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

NickTheSwing Since: Aug, 2009
#112476: Feb 18th 2016 at 5:19:11 PM

Essentially, Bush represents the establishment in a way that even Marco Rubio cannot - if he can humiliate and destroy Bush sufficiently to make him drop out, he can become the most powerful of the Anti-Establishment candidates.

Because Bush represents the Bush Political Dynasty, power through money and birth. If Trump crushes him like a bug, the signal is sent to those dissenting Alt Right individuals and they'll switch over to him.

Crushing Cruz after such a thing is trivial - Cruz is hemorrhaging support, and people daily say what a bad, nasty guy he is.

You cannot run for President while being publicly talked about by everyone in such a way.

edited 18th Feb '16 5:20:19 PM by NickTheSwing

FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#112477: Feb 18th 2016 at 7:46:13 PM

I wouldn't prep for Jeb's political funeral yet guys. A lot of the reason support isn't flowing to him now (despite performing better as time goes on) is because of the Robot. As long as Rubio is around, Jeb can't corner the establishment vote and consolidate the anti-Truz crowd, due to the mistaken belief that the Robot is the only one who can win in a general.

SolipsistOwl Since: Jan, 2016
#112478: Feb 18th 2016 at 8:55:55 PM

@Native Jovian

I have yet to read any solid criticism of Sanders' economic policies from someone other than those invested in supporting Clinton, like bankers.

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#112479: Feb 18th 2016 at 9:09:44 PM

[up]Did you consider that some of these people support her over him precisely because his plans aren't actually feasible? That seems to be how it is for this Krugman guy everyone loves mentioning.

SolipsistOwl Since: Jan, 2016
#112480: Feb 18th 2016 at 9:12:53 PM

[up]If a person's job title is "lobbyist" or "banker," I'm not going to trust their opinion on banking and the financial sector. There's an inherent conflict-of-interest.

You don't get to donate thousands of dollars to a candidate, then publish an attack on their opponent without admitting it in said article. Transparency.

edited 18th Feb '16 9:13:42 PM by SolipsistOwl

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#112481: Feb 18th 2016 at 9:15:30 PM

I never said otherwise. I mentioned a specific name. If he supports Clinton over Sanders, is highly trusted in his field, and has given actually reasons he doesn't buy into Sanders plan, do you have anything to refute that that makes just brushing him off as "A Hilary supporter" justifiable?

SolipsistOwl Since: Jan, 2016
#112482: Feb 18th 2016 at 9:17:29 PM

I can name several economists that have refuted Krugman and/or support Sanders' economic proposals—including former Clinton administration advisers.

Krugman is a smart guy, but he hasn't broke down the numbers to my liking. He just disagrees.

edited 18th Feb '16 9:18:43 PM by SolipsistOwl

PotatoesRock Since: Oct, 2012
#112483: Feb 18th 2016 at 9:59:18 PM

Bernie Sanders Economic Plans Questioned By Critics With Ties To Wall Street, Hillary Clinton

Four former chairs of the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers on Wednesday questioned the economic plan proposed by Bernie Sanders, as did a prominent Democratic senator. Two of those economists and the lawmaker have something else in common: They have financial ties to Wall Street. The other two letter writers also have ties to Sanders’ Democratic primary opponent, Hillary Clinton.

Laura Tyson and Austan Goolsbee were two of the signatories on a letter to Sanders criticizing his campaign for touting Professor Gerald Friedman’s analysis of his economic proposals. “We are concerned to see the Sanders campaign citing extreme claims by Gerald Friedman about the effect of Senator Sanders’s economic plan — claims that cannot be supported by the economic evidence,” the letter said.

While respected economists and liberal columnists have condemned Friedman’s paper as far too optimistic, the Financial Times defended it on Thursday, writing that “a prolonged period of rapid growth in the U.S. is plausible, with the right policy mix.”

Goolsbee and Tyson — the latter of whom was a Bill Clinton appointee — both work for a financial industry that has faced withering attacks from Sanders. Tyson has held a lucrative seat on the board of directors at Morgan Stanley since 1997, shortly after she completed her time leading the Council of Economic Advisers. In 2013, Morgan Stanley paid Hillary Clinton $225,000 for a speech. The Wall Street mega-bank has been one of Clinton’s top sources of donations throughout her political career. The same bank employed Clinton’s top deputy at the U.S. State Department, both before and after his trip through Washington’s proverbial “revolving door.”

