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

FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#113676: Feb 28th 2016 at 10:17:59 PM

better is relative only to the republicans though. This thing with DWS is going to cause more and more issues. She'll be ousted soon and replaced, true, but not til after the election, and in the meantime her position will cause problems. If they win, she'll have political cover to continue as normal for a bit longer, til the 2018 election. If they lose, she will be ousted at once, but then they'll also not have the white house which, coupled by their weaknesses in governors, house, senate, and other races, will open the doors to more fighting.

The presidency, for democrats, is increasingly going to become a red herring in terms of practical power.

Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#113677: Feb 28th 2016 at 10:20:44 PM

I would definitely call Libertarianism consistent, despite my own disagreements with it. I mean, take Libertarianism a few steps forewards and you get Anarcho-Capitalism, where businesses take on the role of the state. I'd argue that this simply wouldn't work for the same reason communism doesn't work-if business and state are controlled by the same entity, the result is always the same.

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the term "Small Government", as it sounds anti-government. I don't view the state as inherently bad or even as a necessary evil per say. The guy who invented government, he deserves a medal.

edited 28th Feb '16 10:22:23 PM by Protagonist506

Leviticus 19:34
TerminusEst from the Land of Winter and Stars Since: Feb, 2010
LDragon2 Since: Dec, 2011
#113679: Feb 29th 2016 at 1:12:34 AM

Dang it, you beat me to posting that video. tongue

Honestly, I'm not impressed with either candidate.

Cronosonic (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#113680: Feb 29th 2016 at 1:43:17 AM

Okay, I'm totally calling him Drumpf from now on. Chrome extension already installed.

Julep Since: Jul, 2010
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#113682: Feb 29th 2016 at 2:16:39 AM

Just keep it off on the wiki-side.

pwiegle Cape Malleum Majorem from Nowhere Special Since: Sep, 2015 Relationship Status: Singularity
Cape Malleum Majorem
#113683: Feb 29th 2016 at 3:09:06 AM

"...every time we say his name, he has a massive orgasm."

I wouldn't be surprised at all if that were actually true.

This Space Intentionally Left Blank.
Julep Since: Jul, 2010
#113684: Feb 29th 2016 at 4:18:44 AM

I hope Rubio realized John Oliver handed him the best possible way to ridicule his opponent in any future debate. Just call him Donald Drumpf.

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#113685: Feb 29th 2016 at 5:31:28 AM

The tent poles are gone. We're all watching the tents slowly deflate while we remain inside them.
I don't think that's not really the case. On the Republican side, the Dixiecrat bloc that the GOP has been using for votes without actually doing much for them policy-wise is rebelling because they're finally fed up with the situation. On the Democrat side, they're having a robust primary between a hard-left candidate and a moderate-left candidate. They're both going in basically the same direction, the question is how fast they're planning to get there. The GOP is sort of damned if you do, damned if you don't — there's such an enormous level of disagreement within the party that no matter who gets their nomination, there's a good chance that the people who didn't support that candidate will stay home on election day, not to mention that if Trump doesn't get the nomination there's a very real risk of him running as a third-party candidate and splitting the GOP vote, which would essentially hand the election to the Democrats. Meanwhile, while some of the more ardent Sanders supporters may not vote for Clinton if it comes to that, for the most part the Democratic party is going to rally behind whoever wins the primary without much in the way of drama.

The presidency, for democrats, is increasingly going to become a red herring in terms of practical power.
It's not a red herring. Though congress is required to actually get things done, the presidency is also hugely important. All the executive actions that Obama has issued? All the legislation from the Republican congress he's blocked, either by veto or threat of it? The Supreme Court justices he's appointed? Dismissing all of that as a red herring is short-sighted. Yes, it'd be better if the DNC gave some more attention to state and local races, no doubt, but on the state level they're struggling against gerrymandered districts drawn by GOP-controlled state legislatures (though many of these are being gradually overturned by the courts), while the presidency is impossible to gerrymander so represents a level playing field.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Julep Since: Jul, 2010
#113686: Feb 29th 2016 at 5:37:04 AM

Isn't Trump going to be the best reason for democrats rallying behind the designated candidate no matter who wins the primary?

