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

JackOLantern1337 Shameful Display from The Most Miserable Province in the Russian Empir Since: Aug, 2014 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
Shameful Display
#112851: Feb 22nd 2016 at 4:55:55 PM

[up][up] That makes more sense, though I still think it is an overuse of the term. As for abolishing the CIA, both Truman and Kennedy found the agency could be useful to their goals. And the CIA gets an overly bad rap. They do indeed to terrible things, but every single one of those things are things they are ordered to do by higher authorities. Abolishing the CIA won't change that, it will only give the country a scapegoat, well the parts that see what the CIA is doing and has done as wrong anyways.

edited 22nd Feb '16 4:56:14 PM by JackOLantern1337

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
SolipsistOwl Since: Jan, 2016
#112852: Feb 22nd 2016 at 4:57:51 PM

I say abolish it. The CIA has very little oversight, and their tasks can easily be folded into the State Department and Department of Defense.

We have 12 intelligence agencies. It's a mess.

edited 22nd Feb '16 4:59:51 PM by SolipsistOwl

RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#112853: Feb 22nd 2016 at 6:15:02 PM

I thought the Israel/Palestine thread was only for discussing recent news stories related to those countries? More general discussion of whether the US should support Israel would be off-topic in that thread.

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#112854: Feb 22nd 2016 at 7:52:33 PM

Obama’s accidental achievement could be a Republican party reduced to ashes

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/kelly-mcparland-obamas-greatest-achievement-could-be-a-republican-party-reduced-to-ashes

Basically Obama has polarized the GOP so much that they hate each other more than they do the Dems. and this primary might shatter them now or in 2-4 years.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
darksidevoid Anti-Gnosis Weapon from The Frontiers (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: Robosexual
Anti-Gnosis Weapon
#112855: Feb 22nd 2016 at 8:00:00 PM

What a poorly written article. There's no logical connection made by the author between Obama and the GOP's polarization. Frankly, they've been setting themselves up for a schism over the course of more than three decades. They didn't need any help from him to dig their grave.

GM: AGOG S4 & F/WC RP; Co-GM: TABA, SOTR, UUA RP; Sub-GM: TTS RP. I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new Empire.
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#112856: Feb 22nd 2016 at 8:02:28 PM

Could the Obama administration have been the tipping point though? The catalyst that brought it all to the forefront?

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#112857: Feb 22nd 2016 at 8:07:38 PM

Maybe. Obama getting in really fanned the flames among the reactionary crowd. I don't know if you can blame him specifically though. Being president and black at the same time would probably have pissed them off no matter what he did.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#112858: Feb 22nd 2016 at 8:19:07 PM

The GOP went apeshit when Obama got elected. Their reactionary opposition to all things left of their extremist positions framed the entirety of his presidency and set the stage for Trump today. While he did not intentionally cause it (and the article is clear to emphasize that fact), his time has seen them go from basic intransigence to explosive malfeasance.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#112859: Feb 22nd 2016 at 8:50:35 PM

It should be noted that the National Post is generally a right of center paper, though I wouldn't call it right-wing.

I do think they have a point here, Obama being elected (either as a black man or as a remotely progressive centrist, or both) turned a portion of the GOP into a rabid pack of reactionary lunatics; beforehand they were always pushed to the side by relatively pragmatic business and social conservatives who knew how to pick their battles. And now they want control of the party, and the establishment plutocrats are having none of that. The end result can only be one of the two groups being left out in the cold.

edited 22nd Feb '16 9:03:55 PM by Rationalinsanity

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#112860: Feb 22nd 2016 at 8:59:55 PM

I said way back in 2012 that Mitt Romney's loss would pave the way for the 2016 Republican candidate to be an extremist. Little did I know how right I would be. Looking at the field, there are no pragmatic, middle of the road conservatives still running. Even the mildest, Kasich, would tear down our economy with his goldbug nonsense and is a hardcore opponent of women's rights. Rubio is purchased, lock, stock, and barrel, by the Koch brothers and their buddies.

