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

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#110401: Feb 1st 2016 at 12:49:09 PM

It already is a multiparty system, it's just that most parties not named Republican or Democrat never take office. This is self-fulfilling; nobody votes for them because it's assumed they can't win; an assumption that rings true because nobody votes for them.

That's an issue with the voter base, not the government.

edited 1st Feb '16 12:50:07 PM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
Bense Since: Aug, 2010
#110402: Feb 1st 2016 at 12:54:34 PM

Because fostering a closer relationship with Asia is in no way good diplomacy, and being critical of China's human rights records is in no way important to forcing China to improve said human rights. Uh-huh.
There's nothing wrong with working towards better relations with Asia, it's just...unremarkable. They're certainly not saying she had outstanding success. Note that the rebuke for human rights violations the Times mentioned happened when she was First Lady, not Secretary of State, but they mentioned it here anyway probably because they couldn't think of any other noteworthy achievement she did as secretary.

TheWanderer Student of Story from Somewhere in New England (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
Student of Story
#110403: Feb 1st 2016 at 12:56:50 PM

No, I'm pretty sure I meant what I said, since it's pretty clear she wouldn't have achieved any of those other things if she hadn't married Bill Clinton (and her record as a senator and Secretary of State is pretty poor anyway).

Yeah, no. She was very active in politics as far back as the 60s, and political science was one of her undergrad majors. She was involved in helping to run the campaigns of prominent Democrats in the early 70s, as well as working at a law firm with connections to the far left at the time before graduating from Yale with a law degree, and then was part of the staff working to impeach Nixon. If anything, her career would have been much brighter and much faster if she hadn't married Bill Clinton, and stayed in Washington afterward instead of going to Arkansas with Bill.

As it is, between having majored in political science, worked on multiple political campaigns, being a lawyer and law professor, child advocate, having been part of the effort to impeach Nixon, 2 term senator, secretary of state, and 50 years of political activism and connections, I think her qualifications go a bit further than "was Bill Clinton's wife".

| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
Bense Since: Aug, 2010
#110404: Feb 1st 2016 at 1:12:46 PM

I was talking about notable achievements, not qualifications.

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#110405: Feb 1st 2016 at 1:17:04 PM

No, I'm pretty sure I meant what I said, since it's pretty clear she wouldn't have achieved any of those other things if she hadn't married Bill Clinton
That's not what you said. You can legitimately argue that being the First Lady is what allowed her to launch her independent political career; I wouldn't even disagree. It certainly gave her a whole hell of a lot of name recognition that she wouldn't have had otherwise. But what you said was that marrying Bill Clinton was her "most notable accomplishment", which is patently untrue. Being a former First Lady alone does not make you an electable political figure. Hillary Clinton's political career may have been launched by becoming First Lady, but it's only the most notable thing she's done if you ignore a further 15 years on the national political stage.

(and her record as a senator and Secretary of State is pretty poor anyway)
That's also not what you said. Whether you like the job she's done is an entirely separate question of whether she had the job in the first place.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
pwiegle Cape Malleum Majorem from Nowhere Special Since: Sep, 2015 Relationship Status: Singularity
Cape Malleum Majorem
#110406: Feb 1st 2016 at 1:18:47 PM

In the last presidential election, Hillary used to boast that she had something like thirty-five years of political experience. Well, being First Lady doesn't count, whether it's FLOTUS or First Lady of the state of Arkansas, because it's not an elected position and confers no actual power. Being a law professor doesn't count either, for similar reasons.

This Space Intentionally Left Blank.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#110407: Feb 1st 2016 at 1:19:10 PM

It seems like "I disapprove of her politics" and "she did a poor or insufficiently notable job while in office" are being erroneously conflated. Just more well-poisoning BS. /sigh

[up] I suppose you're forgetting that during Clinton's terms, it was widely rumored that Hillary was really running things, and this was used as an attack against her husband? You can't have it both ways.