DrunkenNordmann from Exile Since: May, 2015
#113687: Feb 29th 2016 at 5:39:32 AM

@ Protagonist506

[up][up][up]I actually am making an understatement, though I'm a bit reluctant to call Trump an outright Nazi. Having said that, by the same logic that's used to call Obama a regular Socialist, one can easily justify calling Trump a National Socialist.
People are calling him a fascist, not necessarily a Nazi. Small but important difference. National Socialism is a branch of fascism, but not all fascists are Nazis. Though him wanting to put Muslims into camps does fit more into the latter group's MO, historically-speaking.

edited 29th Feb '16 5:40:53 AM by DrunkenNordmann

We learn from history that we do not learn from history
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#113688: Feb 29th 2016 at 6:29:42 AM

Isn't Trump going to be the best reason for democrats rallying behind the designated candidate no matter who wins the primary?
I'd like to give an unqualified "yes", but unfortunately it's not that simple. One of the groups that supports Bernie Sanders are people who are basically rooting for who they view as a political outsider — someone who wants to rock the boat and disrupt the current system. They prefer Sanders for whatever reason, but Trump is generally their number two choice. If it goes down to Clinton vs Trump in the general election, they'll probably end up voting for Trump — or at least stay home and not vote for anybody.

That said, it's not entirely clear how large this group is, so it may not end up making much of a difference. In addition, it's important to keep in mind that general election season hasn't even started yet. As much as it's in the news, most people don't actually follow it very closely. It remains to be seen how the general populous will react to the eventual nominees, whoever they end up being, once the primaries are over.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#113689: Feb 29th 2016 at 6:45:25 AM

@Native Jovian - You're looking at the GOP and the Dems from the same lens, which you shouldn't. The GOP rot is more set in since it's been around longer so the dynamics of their presidential election are different, but the Democrats right now look like the GOP circa 2010 or so. The situation among the rank and file is more disfunctional than at the top, where we won't see it until the next or next to next cycle.

As for my red herring comment, I didn't mean to say the office itself is unimportant, but Dens obsession with it to the exclusion of everything else has made it a red herring in terms of objectives. Lack of practical power is bad in its own right, but it also dwindles the pool of potential candidates going forward, all because of this over focus on the presidency.

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#113690: Feb 29th 2016 at 7:34:25 AM

the Democrats right now look like the GOP circa 2010 or so
I disagree. In 2010, the GOP was already showing cracks around the whole Republican establishment vs Tea Party thing. There's no such split in the Democratic party. We're not seeing moderate Democrats in congress being primary'd out by Sanders-esque hard-left candidates. We're not seeing a vicious presidential field with a dozen candidates vying for the nomination. We're not seeing a radical wing of the party undercutting the party mainstream. All we're seeing is a healthy primary debate with two candidates that represent slightly different (but mostly in agreement) views about how the Democratic party should proceed. The majority of people voting for either Sanders or Clinton in the primary will support the other in the general should their preferred candidate lose (the only real exception being those with Trump as their number two, as I mentioned above).

The Democrats are deciding where their future lies, but they're not splitting themselves apart in the process like the Republicans are.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#113691: Feb 29th 2016 at 8:14:05 AM

No, the unhealthy part is the DNC itself, trying to do the whole Party Boss deal like it always has, imagining that it can pull the strings to keep its donors in line and get its preferred candidates elected, while the party base gets increasingly restless.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
SolipsistOwl Since: Jan, 2016
#113692: Feb 29th 2016 at 8:55:47 AM

Ron Paul says Ted Cruz is no libertarian and Bernie Sanders is the most free-market

“You take a guy like Cruz, people are liking the Cruz — they think he’s for the free market, and [in reality] he’s owned by Goldman Sachs. I mean, he and Hillary have more in common than we would have with either Cruz or Trump or any of them so I just don’t think there is much picking,” Paul said of the Texas senator on Fox Business’ “Varney & Company” on Friday.

