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

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#48951: Feb 7th 2013 at 2:16:31 PM

How could that possibly benefit him?

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#48952: Feb 7th 2013 at 2:20:43 PM

He's a parasite, sucking at the teat of whoever pays him. Romney's backers still have major influence in the Republican Party and Rove is the channel for their money to influence elections. Or that's how he sees himself, anyway. He gets a sizable cut off the top.

edited 7th Feb '13 2:21:04 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#48953: Feb 7th 2013 at 2:24:17 PM

That doesn't answer my question. If the party goes into an all out civil war they'll lose seats like mad. It's hard to influence stuff when nobody is in a position to do so.

Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#48954: Feb 7th 2013 at 2:25:37 PM

Maybe the Republican Elite don't care any more? They know they'll lose either way, so they've decided to purge the extreme elements and prepare for Government an Election or two in the future.

edited 7th Feb '13 2:26:07 PM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#48955: Feb 7th 2013 at 2:26:25 PM

[up][up]Rove doesn't care about that. He gets paid whether or not his party wins elections. His vehicle to riches is the perception that he's an influencer. 2012 proved that, despite utterly failing to win elections, Rove is still in good with the GOP. So he'll keep doing what he's doing until he runs out of people willing to give him money.

edited 7th Feb '13 2:26:40 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#48956: Feb 7th 2013 at 3:21:52 PM

While real political influence may be contingent more on congress than the presidency, you have to remember that the presidency is sort of the "visual government." It's plausible that the moneyed interests on the right realize that while they can play the gerry mandering game and keep winning seats, that they can't win the presidency if they don't deal with their fringe elements. So while it will potentially cost them seats in congress, it means they're a bit more likely to take the presidency.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#48957: Feb 7th 2013 at 4:20:50 PM

Frankly, I am of the opinion that reversing their precipitous plunge rightward is the only way that the Republican Party will remain viable.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#48958: Feb 7th 2013 at 5:52:39 PM

@Fighteer: You mean they can't remain viable by disenfranchising liberals?

I do question whether the "moderate Republicans" will be larger than the purged fringe, though. So far, it's been the fringe purging the moderates and not the other way around. If anything, the Republican Party is likely to become a permanent opposition that forces the Democratic coalition to stay together, but not a force that can ever win the country (or, after a couple of elections) control of Congress.

edited 7th Feb '13 5:54:14 PM by Ramidel

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#48959: Feb 7th 2013 at 6:01:02 PM

I question how long the Republican Party can stay viable without a third party taking over as the other side. Their primary constituency is old, white men and they are either dying or becoming a smaller portion of our nation's population. There are still young people that believe that way but they are becoming fewer and fewer and there's no evidence a massive shift to the right is imminent. If anything there's going to be a shift left in the next few years which will speed them on the path to irrelevance.

[up]The fringe only got this far because they were backed by Fox News, Koch Industries, and other groups. If they suddenly pull all support they'll rapidly crumble as a major political force.

I still think the RINOS will make their own party with some of the DINOS while the more liberal Democrats join with the Greens. The Tea Party Republicans will probably try and absorb some of the Libertarians to keep a stable base but they'll just be delaying the inevitable.

edited 7th Feb '13 6:05:07 PM by Kostya

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#48960: Feb 7th 2013 at 6:07:04 PM

@Kostya: I know that, at least in Alaska, there's plenty of people my age who are still part of the libertarian fringe. Granted, Alaska's politics are weird, but I thought I'd throw that out there.

And I don't believe that the Democrats will merge with the Greens within the foreseeable future. Our country still thinks of "socialism" as a four-letter word. (Plus, Fox News won't pull support. Their headmaster is actually a part of the nutcase fringe, not someone trying to take advantage of it.)

