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
I think part of the reason the Republican base is turning on Trump might also be because he's making certain things unsavory.
As was noted, many of the things he says are things Republicans believe in, but know better than to directly speak out loud. A lot of politicians might think, "Let's stick it to minorities," but with Trump out there going, "Hey, minorities! This is MY FIST. Let me tell you where I'm gonna stick it," it makes it difficult to advance those agendas without coming off as Trump-like.
Trump is shining a spotlight in all the corners of the Republican campaign platform that Republican politicians have very carefully danced around for ages. Even if he fails, it runs the risk of making the party itself unsavory unless they distance themselves from some ideas they hold very sacred for a while lest they be accused of being Trumplike.
Like, for at least 2-4 years, if you're a Republican and you want to talk about controlling our border, people are going to think of Trump's wall.
edited 10th Dec '15 9:06:16 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.and fearful of change or anything different (foreigners, different faiths, etc.), that is a major one, though it's interesting, over here it's the political right who are seen as elitists due to a good chunk of them going to public schools and then Oxbridge, though you do get the odd outlier like Tony Benn (had a peerage he willingly revoked to keep his position as a Labour MP) and Clement Atlee, who had the fancy upbrining and used to be a Conservative until he saw the poverty and suffering in London
advancing the front into TV Tropes@Deadbeatloser a couple pages back: Yes, they were referred to, as I recall, "no-go zones for the police". I want to say it was Jindal that said that, but again this is from memory. I mostly remember what was said, and not who specifically said it. Pretty sure it was after the Charlie Hebdo incident.
The Republican party is not turning against Trump. They're hemming and hawing, but they still absolutely refuse to state that if he gets the nomination they will not support him. No one should give them the credit of "turning against him" until they're actually willing to walk the walk. It's put up or shut up.
@ Why the poor dislike liberalism. Because liberals say things like that, and it comes of as relay condescending. That and often they and the rural poor share different values, "red blooded Americanism" vs slavish worship of all things European, a genuine belief that one can go far in life with hard work vs Liberals seeming contempt for the idea of hard work. And lets be honest, many of the poor are very very racist, though they don't see themselves as such. I'm reminded of many Muslims who moved to the deep South saying that their neighbors were really nice to them, but were constantly trying to convert them to Christianity.
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.![]()
Trying to convert Muslims doesn't necessarily make you an Islamophobe-particularly if you're being polite to them in every other sense. It just means you're really dedicated to spreading Christianity. It probably makes you very annoying, though.
edited 10th Dec '15 10:20:51 AM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34The janitor used to be trying to covertly convert me to Christianity (I'm an atheist). Annoying. Nice guy otherwise though.
I've heard some really bad horror stories about how atheists have been treated here in the US, though. With the non-religious growing as a percent of the population (thank you, fundamentalists), I'm interested to see how that might change politics. "Because Jesus said so" just won't cut it as an explanation.
Is there- I hope I'm not stretching the purpose of the thread too much, but is there really any sort of basis for the validity of any of the American right-wing's opinions?
I've never lived in the United States, but I do follow it's politics a great deal, and it's an instinctual part of my inner liberal to consider others with a spirit of empathy and moderation. Given this, it's a bit surprising to me to find that I cannot think of a single issue that I even partially agree with the Republicans on.
Is it the same for you folks? Is this just a symptom of the extremism of the Republican party? Do you know any moderate republicans that you agree with on certain issues?
yeyDonald Trump has a plan to win ‘100 percent’ of the black vote and prove he’s not a racist
What I found unsettling is about halfway down there a comment by Trump's lawyer, who's helping him organize.
Well, I am a Republican, so I'm a bit biased. Having said that, in arguments with some pretty leftist people, and they've admitted that they found me surprisingly reasonable. According to them, though, what they like most about me is something along the lines of "I actually believe the things most Republicans only pretend to have", and that I'm logically consistent.
Leviticus 19:34It is one hundred percent about the current extremism of the current Republican party. When they oppose the Democratic president for enacting a Republican plan just because he's a Democratic president (and also there is the claim that racism is involved) then that is a sign that the Republican party has shifted a good damn deal over the years.
Hell I think I remember Obama saying that something like twenty years ago he'd be considered a Republican with what his policies generally are a few years back. That was far more a commentary on the Republican party than on himself.
It also doesn't help that good chunk of the candidates appear to have openly become quite racist or have some sort of ongoing scandal/court case.
This is why a lot of moderate Republicans have defected to the Democrats in recent years.
In general, though, while I prefer most Democratic positions to most Republican positions, there are some things I'd cherrypick from the Republican platform if I could. I generally support gun rights (meaning I dislike the more heavy-handed gun control ideas that get floated), though the right-wing refusal to even discuss the issue (and their more flagrant bullshit like refusing to allow gun violence to be studied as a public health issue with government funding) is horrifically stupid. I support the death penalty, though I'd rather see it restricted to extremely serious crimes (like treason, terrorism, and crimes against humanity) rather than relatively "mundane" crimes like murder as it's used now. I'm also something of a warhawk by left-wing standards, though there are hawks among the Democrats (it's just that Republicans are pretty much exclusively hawks).
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
I consider myself but I mostly agree with you. I agree with most liberal positions but I do believe that comprehensive research into guns is needed and common sense gun control regulation should follow, not the broken system we have now.
