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

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#103301: Oct 13th 2015 at 10:08:34 PM

Well, unlike the Republican debate, it's not like Chafee and Webb have an actual shot at becoming the Presidential candidate. Unless someone spree-shoots both Clinton and Sanders in the middle of the next debate.

The purpose of the other three being there was to determine their veepability, really. But they still should have gotten more of a chance to speak.

probablyinsane Since: Oct, 2011 Relationship Status: I LOVE THIS DOCTOR!
#103302: Oct 13th 2015 at 10:24:15 PM

Because of VP talk, I gotta ask if Clinton or Sanders can be each other's second-in-command.

Basically, I like both of them - can't I just have both of them?

Plants are aliens, and fungi are nanomachines.
AngelicBraeburn from Eccentric California Since: Jan, 2015
#103303: Oct 13th 2015 at 10:30:18 PM

[up] I could sorta see Clinton/Sanders happening (although it seems highly unlikely), but Sanders/Clinton just seems impossible.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D), a vice chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, (DNC) said she was disinvited from the first Democratic presidential primary debate in Nevada after she appeared on television and called for more debates.

edited 13th Oct '15 10:39:56 PM by AngelicBraeburn

The artist formally known as Deviant Braeburn
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#103304: Oct 13th 2015 at 10:36:53 PM

No, mostly because for both of them, this is kinda their last realistic chance of the Presidency. They're both rather old. And we do not want the Presidency falling through to the Speaker.

probablyinsane Since: Oct, 2011 Relationship Status: I LOVE THIS DOCTOR!
#103305: Oct 13th 2015 at 10:42:31 PM

It would be helpful if the VP slot was treated as second prize, not a consolation prize.

I still wish Clinton had been Obama's VP.

Plants are aliens, and fungi are nanomachines.
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#103306: Oct 13th 2015 at 10:49:27 PM

Considering how that primary went that might not have been such a good idea. In any case, she did become Secretary of... I forget, but she was prominently a part of his staff and was good at it. Shit I can't remember the name. State?

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
#103307: Oct 13th 2015 at 11:27:11 PM

Sanders as Clinton's VP would also make her virtually impervious to impeachment. But yeah, you do lose the benefit from spending 4-8 years with a VP that you're training to take over. Then again, we've just had that with Biden and it doesn't seem to have done any real harm.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
probablyinsane Since: Oct, 2011 Relationship Status: I LOVE THIS DOCTOR!
#103308: Oct 13th 2015 at 11:30:19 PM

[up] Why would Sanders as Clinton's second in command make her immune to impeachment?

Plants are aliens, and fungi are nanomachines.
nightwyrm_zero Since: Apr, 2010
#103309: Oct 13th 2015 at 11:35:34 PM

[up]I assume it's because the Reps won't want the presidency going to Sanders after Clinton is impeached.

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
#103310: Oct 13th 2015 at 11:56:15 PM

Cus then you'd have president Sanders, unless they impeached him first.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#103311: Oct 14th 2015 at 12:19:54 AM

If the Republicans can impeach one President, they can impeach a second and force their Speaker in.

Anyway, part of the reason why Biden was seen as a serious candidate this cycle is because he was the veep under Obama. And because he managed to figure out how to turn his chronic foot-in-mouth disease into a yen for "plain speaking."

I figure that unless he completely screws up, eight years as veep will make O'Malley automatically become Serious Business because he was the veep. Especially since the Democratic Party is really short on leadership talent right now. (No, you guys can't have ex-Republican Bill Walker. He's ours! He belongs to Alaska!)

probablyinsane Since: Oct, 2011 Relationship Status: I LOVE THIS DOCTOR!
#103312: Oct 14th 2015 at 12:46:18 AM

That Biden is considered as strong contender is another reason why I wish Clinton had the previous 8 years as VP.

I would also assume that strong contenders for President would be more than qualified for the VP slot which honestly should be seen as second-in-command, not "do not want because not first place".

Besides, they belong to the same party.

Plants are aliens, and fungi are nanomachines.
Medinoc from France (Before Recorded History)
#103313: Oct 14th 2015 at 1:15:13 AM

About guns: Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the very principle of a gun-free zone to have armed people just outside its perimeter to keep the guns out?

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."
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
#103314: Oct 14th 2015 at 1:58:47 AM

I think it varies. Some are about avoiding accidents, some are about avoiding scaring people, some are about securing an area safely with armed personnel inside or on the edge.

