, 2009
#40105: Nov 13th 2012 at 9:23:09 AM

There's a difference between "admitting you were wrong" and "apologizing for holding a wrong view."

RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#40106: Nov 13th 2012 at 9:23:28 AM

Many of us here are holding the wait and see position, with skepticism that Obama will shoot himself and the Democrats in the foot this way. If he does, I for one will be incredibly disappointed, and will concede that you were right after all. An apology is an admission of failing a responsibility; an acknowledgement of being incorrect is merely the admission of a failure in judgment (at most).

edited 13th Nov '12 9:23:54 AM by RadicalTaoist

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#40107: Nov 13th 2012 at 9:23:52 AM

And Obama has said that the tax raise is non negotiable. We need more news, really, because right now everyone is saying everything.

Also, you've never apologized, we've never demanded it of you, and it's not polite to demand an apology when no one's done anything wrong. Disagreeing when we interpret the information differently is not wrong. You repeating a demand for it is rude. And since apologies is not the topic I'm ending it here. Just stop asking for it. I am not going to feel sorry for disagreeing with you, not even if I turn out to be wrong about this particular matter, because I've personally not given either of you an insult by disagreeing with you. It's not an apology worthy matter to disagree with you.

Sledgesaul Since: Oct, 2011
#40108: Nov 13th 2012 at 9:26:21 AM

Whoops - I meant admit that you were wrong. Not apologize that you were wrong.

I'll re-word the original post to reflect that. Excuse my bad English there.

edited 13th Nov '12 9:33:16 AM by Sledgesaul

terlwyth Since: Oct, 2010
#40109: Nov 13th 2012 at 9:28:31 AM

edited 13th Nov '12 9:28:54 AM by terlwyth

Sledgesaul Since: Oct, 2011
#40110: Nov 13th 2012 at 9:29:00 AM

Anyway, in the event that Obama issues the Grand Bargain, what will your view of him be by then?

I already know what Radical's reaction would be. What of the rest of you?

edited 13th Nov '12 9:53:55 AM by Sledgesaul

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#40111: Nov 13th 2012 at 10:07:55 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/12/opinion/frum-conservatives-despair/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

The GOP needs to follow this sort of advice if its going to stay competitive. But I think the Tea Party and other groups are going to continue to wipe out moderates in primaries and try to move so far to the right that they end up shooting themselves in the foot in 16 thanks to demographics and shifting values.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#40112: Nov 13th 2012 at 10:17:14 AM

re a so-called "Grand Bargain"- AFAICT, the Obama White House has not made any specific proposals yet, beyond the $4 billion savings target and the pledge to not to increase taxes on the poor or middle class. Apparently, meetings are currently underway with various opinion-leaders to work out the parameters of a Grand Bargain.

Now, there was a Grand Bargain offered to Republicans last year, but that was rejected, and we have no reason to assume that proposal will be the basis of any new one.

There's a press conference coming tomorrow, presumably we will learn more then.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Sledgesaul Since: Oct, 2011
#40113: Nov 13th 2012 at 10:28:06 AM

Obama said he'd walk McConnell's dog or wash Baehner's car if it meant getting the Grand Bargain. There's no reason not to assume that he wants to carry over his original proposals to the new one.

DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#40114: Nov 13th 2012 at 10:29:04 AM

If you turn out to be wrong tomorrow, will you admit it?

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Sledgesaul Since: Oct, 2011
#40115: Nov 13th 2012 at 10:35:57 AM

Yeah, but I wouldn't put much substance into what they say as opposed to what they do. I think the press conference will be filled with Orwellian euphemisms meant to grant a false sense of security over what the Grand Bargain entails.

As a tip, look out for the phrase "lower rates". If they keep saying that, it means they'll cut corporate taxes. Watch out for phrases like "tax reform" and "raising revenue", because that means they'll only close some loopholes. "Raising rates" is their way of saying "raise taxes" - that will never be spoken positively (if at all) in the conference, mark my words.

edited 13th Nov '12 10:44:32 AM by Sledgesaul

MidnightRambler Ich bin nicht schuld! 's ist Gottes Plan! from Germania Inferior Since: Mar, 2011
Ich bin nicht schuld! 's ist Gottes Plan!
#40116: Nov 13th 2012 at 10:44:57 AM

Personally I think the German military has the the right idea. (They have a law that says that soldiers are obligated to disobey an order they feel violates human dignity or is morally abhorrent).