Crazily, the only candidate on that side that I'd trust (as far as I can spit, at least) to run the country responsibly would be Trump, simply because his credentials as a businessman mean that he had to have been able to make pragmatic decisions at some point in his life. And he'd be terrible in so many other ways that this hypothetical pragmatism isn't worth much.

edited 22nd Feb '16 9:01:03 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
PotatoesRock Since: Oct, 2012
#112861: Feb 22nd 2016 at 10:05:16 PM

I don't think it was entirely him, as noted.

I think this goes back again to Shinra's argument: The Libertarian, Racist and Religious Right wings, who were once the side bars of the GOP, took power when the Business and War Hawk wings fucked themselves over with the recession and Iraq, respectively, discrediting their authority in the party. Both sections were the traditional establishments. The War Hawks and the Business wings were the relative moderates of the party controlling the narrative offering dog whistles and the occasional red meat.

This is also around the point enough voters have grown up in an era where they weren't dealing with Reagan or Nixon, which fed the Republicans for years. (And the Democrats). The Republican and Democratic parties are having internal realignments because the politics that formed the Reagan Revolution/Gingrich Insurgency/Neo Democrats/etc. are fading out and no longer matter as hard.

And with the Republican Party being told by the bosses that Blacks will always know their place, and then a Black man, who is pro government intervention of some level, who doesn't seem heavily religious (and his name makes it seem like he follows a non Christian religion), Obama wasn't the exact trigger for the building pressure, but he probably was the perfect storm that broke the dam.

My only hope is this doesn't make the Democrat's Neoliberal wing's ego inflate any further than it already has, if the Republicans continue melting down at a national level. Because they're still winning everywhere else.

FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#112862: Feb 22nd 2016 at 11:06:09 PM

Democrats have their own problems, it shouldn't be ignored. The party structure (and how they handle superdelegaes being but one issue), the leadership of DWS, its own factionalization which seems to be growing by the month with the Clinton-Sanders thing....

The two party system is setting itself up for a fall. What comes from the ashes will be interesting to see. Me personally? Hope there is more choice, more focused parties. Big tent only works when you have a tent pole to keep it up. The GOP had the Bush family as Reagan's heirs and they have now been thoroughly rejected with only pygmies around to carry the mantle. The Democrats have the Clintons, they have Obama, but the former seem to be suffering a milder version of the Bush issue and the latter really doesn't seem like he is interested in being some kind of grey cardinal of the party once he leaves office, unlike Bill. Other names are bandied about as to who comes next, but these guys (the Castros, Booker, whoever) are still wet behind the ears. And then they have Sanders to worry about. Man is a Democrat until Election Day, regardless if he's the nominee. But with the money he's raised, the cult of personality he's fostered, the sheer exposure he has? He won't just slink back to Vermont or otherwise go back to the status quo. He'll become an independant again. He'll create his own party. He'll nurture his followers, and then they'll become the left's answer to the Tea Party vis a vis its relationship with the establishment democrats.

darksidevoid Anti-Gnosis Weapon from The Frontiers (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: Robosexual
Anti-Gnosis Weapon
#112863: Feb 22nd 2016 at 11:26:16 PM

I can't recall if I saw it mentioned here or not, but the DNC under DWS has been focusing largely on fundraising and the Presidency, to the exclusion of Congress, not to mention support of the state parties that they should be doing. Set up to fail is putting it mildly. I yearn for the day that DWS is ousted, except I can't even see the procedures by which such a thing would be done because the DNC has failed to make its bylaws publicly available. What a joke.

On a related note, my state's Democratic party had this kind of purge and implosion going on a couple years back, although that was more due to being completely out of power for the first time in 100+ years than anything else. Still, DWS's total indifference to our situation and her incompetence in general didn't do us any favors.

