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

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#110101: Jan 29th 2016 at 3:36:16 PM

But either way, it still is hard to see "she is paid to do a job like everyone else in her station!"
I don't think listing mostly conservative examples will help your argument since I'm getting the idea SolipsistOwl is a Bernie supporter.

Is your only argument that Clinton takes money just as much as Republicans?
Kinda [nja]'D my point there, but it stands.

edited 29th Jan '16 3:38:48 PM by sgamer82

SolipsistOwl Since: Jan, 2016
Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#110103: Jan 29th 2016 at 3:38:34 PM

Again, why did Krugman change his mind on single-payer between '05 and now?

Probably for the same reason I like 'Smells like Teen Spirit' when Nirvana play it, but would probably hate it if Nickelback played it.

Schild und Schwert der Partei
Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#110104: Jan 29th 2016 at 3:38:48 PM

I have absolutely no fucking idea who Rudy Giuliani or Alan Greenspan are, that is just a quick google search. I did not know they were Republicans. In the lists I linked, her husband is there too so it is not a political thing.

I don't even live in the U.S, Solipsist. I don't care. And from outside, it seriously looks like obsession with a tenuous at best connection.

Al gore is in those lists too. I am pretty sure he is a dem.

edited 29th Jan '16 3:40:09 PM by Aszur

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
SolipsistOwl Since: Jan, 2016
#110105: Jan 29th 2016 at 3:40:20 PM

[up]Alan Greenspan was the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve who famously admitted that he was the cause of the '08 banking crisis through pushing conservative economic principles during Bill Clinton's administration.

edited 29th Jan '16 3:42:50 PM by SolipsistOwl

Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#110106: Jan 29th 2016 at 3:43:02 PM

Yeah that's fine he can be a monkey's uncle for all I care, but the point is people are paid a lot by banks, exec groups, universities everything, for no real good reason at all and this happens a lot when people are as famous as Clinton.

Parading her name around as a speech guest is like making of her a prize dog show in the world of business conventions. Not making an infernal soul binding contract with her.

It's just what those things are and have always been...

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
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
#110107: Jan 29th 2016 at 3:43:30 PM

never claimed that Clinton's speaking fees disqualify her from the presidency? It disqualifies her from my vote, sure.

If it makes you unwilling the vote for her that's fine, but don't discard voting against the other guy.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#110109: Jan 29th 2016 at 3:44:37 PM

[up][up][up] And presumably all parties involved are getting what they want out of it and it doesn't violate any laws, so the fact she's given speeches seems to be irrelevant to any points here.

edited 29th Jan '16 3:45:04 PM by sgamer82

tricksterson Never Trust from Behind you with an icepick Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Above such petty unnecessities
Never Trust
#110110: Jan 29th 2016 at 3:44:40 PM

[up]x6 Yes they are and, should she get elected, they will continue go on about it up until, if necessary, the end of her second term at every opportunity, manufacturing said opportunities if they have to.

edited 29th Jan '16 3:45:49 PM by tricksterson

Trump delenda est
Mio Since: Jan, 2001
#110111: Jan 29th 2016 at 3:46:28 PM

The change in Krugman's tune probably comes down to him thinking it was much more possible then then he does now, what with the House pretty much locked in for Republicans until at least the end of the decade.

He's also noted that Sander's proposed plan is much more generous then medicare and apparently more generous then other single-payer systems, though I don't know how true that is.

SolipsistOwl Since: Jan, 2016
#110112: Jan 29th 2016 at 3:47:54 PM

Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, has just published an editorial criticizing Krugman on misunderstanding Sanders' theory of political change:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-weisbrot/paul-krugman-misunderstan_b_9116490.html

edited 29th Jan '16 3:48:42 PM by SolipsistOwl

Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#110113: Jan 29th 2016 at 3:52:26 PM

Mark Weisbrot also thought Venezuela's economic policies were tickety-boo (how's a shortage of necessities and 808% inflation working out for you?) and the CEPR, despite its name, is a left-wing version of the Cato Institute. I certainly wouldn't trust him over Krugman.

edited 29th Jan '16 3:55:23 PM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei
Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#110114: Jan 29th 2016 at 3:53:26 PM

Former presidents and political figures will make that money regardless of who gets elected

The clinton connection with goldman sachs via speeches is just plain silly. I am not contesting or favoring, or rather, trying to favor someone to vote one or the other guy (unless I can convince you not to vote for trump. My suggestion is: don't), just arguing that the goldman sachs clinton connection doesn't really stand...

Mark Weisbrot also thought Venezuela's economic policies were tickety-boo (how's a shortage of necessities and 808% inflation working out for you?)

Ach: Did I ever teeeeeeeeeell you you're my herooooooo

edited 29th Jan '16 3:54:35 PM by Aszur

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
SolipsistOwl Since: Jan, 2016
#110115: Jan 29th 2016 at 3:54:55 PM

[up]The presidential pension was created to prevent former presidents from "peddling prestige" to the highest bidder. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have broken the compact of the presidential pension.

The subject of how an ex-president should lead their life was a hot one in the early 20th century. At that time, the country was barreling through the Industrial Revolution and saw the rise of extremely powerful robber barons and titans of industry who sought to influence the political process.

One of these men was Andrew Carnegie, who made his fortune from the steel industry; by the time of his retirement in 1901 at the age of 66, he was the world's richest man. Known as both a tremendous philanthropist and a man who ruled his own industry with an iron fist, Carnegie entered the debate over presidential pensions by offering to fund a private $25,000 pension for all retired ex-presidents.

This drew great controversy in the Congress and in political circles all over the country, as the idea that presidents would retire with the knowledge they'd receive huge sums of money from the world's richest man—the equivalent figure is over $600,000 in today's dollars—could create real conflicts of interest.

Flash-forward to the 1950s. Former president Harry Truman left the White House so poor he moved backed to Independence, Missouri because “financially they had little other choice.” He turned down offers to become a chairman at a Florida real estate firm, and didn't go into lobbying or consulting. "I could never lend myself to any transaction, however respectable," Truman wrote, "that would commercialize on the prestige and dignity of the office of the presidency."

Moved by his plight, the Congress finally passed the FPA to ensure that presidents could retire with some financial comfort. But Truman had one more trick up his sleeve to bring himself back to comfortable living. He received a $700,000 advance for his memoirs, and charged a fee for appearing on Edward R. Murrow's television program “See it Now.”

http://www.alternet.org/obscene-federal-money-gravy-train-ex-presidents

edited 29th Jan '16 4:01:23 PM by SolipsistOwl

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#110116: Jan 29th 2016 at 4:00:36 PM

Yeah, it sucks, but it's a fact of public life. Uniquely singling out Clinton for it in this campaign makes your true motivation really obvious, and makes me less interested, not more, in voting for Bernie.

edited 29th Jan '16 4:01:25 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
SolipsistOwl Since: Jan, 2016
#110117: Jan 29th 2016 at 4:03:02 PM

[up]I am a registered Democrat. I intend to vote Democrat. I care about where candidates receive their campaign contributions.

Clinton is the only Democrat currently running for president who has accepted such large amounts of money from financial organizations. She is also the "frontrunner."

Should I instead "single out" O'Malley?

edited 29th Jan '16 4:04:42 PM by SolipsistOwl

Ogodei Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers from The front lines Since: Jan, 2011
Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers
#110118: Jan 29th 2016 at 4:03:37 PM

Also recall that the Clintons had to cover a lot of legal fees during their presidency, so while i wouldn't quite buy Bill's claim in his biography that they were broke, they were definitely hurting for cash in the early 2000s

SolipsistOwl Since: Jan, 2016
#110119: Jan 29th 2016 at 4:14:26 PM

[up]How do you go from being in debt to having over $100 million in income within just ten years? No amount of speaking engagements should justify that kind of wealth.

Did Bill's presidential pension not cover their lifestyle?

edited 29th Jan '16 4:14:43 PM by SolipsistOwl

PotatoesRock Since: Oct, 2012
#110120: Jan 29th 2016 at 4:15:03 PM

@110066

[up]Okay. So you just accept corruption.
IIRC, there's been articles in the past noting by journalists and pundists you need some level of corruption, back-room hand greasing and pork barreling or else you lose stability of both parties being able to effectively pass policy. (A lot of anti-pork and hand greasing rules and laws were passed prior to Obama's administration that probably helped feed the need of ideological purity plaguing Congress.)

Basically you need oil and lubricant on the machines to keep them running, metaphorically.

Now mind you, the level Clinton is doing it is sketchy as shit, even if there is no crime.

And is why she's probably increasingly suffering in the polls. (Also doesn't help that Sanders has been playing the role of offering the other cheek when the first is struck, and Clinton has been attacking the bejezus out of him in recent days.)

@110096

In 2005, Krugman wrote in favor of single-payer healthcare. Why did he change his mind?
Probably 6 or so years of Republicans screaming, punching and kicking to the point of providing a bloody nose. Basically the view among wonks is "Single Payer is a nice idea but it's political unfeasible, and we're still circling the wagon train trying to protect Obamacare from the Republicans having completely FUCKING LOST IT".

nervmeister Since: Oct, 2010
#110121: Jan 29th 2016 at 4:15:34 PM

[up][up][up][up]Yeah, I'm less than sold on Clinton as well. She plays identity politics too much, flip-flops like an electrocuted toad, and her eagerness to please her corporate backers is all but outright admitted now.

edited 29th Jan '16 4:23:41 PM by nervmeister

SolipsistOwl Since: Jan, 2016
#110122: Jan 29th 2016 at 4:16:03 PM

[up][up]I posted a later source showing Krugman in support of single-payer as recent as 2008.

edited 29th Jan '16 4:16:17 PM by SolipsistOwl

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
#110123: Jan 29th 2016 at 4:16:55 PM

What other guy?

The Republicans, though this only applies to the actual election, when we're talking primaries there's nobody to vote against just yet.

edited 29th Jan '16 4:17:15 PM by Silasw

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
PotatoesRock Since: Oct, 2012
#110124: Jan 29th 2016 at 4:17:11 PM

Obamacare was passed in 2009.

Republicans have been punching, kicking, screaming and smashing with a lead pipe since then, at the idea of the government ever going beyond Medicare and Medicaid before Obamacare's expansions.

SolipsistOwl Since: Jan, 2016
#110125: Jan 29th 2016 at 4:18:22 PM

[up]Democrats passed-up single-payer, not Republicans. Democrats held a supermajority in Congress, and opted not to go full single-payer because of the expected fight from the special interests. Had nothing to do with the Republicans—not that they made it any easier.

edited 29th Jan '16 4:18:40 PM by SolipsistOwl


Total posts: 417,856
Top