Yeah, the Germans have a lot of laws like that. I believe they also have a law stating that the Bundeswehr can only act defensively, which is why there was a lot of controversy about their participation in Operation Allied Force back in The '90s.

Given their history, this is all quite understandable.

Mache dich, mein Herze, rein...
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#40117: Nov 13th 2012 at 10:49:39 AM

I'm fine with lowering corporate tax rates-but it has to be made up for by raising the capital gains tax rate.

RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#40118: Nov 13th 2012 at 11:05:45 AM

@ Sledgesaul: The thing is, something clearly needs to be done, and since Republicans control the House and have filibuster powers in the Senate, whatever's done will have to be something at least a few Republicans will agree with. Some Republicans might be persuaded to let taxes go up, and some might be persuaded to keep social welfare programs from being cut, but Republicans who can be persuaded to do both are few and far between.

Sledgesaul Since: Oct, 2011
#40119: Nov 13th 2012 at 11:13:37 AM

Who cares what the Republicans want? Obama destroyed Romney during the election and a lot of the loudmouthed Teabaggers were finally shut up. He has no reason to broker deals with Republicans anymore, particularly since they cannot afford to look unreasonable yet again.

We've seen Obama demolish Romney already by pointing out how his policies are bullshit. Obama can easily fo the same with the House. He can paint the argument as "they rejected you, so give them what they want or they'll annihilate you". That forces the Republicans to either look unreasonable again or it finally forces them to the left

edited 13th Nov '12 11:19:32 AM by Sledgesaul

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#40120: Nov 13th 2012 at 11:14:44 AM

I agree with you in principle, Sledgesaul, and I would view it as a betrayal of the trust we've invested in President Obama for him to concede ground here. The Republicans have been playing political chicken for years and it's high time they are the ones forced to blink.

edited 13th Nov '12 11:15:23 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#40121: Nov 13th 2012 at 11:25:19 AM

[up][up] Except a lot of Republican congressers have convinced their constituents that refusing to raise taxes, no matter what the circumstances, is always reasonable.

Serocco Serocco from Miami, Florida Since: Mar, 2010 Relationship Status: Faithful to 2D
Serocco
#40122: Nov 13th 2012 at 11:27:18 AM

[up] Look at Clinton. He grabbed his impeachment, turned it on its head and used it to force Republicans to oust Gingrich from the Speakership.

With (I would say) the majority of the public wanting higher rates and no more tax cuts, as well as a maintenance of the social programs, Obama can follow the Clinton example of obliterating the Republicans the same way he obliterated Romney.

edited 13th Nov '12 12:09:19 PM by Serocco

In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.
DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#40123: Nov 13th 2012 at 12:11:42 PM

Obama hardly "destroyed" Romney, and the Reps still control the house. The larger issue is that rural whites do not want the government to transfer their wealth to urban minorities (at least not at the same rate). They are also fearful of the amount of power and influence the central government has acquired. We may disagree with that perspective, but short of another Civil War there is no alternative but compromise.

That said, any taxes at all would be a huge concession by the Republicans. Which is why Obama must insist on it. I don't necessarily expect him to. It looks like closing "tax loopholes" will be used as a euphemism for raising revenue without calling it taxes. The other thing to look for is the proportion of the savings coming from spending cuts. 75% is the figure that was once proposed, lets see if he can keep it there.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
johnnyfog Actual Wrestling Legend from the Zocalo Since: Apr, 2010 Relationship Status: They can't hide forever. We've got satellites.
Actual Wrestling Legend
#40124: Nov 13th 2012 at 12:14:39 PM

It's looking like Obama will get his tax hikes in exchange for cutting SS and medicare. Then Boehner will bide his time and demand more.

I'm a skeptical squirrel
Serocco Serocco from Miami, Florida Since: Mar, 2010 Relationship Status: Faithful to 2D
Serocco
#40125: Nov 13th 2012 at 12:15:55 PM

336 Electoral College votes vs 206 for Romney. I'd say that's "destruction" right there.

Regarding taxes, didn't Obama flat-out admit that he wants to lower corporate rates during the debates? Granted, if he follows through on that, it would be one of the few campaign promises that he would've kept. Not that it would benefit us in any way.

In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.

Total posts: 417,856
Top