To be clear, I'm predicting a national schism, not a shift to either the right or the left; I think the right will keep going further right, regardless of reality, but I don't think that their numbers will collapse while they're doing so.

edited 7th Feb '13 6:10:28 PM by Ramidel

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#48961: Feb 7th 2013 at 6:10:42 PM

[up]I meant the nation as a whole. Certain states like Alaska and some of the midwest will probably still be solidly controlled by the Republicans but the nation as a whole and the federal government will be more liberal.

True but I think that's why they'd do it. The Greens will have to compromise a little but if they merge with the Democrats they could gain a lot of credibility and attention. This will get their ideas out there and give them a chance to win seats in Congress so they can put a few into action. Once people figure out this socialism thing might not be so bad they can institute more of their agenda. It will take time but it can certainly happen.

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#48962: Feb 7th 2013 at 6:14:56 PM

That's the thing: the far right won't be able to win, but they'll still have a massively powerful stronghold throughout much of the country, and they'll still be strong enough that everyone else (per Duverger's Law) has to run on a single ticket to prevent them from winning. Which will continue to keep the country off the left path, as the RIN Os and Blue Dogs force the liberals to make concessions.

As for the Greens, most Greens already support the Dems in national elections and concentrate on getting Greens into power locally. Actually running someone like Jill Stein is just a way to get Green issues and suggestions into the public debate.

edited 7th Feb '13 6:15:56 PM by Ramidel

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#48963: Feb 7th 2013 at 6:22:00 PM

Not if they're in a schism which is what the RINOS splitting off would cause.

The Greens need people in Congress. Their fascination with the presidency is my biggest problem with them. As much as I like them I don't want a Green president. Why? Because they won't fucking do anything! Sure they'll try like Obama but without a Congress that's willing to work with them they'll fail. As a result it would be a better idea for them to win try for local elections. If someone wins then good for them but just presenting themselves as an option could make people say to the Democrats "Why aren't you doing this?" and force them to rethink their positions.

DrunkGirlfriend from Castle Geekhaven Since: Jan, 2011
#48964: Feb 7th 2013 at 6:52:23 PM

I think it'd also help garner support if the people the Green Party was putting out didn't act like nutters. Jill Stein really hurt their chances of being a legitimate party by getting arrested half a dozen times while campaigning.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#48965: Feb 7th 2013 at 6:59:29 PM

That too. Look there's taking a moral stand and then there's being stupid. Most people don't know who she is and you shouldn't let being arrested be someone's first exposure to you. The system sucks, get over it and focus on tasks that are actually doable like winning seats in Congress. Winning the presidency certainly isn't one of them.

PotatoesRock Since: Oct, 2012
#48966: Feb 7th 2013 at 7:28:24 PM

Why *did* she keep getting arrested, anywho? Civil disobedience?

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#48967: Feb 7th 2013 at 7:29:05 PM

@Kostya: I prefer the Libertarians, certainly, doing what they are now. They make excellent gadflies and are very good at pointing out issues that need to be addressed, at least when they get off their damn high horse, but none of us want them actually trying to run the place.

I agree that both Greens and Libertarians should look for very blue/red (respectively) areas that they can try to attack for Congress, though. Why hasn't the People's Republic of Berkeley, CA elected a Green candidate yet? Hell, Vermont has two indie congresscritters, the more liberal districts in California should be able to do something like that too.

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#48968: Feb 7th 2013 at 7:34:25 PM

[up][up]Well one time involved her demanding to be let into the debate and security taking her away because she was causing a scene or something.

[up]I'm curious, what are these issues? Most of their policies are terrible in my opinion.

HilarityEnsues Since: Sep, 2009
#48969: Feb 7th 2013 at 7:50:12 PM

Libertarians tend to agree with progressives (not Democrats) on issues pertaining to civil liberties, every single "social issue", and the military. At least, when it comes to the more traditional anti-war progressives.

Economics is where they start to make a lot less sense. Even then, they're at least against things like giving billions of dollars in subsidies to oil companies that're already amassing huge profits.

They aren't my first choice as far as third parties go by any means, but the Republicans are still much worse.

edited 7th Feb '13 7:51:44 PM by HilarityEnsues

GameGuruGG Vampire Hunter from Castlevania (Before Recorded History)
Vampire Hunter
#48970: Feb 7th 2013 at 7:51:11 PM

Well, the problem with both are other policies they have. I mean the Libertarians believe in same-sex marriage, the legalization of cannabis, separation of church and state, open immigration, and neutrality in diplomatic relations. They certainly won't be winning over the Republican base with those kinds of policies, even if they believe in minimally regulated markets. Meanwhile the Green Party refuses corporate donations... a noble goal, but not one good with winning support from say Hollywood in California, which the Democrats are able to do instead.

edited 7th Feb '13 7:51:59 PM by GameGuruGG

Wizard Needs Food Badly
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#48971: Feb 7th 2013 at 7:54:10 PM

[up][up]I feel like I'm confusing the Tea Party with Libertarians. That would explain why most of that doesn't match my general conception of them. Looking at it that way I wouldn't mind if they became a smaller third party that influences things from time to time but I'd still prefer the Democrats and the Greens as the big two.

edit: As long as they don't try and return us to the gold standard or pass a bill that says the US can't go into debt. Then they'd lose my support really quick. I also don't like the isolationist stance I generally associate with them.

edited 7th Feb '13 7:55:00 PM by Kostya

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#48972: Feb 7th 2013 at 8:04:33 PM

@Kostya: The Tea Party were originally very Libertarian in character and came in on a platform of shutting down government corruption and pork-barreling, but the only ones who showed up to their meetings were social conservatives.

They should have one guy in Congress (say, Ron Paul) at all times, whose job is to work as a contrarian and point out how each bill that passes before Congress will infringe on the liberties of all Americans, and who votes no on everything. Having a guy like that around is always a good thing, even if they do say stupid shit like "gold standard!" from time to time.

edited 7th Feb '13 8:06:42 PM by Ramidel

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#48973: Feb 7th 2013 at 8:41:25 PM

Uh, someone who votes no on everything is simply an obstructionist. It's one thing if the guy is actively studying these things to point out their faults, but if they always say no no matter what then what good are they? There are some things to which the answer very definitely needs to be yes. At least in the eyes of the constituents who voted for him.

Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#48974: Feb 7th 2013 at 9:09:42 PM

Kostya

The Greens need people in Congress. Their fascination with the presidency is my biggest problem with them. As much as I like them I don't want a Green president. Why? Because they won't fucking do anything! Sure they'll try like Obama but without a Congress that's willing to work with them they'll fail. As a result it would be a better idea for them to win try for local elections. If someone wins then good for them but just presenting themselves as an option could make people say to the Democrats "Why aren't you doing this?" and force them to rethink their positions.

I agree with Kostya here. Not just the Greens, but many third parties are jumping the gun by trying to aim for the biggest prize. The third parties are supposed to be grassroots; they're supposed to work from bottom up, not waste money and time going for just the presidency. It's much wiser to start lower and more accessible.

Really, why does the Prohibition Party keep doing that? It's never going to win. It's barely getting ~1000 votes and any attention at all. I feel the same for Socialism and Liberation nominating an underaged candidate, and also Peace and Freedom Party going for presidency in futility and despite not having success with office holders.

deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#48975: Feb 7th 2013 at 9:17:14 PM

Libertarians tend to have an anti-statist or minarchist streak to them which makes them ok in my book. However, they also stole the term libertarian from anarchists who are, by and large, socialists as they are more than just anti-statist. Some of the most anti-statist ones even stole anarchist for "anarcho-capitalist", which is borderline contradictory as every anarchist movement before they appropriated the term has been anti-capitalist. I mean, the first major anarchist work, What is Property? by Proudhon, featured the line "Property is theft" when talking about capitalistic property law, and every school of anarchism has agreed, including the Individualist Anarchists who were market based anarchists. Plus, outside of the US, the term is used exclusively for anarchism as a socialist political theory. So, because of that, they're not really ok in my book.


Total posts: 417,856
Top