Obama 'third term' label concerns some with Clinton ties

Hillary Clinton’s Lead Shrinks as More Women Shift to Bernie Sanders, WSJ/NBC News Poll Finds

Comcast (mother company of MSNBC) exec to hold fundraiser for Hillary Clinton

Warren Buffett Raising Money For Hillary Clinton Amid Democrats’ Calls For Probe Into Mobile Home Business

Senator Cory Booker Gets More from Wall Street Than Any Member of Congress

(Quinnipiac) Hillary basically loses to any Republican bar Trump in November, Sanders crushes all of them, but the Republican wins if Bloomberg jumps into the race if Sanders wins the Primary.

Bad news for Ted Cruz: his eligibility for president is going to court

SolipsistOwl Since: Jan, 2016
#112484: Feb 18th 2016 at 10:09:44 PM

[up]It was a great news-cycle. Tomorrow should be even better because of the Saturday caucuses in Nevada.

PotatoesRock Since: Oct, 2012
#112485: Feb 18th 2016 at 10:15:15 PM

Also apparently Sanders' campaign released his speeches in response to Hillary saying she'd release hers when everyone else released theirs.

Eschaton Since: Jul, 2010
#112486: Feb 18th 2016 at 10:21:36 PM

Here's the response in question.

But more importantly, in that Quinnipiac poll, 55% believed Clinton would have a better chance in the general election, compared to 47% for Sanders. And then they managed to prove the opposite in that very same poll. Absolutely fascinating.

edited 18th Feb '16 10:31:23 PM by Eschaton

SolipsistOwl Since: Jan, 2016
#112487: Feb 18th 2016 at 10:27:45 PM

[up][up]I think the Sanders' camp responded less because of the transcript issues, and more because Clinton tried to deflect through Sanders—that was an attack on his integrity.

Luminosity Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Lovey-Dovey
#112488: Feb 18th 2016 at 10:36:39 PM

Comcast (mother company of MSNBC) exec to hold fundraiser for Hillary Clinton

One of the most evil companies in America supports Clinton? Heh.

Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#112489: Feb 18th 2016 at 11:32:26 PM

Apart from Healthcare, what is Sanders' stance on Nationalisation? Does he believe that some private businesses (or powers held by States) should be Nationalised (or Federalised)?

edited 18th Feb '16 11:45:34 PM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#112490: Feb 18th 2016 at 11:41:34 PM

I have yet to read any solid criticism of Sanders' economic policies from someone other than those invested in supporting Clinton, like bankers.
Krugman is neither. The guy is an economics professor. He's neither a banker nor a lobbyist. He identifies as a liberal, but isn't shy about speaking against the Democratic party when he feels they're making mistakes. He has no real ties to any specific candidates except what he's posted about, which is an analysis of their own plans in their own words. Accusing him of being a Clinton shill because he criticized Sanders' plan is basically saying that it's impossible to have a good-faith disagreement with Sanders.

Krugman is a smart guy, but he hasn't broke down the numbers to my liking. He just disagrees.
This post from about a month ago is the one where he really talks about Sanders' plan. He specifically says that he has no real love for Clinton ("Hillary Clinton is no paragon of political virtue"). On specific issues, he doesn't break them down to line-by-line refutations of individual points, but he doesn't need to. He just gets to the point: the math in Sanders' plan simply does not add up ("it both promises more comprehensive coverage than Medicare or for that matter single-payer systems in other countries, and assumes huge cost savings that are at best unlikely given that kind of generosity").

You have a couple options over how to respond to this. You can say that Krugman just doesn't like Sanders, and his criticism is based on that rather than a legitimate look at Sanders' plan. I've already spelled out above why I don't think that's the case. You can say that Krugman is simply, honestly mistaken in his analysis. I don't think that's especially likely either, given that other people have levelled much the same criticism at Sanders as Krugman has, but it's possible. Or you can accept that Krugman is correct and argue that Sanders is still a better candidate than Clinton despite this. I'm more sympathetic to this view, even if I don't agree personally.

However, simply saying "they have ties to Clinton and/or Wall Street, no wonder they oppose Sanders!" is not at all convincing. It completely ignores the possibility that they support Clinton over Sanders because they legitimately believe that her policies are better than his, or that their experience in the finance sector is what makes them qualified to comment on economic matters in the first place. It smacks of judging people based on whether or not they agree with your predetermined conclusions rather than based on the merit of the argument they're presenting.

edited 18th Feb '16 11:42:32 PM by NativeJovian

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#112491: Feb 19th 2016 at 12:02:28 AM

One thing I'm still concerned about with Sanders' plan is that he knows it'll die in Congress (didn't he say as much somewhere? Having trouble digging up the source), and I'm concerned that that's why he's not filling in the asterisks.

edited 19th Feb '16 12:03:22 AM by Ramidel

SolipsistOwl Since: Jan, 2016
#112492: Feb 19th 2016 at 12:06:10 AM

I did not accuse Krugman of being an "Hillary shill." That was clearly in reference to other 'experts,' as pointed out by the article sourced by Potatoes Rock.