If a zone is gun free to stop a hostile shooter then yes, but if this gun free to stop accidental discharges bought about drink, or intimidation of others bought about by the presence (but not use of) guns, then I'd say not really.

I mean every law is technically enforced by the threaten of armed personnel, but you don't station armed police at no entry signs on side roads.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#103315: Oct 14th 2015 at 3:38:01 AM

@probablyinsane: It can mean a lot of things. In 2008 and 2012 Republican, it meant "round out the ticket with someone who the hardliners will vote for." In 2000, it meant "the real President, who could never possibly win an election." In 2004 Democrat, it meant "heir apparent." (Clinton and Obama weren't on the radar - Edwards was seen as the frontrunner for 2008-2012 back then.)

The reason I want O'Malley in 2016 is because, as we can see, the Democratic field is badly short of leadership talent. Taking one guy who seems relatively solid and getting him eight years' more experience and name recognition is a good recipe for a potential 2024-er.

BlueNinja0 The Mod with the Migraine from Taking a left at Albuquerque Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
The Mod with the Migraine
#103316: Oct 14th 2015 at 4:03:05 AM

Ben Carson has apparently decided that the path to victory lies in claiming he can prevent the Apocalypse and/or the Rapture by persecuting Muslims, or something. Notes and potholes mine, italics from the link.

Dr. Ben Carson has always muttered crazy things. Normally, and in the age of Trump, this would've propelled him to frontrunner status months ago. So, why is he only recently seeing a spike in his polling? The answer is obvious: as of a week or two ago, Carson simply started muttered more crazy things, more often.

Honestly, I still can't figure out what the hell he was trying to prove with the Popeye's tall-tale. Add that to a nearly daily routine of saying things that would otherwise land him in a mental hospital to be tormented by Nurse Wratched, and Carson has risen to within breathing distance of Trump. Carson's advisers even acknowledged that blurting crazy shit is working for him. The New York Times, in an article titled "Ben Carson Finds Momentum in Provocative Remarks," reported:

But ever since Mr. Carson said on Sept. 20 that he did not think a Muslim should be president, then refused to retract the statement amid a furious reaction, his campaign has watched grass-roots support grow and donations pour in - and advisers have backtracked, deciding, in the words of one, to "let Carson be Carson."

As predicted, the childish Trump tactic is spreading through the discourse like the goddamned Ebola virus. Hence, his latest remarks, which are better suited for a cult leader or wacky televangelist.

Ben Carson on Sunday said the world may be getting closer to the end of days.

The GOP presidential candidate offered the comments to Sharyl Attkisson during an interview on SBG's "Frontline."

"You could guess that we are getting closer to that," he said when asked about the end of days. "You do have people that have a belief system that sees this apocalyptic phenomenon occurring and that they're a part of it. [They] would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons if they could gain possession of them."note 

The retired neurosurgeon then argued that if the world were truly approaching its destruction, he would do his best to reverse that course as president.

"I think we have a chance to certainly ameliorate the situation," he said. "I would always be shooting for peace. I wouldn't just take a fatalistic view of things."

To be fair, at least he said he'd try to stop the, you know, Armageddon. That's something. But think about it: Ben Carson believes he can stop the End Times. He can prevent the end of the world and the second coming of Christ. He said this. Ben Carson thinks he's more powerful than Godnote .

The very fact that he seriously believes it's just around the corner should be a gigantic red flag to anyone with a brain in their head - and that includes deeply religious people who happen to understand that the book of Revelations was metaphor and coded language penned by proto-Christians in hiding from persecution.

By the way, it's worth noting that quite a few Republicans also happen to be Christian Dominionists who believe that the End Times will begin in the Middle East, specifically Israel. The last thing we need is a president who dabbles in such horseshit.

And while we're on responsible gun use, a guy in Texas decides to shoot the person in front of his house at 4am, which turns out to have been his wife. Of course, the state's Castle Doctrine means he's safe from prosecution.

Texas may be the most armed-to-the-teeth state in the union. It also may be the most paranoid. In order to justify the ridiculous amount of firearms in their communities, Texas has adopted the idea that all those guns are necessary so good guys can defend themselves and shoot bad guys without hesitation. Thus the “castle doctrine.”

Castle doctrine allows people to protect their property with deadly force without a reasonable requirement to retreat. In other words, if you walk onto a front porch in Texas and that homeowner feels threatened, he can pretty much pull a gun, shoot you on sight and ask questions later. Under state law — and this isn’t just Texas but in states all across the country — if he can prove that he was protecting his domicile from aggressive entry, he’ll get away with it.

