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

Krieger22 Causing freakouts over sourcing since 2018 from Malaysia Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: I'm in love with my car
Causing freakouts over sourcing since 2018
#114226: Mar 3rd 2016 at 7:02:13 AM

The section of the GOP establishment that specialises in national security have declared President Trump a threat to US national security.

We the undersigned, members of the Republican national security community, represent a broad spectrum of opinion on America’s role in the world and what is necessary to keep us safe and prosperous. We have disagreed with one another on many issues, including the Iraq war and intervention in Syria. But we are united in our opposition to a Donald Trump presidency. Recognizing as we do, the conditions in American politics that have contributed to his popularity, we nonetheless are obligated to state our core objections clearly:

His vision of American influence and power in the world is wildly inconsistent and unmoored in principle. He swings from isolationism to military adventurism within the space of one sentence.

His advocacy for aggressively waging trade wars is a recipe for economic disaster in a globally connected world.

His embrace of the expansive use of torture is inexcusable.

His hateful, anti-Muslim rhetoric undercuts the seriousness of combatting Islamic radicalism by alienating partners in the Islamic world making significant contributions to the effort. Furthermore, it endangers the safety and Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of American Muslims.

Controlling our border and preventing illegal immigration is a serious issue, but his insistence that Mexico will fund a wall on the southern border inflames unhelpful passions, and rests on an utter misreading of, and contempt for, our southern neighbor.

Similarly, his insistence that close allies such as Japan must pay vast sums for protection is the sentiment of a racketeer, not the leader of the alliances that have served us so well since World War II.

His admiration for foreign dictators such as Vladimir Putin is unacceptable for the leader of the world’s greatest democracy.

He is fundamentally dishonest. Evidence of this includes his attempts to deny positions he has unquestionably taken in the past, including on the 2003 Iraq war and the 2011 Libyan conflict. We accept that views evolve over time, but this is simply misrepresentation.

His equation of business acumen with foreign policy experience is false. Not all lethal conflicts can be resolved as a real estate deal might, and there is no recourse to bankruptcy court in international affairs.

Mr. Trump's own statements lead us to conclude that as president, he would use the authority of his office to act in ways that make America less safe, and which would diminish our standing in the world. Furthermore, his expansive view of how presidential power should be wielded against his detractors poses a distinct threat to civil liberty in the United States. Therefore, as committed and loyal Republicans, we are unable to support a Party ticket with Mr. Trump at its head. We commit ourselves to working energetically to prevent the election of someone so utterly unfitted to the office.

David Adesnik Michael Auslin Robert D. Blackwill Daniel A. Blumenthal Max Boot Michael Chertoff Patrick Chovanec Eliot A. Cohen Carrie Cordero Michael Coulter Patrick M. Cronin Seth Cropsey Tom Donnelly Daniel Drezner Colin Dueck Eric Edelman Joseph Esposito Richard A. Falkenrath Peter D. Feaver Niall Ferguson Aaron Friedberg Jeffrey Gedmin Reuel Marc Gerecht Christopher J. Griffin Mary R. Habeck Paul Haenle Rebeccah Heinrichs William C. Inboden Jamil N. Jaffer Robert G. Joseph Kate Kidder Robert Kagan David Kramer Matthew Kroenig Frank Lavin Philip I. Levy Philip Lohaus Mary Beth Long

Peter Mansoor Matthew Mc Cabe Bryan Mc Grath Paul D. Miller Charles Morrison Lester Munson Andrew S. Natsios Michael Noonan John Noonan Roger F. Noriega Robert T. Osterhaler Everett Pyatt Martha T. Rainville Stephen Rodriguez Michael Rubin Daniel F. Runde Benjamin Runkle Richard L. Russell Kori Schake Randy Scheunemann Gary J. Schmitt Kalev I. Sepp Vance Serchuk David R. Shedd Kristen Silverberg Michael Singh Ray Takeyh William H. Tobey Frances F. Townsend Jan Van Tol Daniel Vajdich Albert Wolf Julie Wood Dov S. Zakheim Roger Zakheim Philip Zelikow Robert B. Zoellick

The statement above was coordinated by Dr. Eliot A. Cohen, former Counselor of the Department of State (2007–8) and Bryan Mc Grath, Managing Director of The FerryBridge Group, a defense consultancy. They encourage other members of the Republican foreign policy and national security communities wishing to sign the declaration to contact them.

I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot
Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#114227: Mar 3rd 2016 at 7:20:56 AM

Since we are going gung ho on the Drumpf articles, here is another one I think I have not seen linked here before but whatevs.

The Fiscal Times: The Brutal economic truth behind the Rise of Trump

Donald Trump is inching closer to securing the Republican presidential nomination as voters cast their ballots on Super Tuesday — an outcome that has the donor/Establishment/media nexus apoplectic and social justice warrior types despondent.

Much has been said about Trump's look, language, demeanor, faith, fidelity to the conservative cause, stance on gun rights, women's rights, and so much more. He has been called every name in the book — sexist, racist, bigot, fraud and fascist — and compared with Hitler and Mussolini.

And yet his staying power cannot be dismissed. To my mind, it's not about banning Muslims or building walls. Trump’s rise is about his unique grasp of the most fundamental economic issue that's been hurting regular American workers for decades: the influx of foreign workers and the outflow of corporate capital expenditures that have reduced wage-raising bargaining power.

Trump is a guy who understands leverage in deal making. And he understands that basic supply-demand dynamics have undermined the ability of middle-class Americans to extract pay raises and keep pace with the persistent increase in the cost of living. And that's why his appeal has confounded the political pundits.

If his appeal was based on his language and bluster, America would have elevated someone like Howard Stern or Ann Coulter long ago. If his appeal was based on foreign policy concerns, why isn't a military general leading the charge? It's the economy, stupid! And the fact is that real, median household income peaked at nearly $58,000 back in 1999 and has been sliding ever since, standing now at just $53,657.

This can all be summarized in two charts: The relationship between corporate profitability and labor's share of income shown above.

Cheap laborers (both undocumented unskilled and skilled H1-B guest workers) and the ability to offshore production and reimport goods into the United States have boosted earnings to record highs. Yet in a mirror-image decline, the share of income going to Middle Americans has collapsed.

Politically, the backlash against this dynamic has been burning slowly for two reasons — both of which can be traced to the ultra-easy monetary policy of the Federal Reserve over the past 20 some years.

First, easy money has fueled asset price appreciation, allowing Americans to tap home equity and stock market wealth to supplement stagnant wages and fuel their ability to spend. We saw this in the dot-com boom. We saw it in the housing bubble. And we've seen it again in the current bull market.

Unfortunately, the gain in household net worth has been largely relegated to the wealthy who overwhelmingly own the most financial assets — fueling worries about rising inequality. (Check out page 30 of the Fed's Survey of Consumer Finances for more information.)

Second, many have turned to credit to pad stagnant incomes. Since 1999, household credit has grown from $6.6 trillion to more than $14 trillion.

But now, the political anger is white-hot. Trump thunders in his rallies — which increasingly resemble rock concerts in mood and tone— about Ford building factories in Mexico or IT workers from Disney being displaced by foreigners they are forced to train.

Americans used to be content with this arrangement, buying suddenly cheaper imported goods with wealth and credit. But with homes filled with electronic toys, furniture and clothes, we now want our economic security back. Even mainstream economists are starting to concede that open trade has depressed American wages. The worm is turning.

The surprising enthusiasm for Democratic presidential challenger Bernie Sanders can also be explained by these dynamics — especially his appeal to younger voters burdened by debts (mainly, student loans) and without the capital assets (homes, retirement accounts) needed to benefit from the Fed's asset inflation focus. He rails against Wall Street (the creditors). He rails against the rich (benefiting the most from the Fed). And he rails against corporate profits.

But where Sanders and Trump differs — and why Trump has had more success — is that their policy prescriptions are different.

Sanders wants to treat the symptoms with palliatives like increased taxes and regulation, using the power of the U.S. government to redistribute wealth from the rich and the corporate sector to poor and middle-income Americans at the risk of further damaging America's potential growth rate by reducing entrepreneurship and economic dynamism.

Trump is talking about attacking the root cause of the problem: Elevating free trade and corporate globalism over American nationalism and "fair" trade.

For all the looking-down-the-nose belittling of Trump supporters as low-information voters, they implicitly understand this profound truth and realize that — with Establishment candidates in both political parties beholden to the status quo — the ostentatious Manhattanite with ridiculous hair and no brain-to-mouth filter is best positioned to turn things around.

Basically: Though the Trump voters are incredibly stupid at economics they are not stupid enough to not notice the obvious: Big companies make more money but this money is not actually shared with the average U.S household. Even if the average U.S household has better access to cheaper stuff and an increased quality of life because of this, its income is no higher. Trump attacks this directly, by promising to deal with the outsourcing of labor and keeping the jobs and profits inside the U.S, so it is an appealing economic argument to...people who magically expect that having a higher income is going to make everything k (even if the cost of living shoots up).

@China netizens thing

That one was hilarious.

@Black poster on reddit thing

Thanks for sharing that, was insightful.

edited 3rd Mar '16 7:29:57 AM by Aszur

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
Ogodei Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers from The front lines Since: Jan, 2011
Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers
#114228: Mar 3rd 2016 at 7:21:35 AM

Damn, that is a long list of torture apologists suddenly condemning torture.

SolipsistOwl Since: Jan, 2016
#114229: Mar 3rd 2016 at 7:26:14 AM

Trump's supporters are anti-establishment. The opinion of those that drove Republican values over the cliff won't sway their vote.

TerminusEst from the Land of Winter and Stars Since: Feb, 2010
#114230: Mar 3rd 2016 at 7:31:35 AM

[up][up]

"Expansive use of torture" not "enhanced interrogation".

edited 3rd Mar '16 7:31:44 AM by TerminusEst

Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele
ILoveDogs Since: May, 2010
#114231: Mar 3rd 2016 at 7:50:58 AM

Alright, so I need a little bit of reassurance: he's not really going to be president, right? I mean, we all said that he wouldn't go far in the primaries, but surely the general will stop him, right?

Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#114232: Mar 3rd 2016 at 7:52:28 AM

It is unlikely he wins a general election and

It is unlikely that even if he wins, he could get away with even half of what he promises. He would not be as awful as people think he would be. The risk of him is more social than anything, since his election would empower a really nasty segment of society.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
TerminusEst from the Land of Winter and Stars Since: Feb, 2010
#114233: Mar 3rd 2016 at 7:54:13 AM

[up][up]

Congress would just block him at every turn. He might get a few executive orders through I assume.

Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele
ILoveDogs Since: May, 2010
#114234: Mar 3rd 2016 at 7:55:04 AM

But Congress is Republican, yes?

TerminusEst from the Land of Winter and Stars Since: Feb, 2010
#114235: Mar 3rd 2016 at 7:57:00 AM

[up]

Who despise him.

Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele
Balmung Since: Oct, 2011
#114236: Mar 3rd 2016 at 7:58:24 AM

Yes, but even a lot of Republicans aren't huge fans of him and they could easily justify their opposition to him by declaring him a RINO (which isn't all that wrong, since he's actually a Dixiecrat).

ILoveDogs Since: May, 2010
#114237: Mar 3rd 2016 at 7:59:59 AM

Fair, but this article (5 Realistic Ways Donald Trump Can Accomplish His Crazy Goals) makes some frighteningly plausible ideas how he could do it. Obviously, Cracked isn't the greatest journalistic source, but it sounds like it could happen...

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#114238: Mar 3rd 2016 at 8:00:03 AM

Now, and a lot of folks there don't like him or his policies.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#114239: Mar 3rd 2016 at 8:01:52 AM

Or his face

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
TerminusEst from the Land of Winter and Stars Since: Feb, 2010
#114240: Mar 3rd 2016 at 8:03:32 AM

Well, his voters might just get what they want. Destroy the status quo.

Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele
NoName999 Since: May, 2011
#114241: Mar 3rd 2016 at 8:19:29 AM

And replace it with something worse

TerminusEst from the Land of Winter and Stars Since: Feb, 2010
TheWanderer Student of Story from Somewhere in New England (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
Student of Story
#114243: Mar 3rd 2016 at 8:34:35 AM

Alright, so I need a little bit of reassurance: he's not really going to be president, right? I mean, we all said that he wouldn't go far in the primaries, but surely the general will stop him, right?

It's unlikely that he will be president, yes. He has a base of rabidly enthusiastic supporters, but actually alienates almost everyone else. He also will have to withstand months of much more rigorous coverage and being called on his bullshit than he has thus far. Also, it's worth noting that primaries are wildly unrepresentative, as for the most part the people who vote in them are generally the most motivated, enthusiastic, and in many cases, extreme voters. Most people can't be bothered to turn out in anything except in the general elections of presidential elections. When it's not a presidential general election, they're usually unable/unwilling to get off from work, school, etc. to go out and vote, even though other elections are arguably much more important to their lives than the average presidential election, especially if it's in a census year like 2010, 2020, 2030, etc.

(See Samantha Bee's rant on why the 2010 election [WARNING! Definitely NSFW] was much more important than Obama winning in 2008, and keep in mind that she's only just barely scratching the surface there as that election gave conservatives the right to redraw both state and national districts to their liking, locking in conservative/Tea Party advantages for the the next 10+ years, implement Voter ID laws to restrict people from voting, screw over the poor, restrict access to abortion or sexual education in about 2/3 of states, etc.)

It's also worth noticing that the anxiety inducing coverage from the media about how doom is nigh is a feature for them, not a bug. Their profile, sales, viewership, etc. all go up fro doing it because fear sells all day long, so many of them encourage the "horse race" aspect of elections, where all they do is comment on the position of candidates relative to each other and where every single step is the most important turning point that will make or break everything forever. For example, I'm willing to predict that you'll see a lot of news articles and coverage about Bernie regaining momentum when he picks off the next few small states from Clinton, and see a lot of people talking about how this fight will go on forever and be right down to the wire, only for them to turn around and declare Bernie crushed and the Democratic primary over on March 15th when Clinton wins a couple of big battleground states like Florida and Ohio. Just like how plenty of news organizations had perfectly good information showing that Obama was going to cruise to victory over both McCain and Romney well before the election, but kept trying to call it "too close to call" because too close to call sells better and makes people more excited to keep watching them.

All of that Wall of Text having been said, you'll note that I did qualify my statements about Trump becoming president, because while I've had a lot of my predictions in this election and elections past come true, Trump has been defying them, and I do believe in trying to avoid Tempting Fate.

edited 3rd Mar '16 8:35:53 AM by TheWanderer

| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
optimusjamie Since: Jun, 2010
#114244: Mar 3rd 2016 at 9:01:15 AM

Mitt Romney warns Trump not fit to run country

edited 3rd Mar '16 9:02:24 AM by optimusjamie

Direct all enquiries to Jamie B Good
TheWanderer Student of Story from Somewhere in New England (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
Student of Story
#114245: Mar 3rd 2016 at 9:02:38 AM

You put the link and the text in the wrong order.

| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#114246: Mar 3rd 2016 at 9:13:25 AM

[up][up]

I miss him sad

Schild und Schwert der Partei
Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#114247: Mar 3rd 2016 at 9:16:12 AM

Work on your aim, noob

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
SolipsistOwl Since: Jan, 2016
#114248: Mar 3rd 2016 at 9:27:28 AM

Former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey joins Morning Joe to discuss reports that former Clinton staffer, Bryan Pagliano, has received immunity in the investigation.

Why is ex-Clinton staffer getting immunity now?

edited 3rd Mar '16 9:49:30 AM by SolipsistOwl

BlueNinja0 The Mod with the Migraine from Taking a left at Albuquerque Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
The Mod with the Migraine
#114249: Mar 3rd 2016 at 9:49:43 AM

Furthermore, it endangers the safety and Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of American Muslims.
Hold on, so now Republicans are willing to speak up for Muslim rights? Where the fuck were they even two years ago?
and there is no recourse to bankruptcy court in international affairs.
Zing!

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw
GameGuruGG Vampire Hunter from Castlevania (Before Recorded History)
Vampire Hunter
#114250: Mar 3rd 2016 at 10:04:31 AM

The thing is... Democrats need to treat Trump as a serious threat rather than a joke if they don't want Trump to win. The Republican Party treated him as a joke candidate and they got decimated by him. Treating Trump as a joke and not as a serious threat is what will lead to President Donald J. Trump.

Wizard Needs Food Badly

Total posts: 417,856
Top