The article you linked does not provide any detailed analysis of Sanders' healthcare plan by Krugman. It's just a blog post of Krugman asserting that single-payer is a "virtual impossibility." I prefer more recent analysis that actually discusses the numbers.

Considering how much Krugman has pushed for single-payer in the past, I choose to dismiss his opinion because it seems based more in cynicism than anything concrete.

[up]Presidential candidates are not typically expected to have a complete bill in place when pushing a platform, so of course Sanders' healthcare proposal won't be 100% complete. The point is to have an agenda to give Congress.

No one is asking Clinton how she'll reduce climate change, for example. She hasn't offered any suggestion as to how she would do it.

edited 19th Feb '16 12:14:05 AM by SolipsistOwl

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#112493: Feb 19th 2016 at 12:31:26 AM

I did not accuse Krugman of being an "Hillary shill." That was clearly in reference to other 'experts,' as pointed out by the article sourced by Potatoes Rock.
You expressed skepticism of people who were critical of Sanders' plan. I said that there had been numerous people who posted legitimate concerned with it, and mentioned Krugman specifically. You said that you hadn't seen any significant criticism of Sanders' plan "from someone other than those invested in supporting Clinton". I hadn't mentioned anyone specifically except Krugman, and no one else had mentioned anyone else between my comment and yours. So are you saying that you weren't calling Krugman a Clinton supporter and/or a Wall Street insider? What did you mean, then?

Also, putting scare quotes around "experts" without actually addressing why you think they're wrong goes directly back to the attitude I mentioned in my last post, about making it seem like you're dismissing them because they're critical of Sanders, rather than based on actual evidence. Specific concerns have been raised: Sanders' plan appears to make highly optimistic assumptions in order to make its numbers work, and those assumptions appear unlikely to be reflected in reality. Your response has been "everyone saying that is a Clinton supporter or a Wall Street fatcat", which isn't actually a response at all. If a bunch of people say that the sky is blue and your response is "well, everyone who said that is a jerk", even if you're right and everyone who said that is a jerk, that doesn't make them wrong.

The article you linked does not provide any detailed analysis of Sanders' healthcare plan by Krugman.
Does it need to? He says that he believes Sanders' plan is not viable as written, and explains why (because Sanders makes a bunch of overly optimistic assumptions). If you trust Krugman to make a good analysis — which I do, and you haven't given me any reason why I shouldn't — then that's enough to make me leery of Sanders' plan. "He doesn't provide a detailed analysis" isn't an argument against his conclusion (that Sanders' plan is bad), it's an attempt to steer the conversation away from the idea that Sanders' plan might be bad and turn it into an argument over what constitutes a sufficient level of analysis, instead.

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that Krugman posted a massive and exhaustive line-by-line analysis of Sanders' plan, and ultimately came to the exact same conclusion: Sanders' plan is bad because it makes a lot of overly generous assumptions. Would you accept that?

It's just a blog post of Krugman asserting that single-payer is a "virtual impossibility." I prefer more recent analysis that actually discusses the numbers.

Considering how much Krugman has pushed for single-payer in the past, I choose to dismiss his opinion because it seems based more in cynicism than anything concrete.

Krugman actually says he's setting aside the fact that the current political climate makes actually getting single-payer through Congress virtually impossible. He's not saying "single-payer is a virtual impossibility, so Sanders' plan is bad". He's specifically saying that "that aside, it's still a bad plan". He's not judging it based on political feasibility or dismissing it out of cynicism. He's judging it based on the fact that the financial aspects of it do not reflect reality.

Also, that post is about a month old, and was made after Sanders released his health care reform plans. I'm not sure what about it needs to be "more recent", as Sanders' plan hasn't changed significantly in the meantime, as far as I'm aware. That's just another variation of the "not detailed enough" claim — the "not recent enough" claim, so we can argue about what constitutes "recent enough" instead of actually talking about the conclusion reached (that Sanders' plan is bad).

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
SolipsistOwl Since: Jan, 2016
#112494: Feb 19th 2016 at 12:38:52 AM

A wall of text won't make your points any stronger or clearer—I already responded to them before.

1.) Disagreeing with Sanders' proposals is not good enough to prove why they're supposedly bad.

2.) It's obvious that the opinion on this issue from any lobbyist or financial sector worker is irrelevant to the discussion.

edited 19th Feb '16 12:40:58 AM by SolipsistOwl

Luminosity Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Lovey-Dovey
#112495: Feb 19th 2016 at 12:40:32 AM

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that Krugman posted a massive and exhaustive line-by-line analysis of Sanders' plan, and ultimately came to the exact same conclusion: Sanders' plan is bad because it makes a lot of overly generous assumptions. Would you accept that?

