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

Ultrayellow Unchanging Avatar. Since: Dec, 2010
Unchanging Avatar.
#51351: Mar 16th 2013 at 3:44:01 PM

Rand Paul has his good sides and bad sides.

He's soothing to a certain kind of liberal because his libertarian leanings make him a good go-to for social liberals.

Personally, I loved his filibuster, and thought it was truly heroic and admirable, as well as being something none of the Democrats had the backbone to do.

Economic libertarianism, however, will ruin this country. Anyone who learned economics from Ayn Rand should not be leading the government.

edited 16th Mar '13 3:45:11 PM by Ultrayellow

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#51352: Mar 16th 2013 at 3:54:29 PM

[up]

That's generally my view. The only Republicans I really like (in the sense that would vote for them over some Democrats) are Christie and Huntsman. However, if I had to pick one of the CPAC bunch to be President, Rand Paul would be second pick after JB. Given that the choice is "social conservative/economic libertarian" or "social libertarian/economic libertarian", he seems the second best of a bad bunch.

Schild und Schwert der Partei
Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#51353: Mar 16th 2013 at 4:12:20 PM

@Pykrete: what i referred to was that Obama connecting to younger voters via smart use of modern internet technology was something neither party previously had thought of doing.

Enkufka Wandering Student ಠ_ಠ from Bay of White fish Since: Dec, 2009
Wandering Student ಠ_ಠ
#51354: Mar 16th 2013 at 4:28:34 PM

@Septimus: It's another one of these non-issues that Republicans seem to love latching onto lately.

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry
DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
Ultrayellow Unchanging Avatar. Since: Dec, 2010
Unchanging Avatar.
#51358: Mar 16th 2013 at 5:11:11 PM

On the one hand, yes. His filibuster wasn't explicitly about the aspects of our current policy that I find worrying.

On the other hand, though, it's good to see someone in the Senate finally challenge current foreign policy at all. Our foreign policy has not improved enough under Obama, and the left has now declared victory and gone home. So if I have to see the opposition to current policy coming from Rand Paul, I'll take it. It's better than nothing, which is what we've had for the last four years.

@Appeals Court: Good. I want Obama and Bush to go down in history together as a thwarted attempt to expand executive power and the influence of the CIA.

edited 16th Mar '13 5:13:46 PM by Ultrayellow

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#51359: Mar 16th 2013 at 5:20:30 PM

I agree. Rand Paul is the minority, sometimes the lone, voice of a less interventionist view, against a neoconservative norm that has been common throughout the executive since FDR through Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Reagan, Bushes and Obama. I'm not entirely against neoconservative foreign policy, but it has led to its abuses, and it's about time to rein them in.

terlwyth Since: Oct, 2010
#51360: Mar 16th 2013 at 5:24:15 PM

[up] You mean like Jimmy Carter? Or Richard Nixon?

edited 16th Mar '13 5:24:31 PM by terlwyth

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#51361: Mar 16th 2013 at 5:32:20 PM

[up]

Nixon was very Neo-Conservative

Only Ford and Carter* didn't use Neo-Conservative methods.

  • = Carter did authorize the infamous Operation Eagle Claw, but that was only as a last resort.

edited 16th Mar '13 5:32:46 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#51362: Mar 16th 2013 at 5:34:52 PM

[up]

Eagle Claw was the right call but horribly executed. If it had succeeded we'd be declaring it proof that Carter had a backbone.

edited 16th Mar '13 5:35:37 PM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei
Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#51363: Mar 16th 2013 at 5:35:08 PM

Also, Carter initiated the state of emergency, though that was because of Iran crisis.

Ultrayellow Unchanging Avatar. Since: Dec, 2010
Unchanging Avatar.
#51364: Mar 16th 2013 at 5:36:09 PM

I don't think it's fair to call FDR and his policy neoconservative. WW 2, unlike 9/11, really was an extenuating circumstance, that excused a military response. That said, I agree about all the other presidents you named.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#51365: Mar 16th 2013 at 5:37:43 PM

[up]It's because of his internment camps and his Manhattan Project that I think he was acting aggressive. Otherwise, yes, he was initially reluctant to go to war and only did so out of necessity.

edited 16th Mar '13 5:38:17 PM by Trivialis

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#51366: Mar 16th 2013 at 5:41:10 PM

Eric Cantor: 'Our schools are too dangerous'

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#51367: Mar 16th 2013 at 5:44:52 PM

[up][up]

The Manhattan Project almost certainly saved the lives of thousands of US servicemen and millions of Japanese citizens.

Schild und Schwert der Partei
Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#51368: Mar 16th 2013 at 5:47:35 PM

That's debatable but I'm not going to do so here; we have other threads for it.

My point is that FDR seemed to be very eager to use a destructive nuclear weapon. Truman was at least hesitant on using it.

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#51369: Mar 16th 2013 at 6:38:38 PM

Donald Trump: Immigration reform is a ‘suicide mission’ for GOP

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Ultrayellow Unchanging Avatar. Since: Dec, 2010
Unchanging Avatar.
#51370: Mar 16th 2013 at 6:48:17 PM

I've started tuning out as soon as I hear the word "Trump."

Eric Cantor, on the other hand, has a good point. I'm skeptical about his planned solutions, but he has correctly identified a problem.

edited 16th Mar '13 6:49:02 PM by Ultrayellow

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#51371: Mar 16th 2013 at 6:59:04 PM

I dont see what not preparing kids for college has to do with dangerous. Especially since College has its own problems in the form of most kids being unable to afford goin g there in the first place.

Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#51372: Mar 16th 2013 at 7:13:57 PM

At the same time, primary school doesn't really prepare them for jack shit either when it's impossible to get a retail job without a BA.

edited 16th Mar '13 7:14:07 PM by Pykrete

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#51373: Mar 16th 2013 at 10:03:21 PM

Guys, the problem is that poverty isn't being addressed. In places of concentrated poverty is where we're having the most problems with our kids. Like, in places where poverty is like seventy percent or more of the population. In other places our students appear to be quite competitive with the rest of the world. In places where poor students are in the minority, those students tend to be in the top placements when compared to students of other first world countries. Even in places where poor kids make up half the students they still tend to be competitive with the rest of the world.

Cantor has provided an absolute non solution. "School choice" isn't going to solve the myriad problems facing our schools.

Also, we have like three threads about education reform. Maybe we should revive the first one with this.

edited 16th Mar '13 10:04:16 PM by AceofSpades

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#51375: Mar 17th 2013 at 8:03:37 AM

Which illogical tangent?

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Total posts: 417,856
Top