That’s exactly what happened in San Antonio over the weekend. After hearing a noise and seeing a flash of light at the front of his house, he did what every good Texan does: He grabbed a loaded shotgun and went to investigate. When he saw a figure with a flashlight, he fired a shot, without warning, and hit the alleged intruder in the chest.

By all rights this is a good, clean Texas kill. That man had no reason to back down, he had the means to defend his property, and the intruder was being shady with a flashlight at 4 AM. Unfortunately, for the unidentified man, the “intruder” was actually his wife, 48-year-old Debora Kelly. He called for help, but police arrived too late to help him identify the intruder before he killed her, and far too late to save her life.

Now this man gets to make arrangements and bury his wife. He hasn’t been charged yet, because when you have ridiculous laws it takes a ridiculous amount of evidence to convict someone of breaking them. This man could very have killed his wife on purpose, using her regular 4AM walk as the perfect alibi.

All this proves is that the more the right pushes their “good guy with a gun” theory, the more innocent people will meet their fate at the end of a loaded weapon.

edited 14th Oct '15 4:18:34 AM by BlueNinja0

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#103317: Oct 14th 2015 at 4:17:39 AM

Factcheck on the Democratic debate.

I really think that this:

Clinton claimed that “we lose 90 people a day from gun violence.” That’s true, but only a third of those deaths are from homicides.
is not even misleading because the factcheckers' addendum is irrelevant. Suicides are still something that guns in the home facilitate. (Also, "accidental discharges" should be prosecuted as homicide.)

[up]Heh heh..."shooting" for peace. I believe it!

edited 14th Oct '15 4:18:41 AM by Ramidel

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#103318: Oct 14th 2015 at 4:53:38 AM

Accidents and suicides are still gun deaths, although there is a reasonable debate to be had about whether a suicidal person would find another method if they lacked access to a firearm.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#103319: Oct 14th 2015 at 6:20:18 AM

Yeah, the vast majority (about two thirds, typically) of all "gun deaths" figures are suicides. It doesn't make those statistics wrong, but it means they can be misleading depending on the context used, as most people parse "deaths by gun violence" to mean "murders by gun".

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#103320: Oct 14th 2015 at 6:33:12 AM

I feel bad for Tulsi Gabbard. I'm sympathetic for her call for more debates and hate that the DNC decided to do that to her. The DNC in general has been disappointing.

And I still say Webb did fine, when he was allowed to talk. I say he's veep material because of Sanders specifically rather than generally. Because I don't see Clinton playing veep to Sanders in the case of a Sanders victory.

Ogodei Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers from The front lines Since: Jan, 2011
Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers
#103321: Oct 14th 2015 at 6:45:32 AM

Webb is untouchable. His views on race alone would make him toxic for the general, where minority turnout is *essential* for the Democrats to be more than a permanent also-ran.

Indeed, i think both would try for minority candidates. Clinton would grab HUD Secretary Julian Castro, Sanders would grab fellow Senator Cory Booker (NJ).

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#103322: Oct 14th 2015 at 6:47:10 AM

Webb was assertive but came off as petulant. Chafee and O'Malley were patient and seemed to accept that they weren't going to get as much screen time as Clinton and Sanders.

I would have liked Cooper to include them more, but the "you get to respond when your name is brought up" rule guarantees that the two top candidates get extra time for rebuttals. I am not a fan.

edited 14th Oct '15 6:48:17 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#103323: Oct 14th 2015 at 6:54:35 AM

[up][up]You can't go just for a minority though. They have to mesh with the candidate in a useful way, they still have to make sense in the same way any veep candidate makes sense. Who that is, I don't know, but I do know Booker needs at least a little more time in national politics before he's ready for prime time, experience-wise. Even more so with Castro.

[up]True. And agreed, the rules were dumb, and Coop ALSO can't manage debates for shit.

Really I only like Sanders-Webb because the two got along better than any other two candidates on that stage. But beyond that stage, there are better choices, to be fair.

edited 14th Oct '15 6:55:35 AM by FFShinra

speedyboris Since: Feb, 2010
#103324: Oct 14th 2015 at 7:25:22 AM

For those who missed the debate (like me), here's a transcript of it. It'll take me a while to read through this.

Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#103325: Oct 14th 2015 at 7:29:30 AM

America's suicide rate is not particularly noteworthy, being lower than France, Poland, and Finland, just to name a few, which does seem to suggest that people without guns will simply find another way. IIRC, the main method in the UK is hanging.

edited 14th Oct '15 7:30:05 AM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei

Total posts: 417,856
Top