Sorry not sorry, but he needs to actually do that first. "Shut up and trust me" is not a good argument. The end.

TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#112496: Feb 19th 2016 at 12:46:52 AM

You haven't answered the question, though. Should we take that as a yes? Because otherwise it feels like if he does that you'll just be Moving the Goalposts further.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Luminosity Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Lovey-Dovey
#112497: Feb 19th 2016 at 12:48:44 AM

You haven't answered the question, though. Should we take that as a yes? Because otherwise it feels like if he does that you'll just be Moving the Goalposts further.

Because it's a bad meaningless argument that goes nowhere and proves nothing.

"Would you agree with me if I was correct?" Well yeah, but you need to be correct first. And no reason for that has yet been given.

To prove that I'm not moving any goalposts I'm going to say the same thing I said to Nihlus. Multiple sources, independently proving the same thing, with repeatable analysis. Or bust. Not the "He just says that and I agree with him because I feel like agreeing with him."

edited 19th Feb '16 12:53:04 AM by Luminosity

TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#112498: Feb 19th 2016 at 1:03:27 AM

That is perfectly respectable. In fact, it is my stance also.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#112499: Feb 19th 2016 at 4:55:34 AM

Interestingly enough, Krugman's column today examines this exact issue, noting that if you dispute criticism of Sanders' economic plans by folks like Christina Romer and Alan Krueger on the basis that they are "establishment shills", then you have essentially reduced the debate to one of name-calling, not serious policy.

What you have, in effect, declared is that any criticism of Sanders proves a priori that the person doing it is biased against him. You are also alienating people who could be your allies if you weren't so busy accusing them of being in the pocket of the Clinton Machine.

I, for example, am very interested in what Bernie has to say, and I support his ideas in a general sense, but from day one I wondered if he would ever produce concrete numbers to back up his claims. Now that these are being examined in the public arena, it looks very much like one of two things is happening: he's deeply wrong on the core economic calculations, or he is downplaying the reality in order to pitch hope to a disenfranchised public.

Then you get his supporters who declare any criticism to be proof of bias, and it makes it very hard to Feel the Bern. If they keep up this strident character assassination on anyone who disagrees with them, I may go with Clinton out of spite.


I will note this in addition: Nihlus was an asshole — basically a right-wing concern troll. I am a dedicated progressive, so trying to accuse folks like me of being tools of the system is balls-out stupid. We want Sanders' ideas to work, but he has, as yet, shown no proof that he understands what he's diving into.

edited 19th Feb '16 6:29:27 AM by Fighteer

"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
#112500: Feb 19th 2016 at 5:43:56 AM

A wall of text won't make your points any stronger or clearer—I already responded to them before.
No, you haven't. That's what my "wall of text" was about — pointing out exactly how the things you said failed to be an actual response to my arguments.

1.) Disagreeing with Sanders' proposals is not good enough to prove why they're supposedly bad.
They're bad because they make assumptions about cost savings that are unrealistically generous in his favor. I've said this. Dismissing that as simply "disagreeing" is disingenuous.

2.) It's obvious that the opinion on this issue from any lobbyist or financial sector worker is irrelevant to the discussion.
1) Krugman is neither a lobbyist nor a worker in the financial sector, which I've said already and you've failed to respond to. 2) Just because you dislike someone doesn't mean they're wrong. If their argument is bad, you should be able to attack their argument. Calling someone a lobbyist or a Wall Street insider as a means to discredit their argument is pure ad hominem.

Sorry not sorry, but he needs to actually do that first. "Shut up and trust me" is not a good argument. The end.
It is if you actually trust them. I trust Krugman, and no one's given me any reason not to.

That said, that wasn't my point in asking that question. The point was to determine what weight of evidence it would take to convince Solipsist that Sanders' plan was bad. The impression I'm left with so far is that nothing will.

Multiple sources, independently proving the same thing, with repeatable analysis.
That's been given. I don't have time to hunt up sources at the moment, but I can later if you want me to. Krugman is not the only one to criticize Sanders' plan as being overly optimistic.

We want Sanders' ideas to work, but he has, as yet, shown no proof that he understands what he's diving into.
This, essentially. The old saw about reality having a liberal bias? That's not because reality changes to suit liberal policy, that's because liberals change their policy to suit reality. If Sanders isn't doing that, then that's extremely problematic. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool reality at all, ever. If your policies aren't based in reality, then your policies will fail. That's the concern we have with Sanders.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

Total posts: 417,856
Top