I do not believe the death penalty is appropriate for most cases it is used now. It should only be applicable to serial killers or mass murderers and those guilty of crimes against humanity. What defines treason anyway?
I believe military force should only be used sparingly and if it can actually help a given situation.
Surveillance is a bi-partisan debate but I'm against surveillance that reaches too far. I'm ambivalent about drone strikes in and of themselves, but I do believe our metric for allowing these strikes is what needs fixing.
Stand Fast, Stand Strong, Stand TogetherWell, Hawks or Isolationists, though that's mostly from Ron Paul.
I do find it telling that, to my understanding something along the lines of 90% of Americans support background checks for firearm purchases, but Republicans in congress would sooner throw themselves off a building than support stricter checks.
I don't know how much this topic can stand the Wall of Text that would be required to fully document the complex history between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, and it is fallacious to state that all Republicans support the party's current national agenda, but I can at least attempt to summarize.
It is important to remember, as a starting point, that U.S. politics have been defined to a vastly underappreciated extent by racism. The Constitution nearly fell through over the question of slavery — the infamous "three fifths of a person" clause in the paragraph about the census was the result of a compromise between abolitionists and slave owners, the latter of which were quite prepared then to form their own nation. The "states' rights" issue that you hear about from time to time was originally used as an intellectual defense for "we want to own slaves".
Republicans have traditionally been the party of Big Business, while Democrats have traditionally been the party of The Little Guy. Obviously, that gets fuzzy in places, but it's a good starting point. At the time of the Civil War, the Republicans were aligned with Northern industrial and financial interests, who saw the slave economy of the south as a barrier to progress; and with a generally upper class white intellectual elite, who opposed slavery on moral grounds. The Democrats were aligned with the Southern plantation owners and a broad swathe of the lower class white population that was broadly against rights for blacks (out of fear that their own would be diminished).
The latter half of the 19th century was dominated by Republican politics, which included letting Big Business run rampant over the rights of individuals, with no meaningful regulatory controls. During the Great Depression, however, populist sentiment rose up in overwhelming force against Big Business. The New Deal was the initiative of a Democratic president, representing Labor. Like the Constitution, it nearly fell through because the white voting bloc vehemently opposed any reforms that would have to include racial integration — this is why we didn't get universal single-payer healthcare, by the way.
Over the mid-20th century, the Republican Party continued to represent the intellectual, pragmatic business elite who wanted the biggest slice of the pie they could get, while the Democrats represented the man on the street who wanted a fair shake. The GOP had been sorely stung by the New Deal and could not get a foothold in national politics to undo any of its provisions. However, there was a conspiracy afoot to change the game.
A little over 40 years ago, there was a huge schism in U.S. politics. The Civil Rights era finally overturned the balance of power between the parties, as the Southern Democrats broke ranks in a mass protest against racial integration. The Republican Party gladly accepted their support, little knowing the horror that would overtake them a few decades later.
Ronald Reagan was the harbinger — he came into power on a platform of subtle racism: reform the system so that the black man would no longer be stealing bread from the mouths of whites (literally and figuratively). He managed an unholy synthesis of the business agenda (lower taxes, kill regulation) with the populist white agenda (stick it to the colored folk).
What transpired should have been obvious to anyone observing impartially. The Republican Party, previously housing a huge chunk of the nation's intellectual and financial elite, found itself forced to deal with these know-nothings: ignorant, often poor white folk whose voting interests were mainly religious (evangelical Christian) and racist (anti-integration). In order to keep them in the party, the intelligentsia had to engage in some crazy mental gymnastics — basically, lying through their teeth about the benefits of cutting taxes and slashing welfare and regulation.
What they accomplished was to raise a generation of Republican leaders who believed wholeheartedly in those lies. When they saw the party's old guard paying mere lip service to them, they revolted en masse, kicked them out, and started a new revolutionary right-wing agenda, completing the evolution from a party of the elite to a party of the idiot. The last few GOP primaries have been the result of that evolution.
Today, the GOP represents an antagonistic, reactionary movement that is not sure what it wants, but is damn sure it knows what it opposes:
- Any government support for or extension of voting rights/civil protections to blacks.
- The presence in the country of Latin American immigrants.
- Recently, the presence in the country of Muslims.
- Any government program that takes money from anyone to help anyone else (except big business).
- Any hint that tax or regulatory policy might interfere with business, especially that based on the idea of climate change.
- The teaching of any secular scientific theory that might contradict Biblical Creationism.
- Any form of legal protection for women's sexual or reproductive rights.
- Any form of legal protection for LGBT rights.
- Any attempt to restrict gun ownership (for whites).
- Any attempt to enforce Federal jurisdiction over any civil action undertaken by states or individuals.
- Anything that Barack Obama does, period.
Because so many Republican voters do not participate in their party's primary process, it is remarkably easy for the nominations to be dominated by a vocal, strident minority that reflects the worst of the party's voter base. Thus, you can no longer be a national Republican candidate who does not support the above agenda.
edited 10th Dec '15 1:18:26 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Poor people cannot afford that much education, or they can only afford bad education. Bad education means they wont get good jobs which will then be blamed on someon. So they are very resentful.
People with bad education poor access to travel and experiences will be more and more isolated, isolation breeds hatred and misunderstanding from other people so here you are going to have a segment of people whose vote is easily swayed but they are readily ignorant and hateful. A double edged sword.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes