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

wehrmacht belongs to the hurricane from the garden of everything Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
belongs to the hurricane
#114076: Mar 2nd 2016 at 8:26:04 AM

.....Okay, I'm sorry but not voting because your primary candidate didn't win is childish. Especially with the dangerous possibility of a lunatic on the other side. In this case its basically enabling the bigger evil to spite the lesser evil.

This more or less.

Politics are almost always about voting for a "lesser evil". It's pretty rare, depending on your own positions and the political climate of your country, that you get an electable and popular politician whose views you mostly agree with.

Staying home to vote because your preferred candidate didn't win and thusly allowing a much worse candidate to possibly win instead is just really petty and irresponsible.

edited 2nd Mar '16 8:28:43 AM by wehrmacht

Luminosity Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Lovey-Dovey
#114077: Mar 2nd 2016 at 8:30:19 AM

Yeah, you've argued those things, but no one here, ate least has been arguing them, and if they have elsewhere it doesn't seem to be taking flight. You seem to be ascribing unfair attacks on him to her for...reasons?

Dude/dudette/whatever, this thread has "the media smears Clinton" arguments every few page. Seriously.

The race thing had nothing to do with her as far as I remember. It got brought to light when some Black Lives Matters protesters asked him so questions that had been concerning people, and now he's apparently trying to address them. Where does that become an evil Hilary Clinton conspiracy?

Yes, the BLM did ask questions, but they also asked Clinton questions(and I've linked that here). So this becomes that at the part when he's apparently the one with the "race problem", and not the person involved in the goddamn super predators bill. That speech was so patheticly over-the-top it wouldn't look out of place in the Dark Knight. And there is no reason to believe she has changed. None.

But we were discussing in a hypothetical situation were you were a factor. You said "I would stay home out of spite." It seemed like you understand what we were discussing and then you switched out to saying you wouldn't tell you're friends how to vote for some reason.

Because they are a factor and I'm not. But fine, say I was a factor. I'd likely think it over and may or may not end up voting, but just the fact that Clinton voters create the lesser evil situation to begin with, then force others into their trap is supreme weasel bullshit that would make me seriously consider staying home.

Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#114078: Mar 2nd 2016 at 8:31:22 AM

How did Sanders vote on the 1994 crime bill? waii

Schild und Schwert der Partei
LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#114079: Mar 2nd 2016 at 8:32:45 AM

[up][up]Except they didn't create the situation, it was already there.

Edit: Also, could you link to the speech you're referring to? Sad to say, I don't really trust you to be unbiased over what is "super over the top" when it comes to her.

edited 2nd Mar '16 8:34:57 AM by LSBK

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
#114080: Mar 2nd 2016 at 8:34:49 AM

No the argument here is that the Republicans and Fox smear Clinton, the mainstream media aren't that much of a part of it.

But yeah the BLM stuff has been blown out of proportion, Sanders reacted fine to it and wasn't the only candidate targeted for protest, however some of his supporters did have a very bad reaction.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
ILoveDogs Since: May, 2010
#114081: Mar 2nd 2016 at 8:35:22 AM

I don't think of Clinton as a lesser evil. She isn't evil-even with her "corporate ties" or whatever, she wouldn't fuck up the economy anywhere near what, say, Romney would. She's not a DINO.

Luminosity Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Lovey-Dovey
#114082: Mar 2nd 2016 at 8:38:52 AM

Except they didn't create the situation, it was already there.

By voting Clinton over Sanders, they have. I'm not talking about those people who legitimately believe Clinton is better(as abhorrent as I find that viewpoint to be), they don't have to cry lesser evil simply because they don't think of her as evil to begin with. People who vote for Clinton, then cry over the "lesser evil" after having done so, that's what I'm talking about.

Edit: Also, could you link to the speech you're referring to? Sad to say, I don't really trust you to be unbiased over what is "super over the top" when it comes to her.

Certainly. With an added bonus of her BLM confrontation.

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#114083: Mar 2nd 2016 at 8:45:42 AM

~Achaemenid: Sanders did vote in favour of VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Hodor2 Since: Jan, 2015
#114084: Mar 2nd 2016 at 8:46:29 AM

Not sure if Achaemenid was asking a rhetorical question (so I may be making a Rhetorical Question Blunder) but yeah, Sanders voted for the same crime bill that people are excoriating Clinton for supporting as First Lady.

For what it's worth, a lot of progressive people voted for/supported the bill, including many African-Americans, as they believed at the time it would help remedy drug and crime problems. Of course, it went horribly wrong.

In fairness, Clinton's (either of them) support for it at the time was based on wanting to seem "tough on crime", which is less forgivable.

Edit- Semi [nja]

edited 2nd Mar '16 8:46:50 AM by Hodor2

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
#114085: Mar 2nd 2016 at 8:50:27 AM

The logic for voting Clinton in the primaries isn't "lesser of two evils" so much as "electability", the two tie together and are often mixed up but basically folks don't think Sanders could win a general, so the choice isn't Sanders or Clinton, it's loosing or Clinton.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Luminosity Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Lovey-Dovey
#114086: Mar 2nd 2016 at 8:52:27 AM

Sanders voted for that bill as compromise and warned of the mass incarcerations.

He voted for it because it was a chance to crack down on domestic abuse and rape(and he said so, back then, as you can see in my source), and ban assault weapons by amending it. He later voted to amend the same bill to include the ban on the federal death penalty.

So sorry, but that's not nearly as bad as the rhetorical bait made it seem. And it does not, in any way, compare to being a key part of the administration that created the bill.

edited 2nd Mar '16 8:53:34 AM by Luminosity

Xopher001 Since: Jul, 2012
#114087: Mar 2nd 2016 at 8:58:26 AM

How different would it be if the elections has ranked choice?

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#114088: Mar 2nd 2016 at 9:12:13 AM

I've generally been back and forth between Clinton and Sanders, with a general lean towards Clinton.

While there is a little bit of "lesser evil" in my mindset my main reason for preferring Clinton lies in that I personally regard her as the most competent choice of the bunch in a mix of despite and because of any shadiness on her part.

Sanders I prefer from a moral/ideological standpoint, but I'm mindful of previous notes on the thread that his goals have holes and may not be workable

Rubio, the whole "empty suit" thing makes him come off as weak. In contrast to Clinton, who people fear will flip flop due to special interests, he comes off as working for them as opposed to with them.

Trump is Trump. 'Nuff said.

Cruz I have no intention of voting for because I am extremely biased/wary of an evangelical in such a position. Religion+Politics is a bad bad mix.

edited 2nd Mar '16 9:12:38 AM by sgamer82

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#114089: Mar 2nd 2016 at 9:16:48 AM

Honestly, I sort of prefer Sanders myself (I know, I am not an US citizen, but I have been following all US national elections since 2008, when I was 15) - I have doubts about Clinton's ideological committments and while the email business still sounds like a fishing expedition, I worry it could harm her. She also does not bring out much enthusiasm.

I wonder if a "Sanders for Senate Majority Leader" campaign would be an interesting hypothetical, though. Blue badly needs electoral enthusiasm in Congressional elections.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#114090: Mar 2nd 2016 at 9:18:09 AM

@Luminosity: You also forget that many people here aren't primary voters (in many states you have to be registered with the party of the respective primary ballot). They may not care which person on the Democratic ticket gets the nomination, they're potentially willing to vote for whoever it is if Trump takes the Republican ballot.

There are people who in the past haven't voted, being disillusioned with the "choice between lesser evils" looking at Trump and going "....ok, this might be too much evil." Stuff like that is what I personally am talking about.

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#114091: Mar 2nd 2016 at 9:21:13 AM

"Obama to unveil U.S. Supreme Court nomination soon" - http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0W41XO

Sounds like Obama is getting ready to nominate a Supreme Court Justice

edited 2nd Mar '16 9:21:37 AM by sgamer82

Hodor2 Since: Jan, 2015
#114092: Mar 2nd 2016 at 9:29:34 AM

My personal feeling (as people can probably tell) is toward Clinton- basically, while I've previously been mixed about her due to the more conservative rhetoric she and Bill espoused during the 90s, and indeed, I voted for Obama over her, at this point I see Clinton as the continuation of Obama's policies and Sanders as representing the white-centric politics I don't like.

Because for all of the bad "tough on crime" stuff of the past, Clinton has always been a strong supporter of women's rights as well as civil rights, whereas Sanders has explicitly talked about wanting to win the support of white voters and for him, everything is about big corporations and big banks.

Clinton is supported by Planned Parenthood and the Human Rights Campaign and Sanders' only answer for that is that they are part of the "The Establishment".

And the more I hear from Sanders supporters, the more I like Clinton.There's this underlying attitude of viewing the system itself as legitimate- basically whenever Sanders loses in a state (and he's losing most of them) it's because of big money. However, in the few states he has one, that's democracy at work.

I halfway expect Sanders supporters to become Trump supporters due to a combination of same demographics and anti-establishment attitudes and because they hate Clinton so much.

tclittle Professional Forum Ninja from Somewhere Down in Texas Since: Apr, 2010
Professional Forum Ninja
#114093: Mar 2nd 2016 at 9:29:48 AM

Or like here in Texas, where you can vote in the primary without being registered to a party, but you have to choose which one you want to go for.

The Obama's are going to attend SXSW, with Obama being interviewed by the editor-in-cheif of the Texas Tribune on opening day of SXSW Interactive (March 11th), and Michelle giving a speech at SXSW Music on March 16th.

"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."
Tangent128 from Virginia Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Gonna take a lot to drag me away from you
#114094: Mar 2nd 2016 at 9:35:52 AM

I voted Sanders, if only to keep leftward pressure on Clinton. If, as is likely, the general comes down to Trump vs. Clinton? You better believe I'll be voting for her.

Do you highlight everything looking for secret messages?
Luminosity Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Lovey-Dovey
#114095: Mar 2nd 2016 at 9:39:30 AM

You also forget that many people here aren't primary voters (in many states you have to be registered with the party of the respective primary ballot). They may not care which person on the Democratic ticket gets the nomination, they're potentially willing to vote for whoever it is if Trump takes the Republican ballot. There are people who in the past haven't voted, being disillusioned with the "choice between lesser evils" looking at Trump and going "....ok, this might be too much evil." Stuff like that is what I personally am talking about.

Stuff like this is why I'm not as worried about Trump as others seem to be. I've talked in the past how there's a huge "vote against Trump, for the love of God" demographic, large enough to decisively sink him should he actually win the nomination. That would also fuel my potential decision to stay home, simply because Anyone vs Trump is a foregone conclusion not in his favor, me or not me, and I'd rather not be a part of the Clinton vote anyway.

Unless you believe Clinton is just so unelectable in general election she might actually lose to Trump(and as much as I despise her, I don't believe that), in which case, worrying about her victory would be legitimate, no?

Hodor2 Since: Jan, 2015
#114096: Mar 2nd 2016 at 9:42:38 AM

@Luminosity- Out of curiosity, what are your feelings about Obama?

DrDougsh Since: Jan, 2001
#114097: Mar 2nd 2016 at 9:43:05 AM

[up][up] It's a possibility, albeit not an overwhelming one. There are a lot of people who actively hate Clinton, but not that many who are passionately loyal to her in the way Drumpf's supporters are.

edited 2nd Mar '16 9:43:16 AM by DrDougsh

Luminosity Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Lovey-Dovey
#114098: Mar 2nd 2016 at 9:54:14 AM

@Hodor2

He likes Spider-Man, so clearly the best president ever.

He was fine in 2008, but times have to move on. It was laughably ironic when a moderate conservative like him got smeared by Republican media(and Clinton media, btw) so hard they refused to listen to him on principle, which in turn eventually kinda pushed him a bit left. Kiiiinda.

But he still bailed the Wall Street out, he still expanded the Patriot Act, he still ineptly meddled in places like Lybia, his sanctions on Russia still hurt my country's economy and me personally, and so on and so on. "Clinton is Obama" would not be a good thing in the slightest, even if it was correct. There are still key differences. Her ties to Wall Street are stronger, she's more of a warhawk, and she can't be trusted on minority rights due to her political history.

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#114099: Mar 2nd 2016 at 10:00:52 AM

Clinton media? Seriously, when people talk about the "Liberal Media" or "Conservative Echo Chamer" or whatever I know what they're talking about but what is supposed to be the "Clinton media"?

edited 2nd Mar '16 10:03:04 AM by LSBK

Luminosity Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Lovey-Dovey
#114100: Mar 2nd 2016 at 10:04:59 AM

Clinton Media? Seriously, when people talk about the "Liberal Media" or "Conservative Media" or whatever I know what they're talking about but what is supposed to be he "Clinton Media"?

This.

Her campaign in 2008 contributed to the "Secret Scary Muslim" thing.


Total posts: 417,856
Top