GM: AGOG S4 & F/WC RP; Co-GM: TABA, SOTR, UUA RP; Sub-GM: TTS RP. I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new Empire.
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#112864: Feb 22nd 2016 at 11:27:33 PM

Sanders has also spent a lot of time caucusing with the Democrats because they're closest to him so.... I dunno if you meant that to sound as dour as you meant it to? Sanders is a lot less of a 'burn it to the ground" kind of person, so I doubt know if we'd have a leftist Tea Party rise. As it is, Dems play a losing game in governatorial elections to start with. Which would hit those farther left the hardest.

Anyway, unless something like changing the whole FPTP system to something that's more conducive to multiple parties happens we're just going to get reorganized back into two parties, possibly still calling themselves Republicans and Democrats simply because those names have staying power, despite the fact that their policies might be/are very different from what came in the past. I really don't think that anything earth shaking vis a vis our party organization is going to happen.

[up]Doesn't seem like the connections she was chosen for have turned out to be any good, then.

edited 22nd Feb '16 11:28:31 PM by AceofSpades

PotatoesRock Since: Oct, 2012
#112865: Feb 22nd 2016 at 11:27:41 PM

Unfortunately the FPTP system means you can only have 3 parties at most based on Canada and Britain, so we'd need to get rid of the FPTP.

But yeah, I think the current party structures and gearworks that haw been going on for both sides are pretty much rusting and breaking down.

On a related note, my state's Democratic party had this kind of purge and implosion going on a couple years back, although that was more due to being completely out of power for the first time in 100+ years than anything else. Still, DWS's total indifference to our situation and her incompetence in general didn't do us any favors.
Good thing she's having the first contested primary in her entire life!

And then they have Sanders to worry about. Man is a Democrat until Election Day, regardless if he's the nominee. But with the money he's raised, the cult of personality he's fostered, the sheer exposure he has? He won't just slink back to Vermont or otherwise go back to the status quo. He'll become an independant again. He'll create his own party. He'll nurture his followers, and then they'll become the left's answer to the Tea Party vis a vis its relationship with the establishment democrats.
Actually, there is a growing left wing side party that's attacking the DNC at the grasroots:

The Working Family Party. They aren't hugely influential yet but they're beginning to gnaw at the DNC/Clinton/etc. Roots.

Old article I posted:

The Pugnacious, Relentless Progressive Party That Wants to Remake America: The Working Families Party has pushed the political debate to the left in the states where it’s already active. Now—in the era of Occupy and Bernie Sanders—it’s ready to take that fight nationwide.

And they've already endorsed Sanders. But the progressive wing's rage against the DNC and the Clintons. Isn't going anywhere.

edited 22nd Feb '16 11:33:54 PM by PotatoesRock

Mopman43 Since: Nov, 2013
#112866: Feb 22nd 2016 at 11:29:11 PM

[up][up][up][up] Well, the parties have fractured before; they've just always settled back into a two party system after a period of chaos. Its more or less the standard format for politics in the country, to change that would require some serious restructuring that I don't think anyone important has come out in favor of.

edited 22nd Feb '16 11:29:36 PM by Mopman43

FieldMarshalFry Field Marshal of Cracked from World Internet War 1 Since: Oct, 2015 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
Field Marshal of Cracked
#112867: Feb 23rd 2016 at 4:27:50 AM

reasons to vote Trump

advancing the front into TV Tropes
FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#112868: Feb 23rd 2016 at 6:16:17 AM

[up][up]As others have mentioned, thats mostly due to FPTP, which isn't as hard to change, at least at the state level. And given the way Sanders' campaign is going, where he is likely to get close to 50% of the vote every time, there will be impetus on the part of his supporters to change it to allow those who do come in second (especially a strong second as it likely seems to be with him) to earn something for his efforts. The same holds true for the GOP, either because Trump loses due to his vote ceiling and thus his supporters would like to keep the taste of influence they have recieved, at least at the local level, or Trump's opponents want to if he wins.