Anyway, if she achieved nothing else at all as SecState, laying the groundwork for the Iran deal may be seen in the future as having kept us out of a full-fledged war. That ain't chump change. It certainly cannot be said that she lacks diplomacy skills or respect as a statesman on the world stage.

She's certainly orders of magnitude more qualified than Obama was, and more qualified than any other current candidate in terms of time in politics except for Sanders himself.

edited 1st Feb '16 1:22:18 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
DrDougsh Since: Jan, 2001
#110408: Feb 1st 2016 at 1:20:45 PM

Well, disapproving of someone's politics and thinking a politician does a poor job tends to go hand-in-hand.

NoName999 Since: May, 2011
#110409: Feb 1st 2016 at 1:24:49 PM

In the last presidential election, Hillary used to boast that she had something like thirty-five years of political experience. Well, being First Lady doesn't count, whether it's FLOTUS or First Lady of the state of Arkansas, because it's not an elected position and confers no actual power. Being a law professor doesn't count either, for similar reasons.

Did you just flatout just not read what TheWanderer wrote?

edited 1st Feb '16 1:25:42 PM by NoName999

Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#110410: Feb 1st 2016 at 1:25:18 PM

In that vein what did Barack Obama acheive before becoming president?

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
pwiegle Cape Malleum Majorem from Nowhere Special Since: Sep, 2015 Relationship Status: Singularity
Cape Malleum Majorem
#110411: Feb 1st 2016 at 1:25:38 PM

I suppose you're forgetting that during Clinton's terms, it was widely rumored that Hillary was really running things, and this was used as an attack against her husband? You can't have it both ways.

I never made any claim of having anything both ways, Fighteer. You must have my post confused with someone else's.

[up][up] I didn't say she had no political experience whatsoever, I just said that she inflated her resume with stuff that doesn't count.

edited 1st Feb '16 1:40:20 PM by pwiegle

This Space Intentionally Left Blank.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#110412: Feb 1st 2016 at 1:30:05 PM

Look, it's really simple. If you insist that Hillary's "lack of notable political achievements" in any way speaks to the viability of her campaign, present another candidate in the race with a comparable or superior body of achievements. Otherwise your point is moot.

As far as I can tell, Sanders is the only one.

edited 1st Feb '16 1:31:23 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Nihlus1 Since: Jul, 2015
#110413: Feb 1st 2016 at 1:30:35 PM

How is Sanders more qualified than Clinton? If politicians are rated on and said to be "qualified" based on their contribution to America, Sanders would get an F. All he's done since he's been in office is appeal to trade unionists, obstruct reform, and oppose vital economic bills such as TARP, in addition to trying to get the US to withdraw from the WTO.

edited 1st Feb '16 1:32:11 PM by Nihlus1

pwiegle Cape Malleum Majorem from Nowhere Special Since: Sep, 2015 Relationship Status: Singularity
Cape Malleum Majorem
#110414: Feb 1st 2016 at 1:31:21 PM

I choose... None of the Above. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

This Space Intentionally Left Blank.
Bense Since: Aug, 2010
#110415: Feb 1st 2016 at 1:32:01 PM

That's not what you said. You can legitimately argue that being the First Lady is what allowed her to launch her independent political career; I wouldn't even disagree.
Great. Then we do agree.

Being a former First Lady alone does not make you an electable political figure.
We agree there too.

That's also not what you said. Whether you like the job she's done is an entirely separate question of whether she had the job in the first place.
It was all one point. I believe her performance in general is poor to mediocre and therefore believe she would never have held federal office in the first place without her political connections. Therefore her acquisition of said political connections is her most notable accomplishment.

And now I've ruined what I thought was a reasonably pithy comment by over explaining it. Ah well.

edited 1st Feb '16 1:32:23 PM by Bense

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#110416: Feb 1st 2016 at 1:34:58 PM

@Nihlus1: Again, if you are going to use your like or dislike of a candidate's record as a gauge of the credibility of their political experience as a qualification for office, then you are engaging in a very serious logical fallacy.

You can say whatever you want about Sanders' policies, and I will agree or disagree with you (I disagree), but to present those as factual evidence of his qualifications for office is a completely miscarriage of logic.

edited 1st Feb '16 1:35:43 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Bense Since: Aug, 2010
#110417: Feb 1st 2016 at 1:37:33 PM

In that vein what did Barack Obama acheive before becoming president?
Well, he did have a legislative career in the Illinois state legislature and he was elected as a senator for a state he had actually lived in for a few years, without a famous spouse to give him name recognition.

edited 1st Feb '16 1:38:49 PM by Bense

Nihlus1 Since: Jul, 2015
#110418: Feb 1st 2016 at 1:38:13 PM

@Nihlus1: Again, if you are going to use your like or dislike of a candidate's record as a gauge of the credibility of their political experience as a qualification for office, then you are engaging in a very serious logical fallacy.
As I said, I was judging which more "qualified" by which has contributed more to America.

The logical fallacy is pretending that experience/time = qualified, especially for a candidate who is making economics the core of his campaign. If Clinton is a doctor who has been practicing medicine for 10 years, Sanders is a quook who has been practicing homeopathy (and telling everyone else how great it is) for 20 years.

You can say whatever you want about Sanders' policies, and I will agree or disagree with you (I disagree), but to present those as factual evidence of his qualifications for office is a completely miscarriage of logic.
So what are his qualifications then?

edited 1st Feb '16 1:44:38 PM by Nihlus1

MABfan11 from Remnant Since: May, 2014 Relationship Status: Shipping fictional characters
#110419: Feb 1st 2016 at 1:40:26 PM

i think the main problem with Clinton is Wall Street and TPP, people are tired of letting corporations and banks screw them over for profit.

didn't Clinton used to be more liberal in the past, rather than moderate as she is now?

Bumbleby is best ship. busy spending time on r/RWBY and r/anime. Unapologetic Socialist
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#110420: Feb 1st 2016 at 1:45:06 PM

[up][up] Simply put, Sanders has 25 years in Congress and 10 years as the mayor of Burlington, Vermont; that is an enormous weight of experience unmatched by any other candidate. Again, your approval of his policies has nothing to do with whether his experience qualifies him for President.

I find it rather amusing that we have in this group some rabid Sanders supporters who hate Clinton, a savage Sanders hater, and a few right-wingers who tear down Clinton. Maybe we middle-of-the-roaders should stand aside and let you guys fight it out.

edited 1st Feb '16 2:43:07 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Eschaton Since: Jul, 2010
#110421: Feb 1st 2016 at 1:46:53 PM

[up][up]I was under the impression it was the opposite, that the she was more conservative in the past and has drifted to more liberal positions. Though maybe it depends on the issues in the question.

Either way, this kind of political flexibility doesn't appeal much to voters who prefer a candidate who is more committed.

edited 1st Feb '16 1:47:15 PM by Eschaton

Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#110422: Feb 1st 2016 at 1:47:13 PM

Well, he did have a legislative career in the Illinois state legislature and he was elected as a senator for a state he had actually lived in for a few years, without a famous spouse to give him name recognition.

Hillary was the Secretary of State, and Senator for NYC, was she not? Does that not count?

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#110423: Feb 1st 2016 at 1:50:56 PM

Eh, Hillary rather infamously moved to New York just so she could get in under the residency requirement to be the state's Senator.

[up][up] People want candidates who are committed to their positions for ever and ever, even if those positions are stupid and ignoring that a President needs to be flexible and able to adapt to situations as they arise. /sigh

edited 1st Feb '16 1:51:38 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Bense Since: Aug, 2010
#110424: Feb 1st 2016 at 1:55:25 PM

Hillary was the Secretary of State, and Senator for NYC, was she not? Does that not count?
Would she have been either without having married Bill Clinton? I think the answer is clearly no.

How often do New Yorkers vote for someone who has never held a political office and who never lived in the state before for Senator?

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#110425: Feb 1st 2016 at 1:57:30 PM

How often do New Yorkers vote for someone who has never held a political office and who never lived in the state before for Senator?

Good question. What is the answer?

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

Total posts: 417,856
Top