“On occasion, Bernie comes up with libertarian views when he talks about taking away the cronyism on Wall Street, so in essence he’s right, and occasionally he voted against war,” the former Texas congressman said when asked if there was a candidate who was truly for the free market.

Antonin Scalia: The Billion-Dollar Supreme Court Justice

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was worth billions of dollars to corporate America, if a Dow Chemical settlement made public Friday is any indication.

Dow was in the midst of appealing a $1.06 billion class-action antitrust ruling after a jury found that it had conspired with other chemical companies to fix prices for urethane, a material used in furniture and appliances.

But because of Scalia’s death and the sudden unlikelihood of finding five votes on the Supreme Court to overturn the case, Dow decided to settle for $835 million, the bulk of the original award.

“Growing political uncertainties due to recent events with the Supreme Court and increased likelihood for unfavorable outcomes for business involved in class-action suits have changed Dow’s risk assessment of the situation,” the company told Bloomberg News.

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#113693: Feb 29th 2016 at 9:13:44 AM

Bernie Sanders is "most free market"? In Ron Paul's eyes? Oi. Seriously, is that for real?

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#113694: Feb 29th 2016 at 9:14:34 AM

I think Ron Paul might need to get his eyes and ears checked.

Leviticus 19:34
Tangent128 from Virginia Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Gonna take a lot to drag me away from you
#113695: Feb 29th 2016 at 9:22:17 AM

I've known people who contrast a free-market with Capitalism, identifying the latter as a non-egalitarian rule-by-Capital system. They seem to lean Sanders under the logic that trustbusting and income equality gets you a more competitive market in practice.

Do you highlight everything looking for secret messages?
Kayeka (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#113696: Feb 29th 2016 at 9:27:03 AM

A completely free market stays free and competitive for exactly how long it takes for a "winner" to be decided, however temporary. Said "winner" then uses its power to keep competitors down and eventually becomes the de facto government.

In order to stay free, the market needs well-made regulations in order to curb the power of large corporations. In that sense, Sanders is, indeed, the most pro-free-market guy on the scene right now.

edited 29th Feb '16 9:27:40 AM by Kayeka

SolipsistOwl Since: Jan, 2016
Kayeka (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#113698: Feb 29th 2016 at 9:45:51 AM

[up]Wasn't that a different principle? I thought the "race to the bottom" was about a growing corporation reaching a plateau in market share, at which point they no longer have an incentive to keep up quality, yet still need to make their profits grow due to how stocks work. Which causes said corporation to lower production costs to the point where the quality suffers and no one is happy except the share holders. I was going for more of a "1984" kind of vibe.

Ugh, I gotta admit, I am very much anti-corporatism. I'm sure that corporatism has done a lot of good for the world at large, but I still and the idea of an entity with no motive beyond "profit" to be quite distasteful, especially when they grow to problematic sizes.

Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#113699: Feb 29th 2016 at 9:57:29 AM

A company that literally only has profit as a motive probably won't function very well, especially if they don't pay too well. Walmart is a good example of this. They have a massive profit margin, but almost none of the store-level employees actually care about the company, because Walmart doesn't really care about their employees beyond the basic lip-service. It's a huge part of why Walmart customer service usually isn't very good.

edited 29th Feb '16 9:57:57 AM by Zendervai

Kayeka (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#113700: Feb 29th 2016 at 10:06:20 AM

[up]See, that's exactly the thing. As a corporation, it's doing great! Largely because of their cost-saving shenanigans. They drove out local businesses, taking many local economies by the balls, and are now exploiting that power for the sake of more profit. It pretty much destroys any community they touch, but who cares as long as the profits keep coming in?

Don't like working there? They are the only employer in town. Don't like shopping there? Most competitors have either left for greener pastures, or are six feet under. The mart is all, and all is the mart. Praise be the mart!

edited 29th Feb '16 10:08:19 AM by Kayeka


Total posts: 417,856
Top