[up][up][up]Huh. Well then. Informative article....

edited 23rd Feb '16 6:16:50 AM by FFShinra

Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#112869: Feb 23rd 2016 at 6:39:57 AM

The trouble with removing FPTP is that whilst it prevents a left-alternative to the Democrats emerging, it also prevents a right-alternative to the Republicans emerging. How might American politics be different, for example, if we'd had FPTP in the 1960s? What damage might a 'States Rights' Party have done to the process of deseg?

edited 23rd Feb '16 7:06:26 AM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei
TheWanderer Student of Story from Somewhere in New England (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
Student of Story
#112870: Feb 23rd 2016 at 6:49:31 AM

And then they have Sanders to worry about. Man is a Democrat until Election Day, regardless if he's the nominee. But with the money he's raised, the cult of personality he's fostered, the sheer exposure he has? He won't just slink back to Vermont or otherwise go back to the status quo. He'll become an independant again. He'll create his own party. He'll nurture his followers, and then they'll become the left's answer to the Tea Party vis a vis its relationship with the establishment democrats.

I... don't see Sanders setting up a 3rd party. Especially since he was a co-founder and the first chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which is now the single largest organization group within the Democratic Party. While Sanders is an independent, he's always been trying to work with and within the Democrats.

| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#112871: Feb 23rd 2016 at 7:01:54 AM

Sanders knows that a third party would guarantee Republican control. He's not stupid.

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#112872: Feb 23rd 2016 at 7:22:22 AM

I think Sanders is trying to turn the Democratic Party into a party of his ideas. Sort of like the Tea Party has been doing with the Republicans, but in a somewhat less destructive fashion.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Know-age Since: May, 2010
#112873: Feb 23rd 2016 at 7:44:06 AM

RE: radical right/left parties, what would it really change? It would make voting more fun, but the parties would still have to form coalitions, which would moderate the extreme parties. 15% states rights or whatever is what we already have.

FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#112874: Feb 23rd 2016 at 7:46:06 AM

He won't do it until after the election, and it may not be immediately after the election, but I think he will do it, especially since at a national level, legislatively the Democrats are already "lost". If Sanders tries to instead take over the Democratic Party with his ideals, those more moderate than him would then have to form their own party instead.

@Achaemenid - How would getting rid of FPTP prevent alternatives from coming up? It's FPTP that already does so.

As for if it had emerged in the 60s and how that'd affect desegregation, its not like the current system "worked" in that regard either (still lots of segregation in Atlanta, sadly, and is the main reason why this bloody city doesn't have decent public transportation). The national guard still had to force it. But even if that was not the case, allowing for states rights movements (or their day in the sun would be worrisome to be sure...but would also force them to meet reality in terms of how practical their ideas would be. Prohibition, for one. Tried it, didn't work, those guys were never taken seriously again, even though they have their own party and everything.

[up]They would, but the coalitions would not always be the same. There is more flexibility with allowing more parties to effectively compete, and over time it wouldn't just be radicals that came out of the woodwork, but also more issue-focused parties, parties that don't fit on the left/right spectrum, etc.

edited 23rd Feb '16 7:49:39 AM by FFShinra

SolipsistOwl Since: Jan, 2016
#112875: Feb 23rd 2016 at 8:27:15 AM

A federal judge on Tuesday will weigh calls raised in a civil lawsuit to probe deeper into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email system as secretary of state, posing new legal and political risks for Clinton and her inner circle.

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of Washington will hear arguments over whether State Department officials and top Clinton aides should be questioned under oath about whether they intentionally thwarted federal open records laws by using or allowing the use of the private server throughout Clinton’s tenure at State from 2009 to 2013.

U.S. judge weighs deeper probe into Clinton’s private email system

President Barack Obama announced his official proposal to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay on Tuesday morning, leading off with a vigorous condemnation of the facility's effect on U.S. national security.

“It undermines our standing in the world. It is viewed as a stain on our broader record of upholding the highest standards of rule of law," Obama said in unveiling his plan. "As Americans, we pride ourselves on being a beacon to other nations, a model of the rule of law.”

Obama announces plan for closing Guantanamo Bay prison


Total posts: 417,856
Top