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

Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#115176: Mar 10th 2016 at 9:43:03 AM

I agree. Sanders really does seem like a great guy, with great ideas and good policies and I would honestly like it if he was president. But he is not pure, pristine white. His record has blemishes due to misinformation, ignorance on certain subjects and lack of experience in certain approaches.

And that is fine.

Problem is that people want someone who is perfect, they want their Gideon to lead them past the apocalypse, their bergentruckung emerging with a choir of angels but the real world just isn't like that. But to have this idea challenged is anathema to them, hence why people are rabid about Sanders or Trump criticism.

Clinton isn't the end of the world, and Sanders isn't the only solution to all of the problems and he is far from perfect. Deal with it.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
SolipsistOwl Since: Jan, 2016
#115177: Mar 10th 2016 at 9:46:14 AM

Who said that Sanders is the perfect candidate? There's many areas I wish he was better and more informed. There's a few areas he's only marginally better than Clinton, for example.

A key difference is that Sanders actually listens to his constituents and reflects their interests, so I'm more confident in him setting aside personal opinion and working for the public interest when pushed.

edited 10th Mar '16 9:46:53 AM by SolipsistOwl

CassidyTheDevil Since: Jan, 2013
#115178: Mar 10th 2016 at 9:46:55 AM

I disagree with that. You underestimate how much that is a normal part of the political process. The purpose of a campaign is to make people think that not only are you the right person for the job, but that the other person is the wrong one.

If you feel that Clinton supporters are more objective, I think you need a reality check. Clinton supporters are doing the exact same thing, it's the purpose of her campaign and Sanders campaign.

The supposition of "political realism" is posturing, and painting the opposition as unmoored from reality is a tactic. Good ones, I might add, but it has to be acknowledged.

Not that I'm choosing sides.

ILoveDogs Since: May, 2010
#115179: Mar 10th 2016 at 9:48:25 AM

Of course Clinton supporters aren't more objective. Believe me, I'm on Facebook. It's just that not everything she does is proof that she is the Antichrist.

Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#115180: Mar 10th 2016 at 9:49:21 AM

I am not defending Clinton. I am just pointing out Sanders is just as good, and just as bad, as her. People accuse Clinton of chopping up a video/radio interview with Sanders to make him look like X? The horror! Sanders does the same? My anti-establishment hero!

It's stupid and tiring.

A key difference is that Sanders actually listens to his constituents and reflects their interests, so I'm more confident in him setting aside personal opinion and working for the public interest when pushed

And again, the same can be said of Clinton in the good, and bad way. Sanders prides himself on his treatment for Veterans, but Sanders has been called out on committees for not paying enough attention to their bills, and veterans themselves

Clinton did all those horrible things she did (I am pretty certain anyone can quote more on them than me, and Solipsist may have an entire armoire full of babies she punched during her tenure as statesec) but she was basically the author for the sanctions on Iran, helped normalize relationships with Cuba, and China is quite afraid of her diplomatically speaking, for she has been critical of them like few before have.

edited 10th Mar '16 9:58:35 AM by Aszur

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
SolipsistOwl Since: Jan, 2016
#115181: Mar 10th 2016 at 9:56:41 AM

Sanders is a Senator, not in charge of the VA. You can't criticize him for how the VA was run since that's not his day-to-day job. His job was to pass reform to improve the VA once news it was failing reached him. He did that successfully.

Besides, we all know Clinton promised to oppose the Colombian free trade agreement, only to personally lobby for it while So S. She clearly *doesn't* listen to her constituents.

edited 10th Mar '16 10:01:22 AM by SolipsistOwl

CassidyTheDevil Since: Jan, 2013
#115182: Mar 10th 2016 at 9:59:08 AM

I was responding to Ambar by the way, if that confused anyone. Thread moves fast.

You know, the more that I see some of the Sanders supporters in this thread try to paint Clinton as the anti-Christ and their man as the one guy who can save America, the more I hope he loses.

Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#115183: Mar 10th 2016 at 9:59:52 AM

He was appointed head chair for that committee, so yeah, that was part of his burden

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#115184: Mar 10th 2016 at 10:00:06 AM

[up][up][up]Your conclusion has nothing to do with your premise.

edited 10th Mar '16 10:00:26 AM by LSBK

SolipsistOwl Since: Jan, 2016
#115185: Mar 10th 2016 at 10:01:32 AM

So, veterans criticized Sanders for pushing for too much and not getting all of it?

Paul Rieckhoff, chief executive and founder of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), said the bill is "a Band-Aid" that won't transform the VA. He called Sanders "incredibly ineffective" as chairman.

Rieckhoff faulted Sanders for not being aggressive enough on oversight and for pursuing unrealistic goals. An earlier veterans health-care-reform bill that Sanders touted as "the most comprehensive veterans legislation in decades" shows how "disconnected" he is from what can be accomplished in a divided Congress, Rieckhoff said.

That bill was designed to improve health and dental care, expand educational opportunities, address a disability claims backlog, tackle joblessness and cancel planned cuts in some military pensions. The measure was supported by the IAVA and most major veterans service organizations, but Reickhoff said the bill had no chance to pass.

Congress addressed the pension issue, but the comprehensive bill died because Republicans objected to the way Sanders proposed paying for it. Only two Republicans voted in favor of advancing the bill.

"As an independent, he caucuses with the Democrats but he's on his own island," Rieckhoff said of Sanders. "He approaches the legislative process in a very unique way, which is in accordance with his principles, but at the end of the day hasn't been very productive for veterans."

AMVETS, which did not support the comprehensive bill in February, has disagreed with Sanders often since he became chairman, said Diane Zumatto, the group's national legislative director. AMVETS sided with the House on the latest reform bill, saying the law should focus on accountability and oversight before increasing funding for the VA.

"There's no doubt in my mind that he cares deeply about veterans," Zumatto said of Sanders. "We both want the same things. It's just: How do we get there?"

Rick Weidman, Vietnam Veterans of America's executive director for policy and government affairs, said he has known Sanders since living in Vermont in the late 1970s. Sanders' negotiating skills have "evolved," he said.

With this latest deal, Sanders "demonstrated he can play with the big boys," Weidman said. Despite a few "rough patches" in negotiations with the House, he said, they struck a deal "we can live with for the time being."

"I think he's done pretty damned well," Weidman said. "People can say, 'Well, he could have done better.' OK, explain to me how. How can he have gotten a better deal with the House?"

edited 10th Mar '16 10:04:06 AM by SolipsistOwl

Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#115186: Mar 10th 2016 at 10:02:50 AM

[up] Yes.

@ SolipsistOwl: Then how does Cuba compare the with healthcare systems of the variius countries in Europe?

And has Sanders had much to say about the British NHS (which he should have, since his brother lives in Oxfordnote )?

edited 10th Mar '16 10:03:25 AM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On
GameGuruGG Vampire Hunter from Castlevania (Before Recorded History)
Vampire Hunter
#115187: Mar 10th 2016 at 10:03:00 AM

People want their choice to win and everyone else to lose. That's like anything in life... religion, sports, video game consoles... Politics is not alone in having outright fanboys and fangirls of certain choices. In addition, no one is going to be a pristine candidate, especially in the age of smartphones and social media where everyone's sins can be put onto the internet for all to see.

Wizard Needs Food Badly
Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#115188: Mar 10th 2016 at 10:05:47 AM

Did you. Read the very first sentences?

You know. Where one guy criticises him entirely? Or just the one guy at the end that said he did great? I am just trying to see how selective opinions are to dismiss the words of chief executive and founder of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America but not the ones from Rick Weidman, Vietnam Veterans of America's executive director for policy and government affairs

Or is it going to be a "Can't please them all" argument when defending "Sanders is best at listening to constitutents"

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
SolipsistOwl Since: Jan, 2016
#115189: Mar 10th 2016 at 10:09:19 AM

Yes, I read it. Rieckhoff clearly criticized Sanders for pursuing "unrealistic goals" while also condemning him for not doing more despite admitting the divided Congress.

It also reads that Weidman—unlike Rieckhoff—understood that Sanders delivered the best legislation they could expect.

edited 10th Mar '16 10:12:39 AM by SolipsistOwl

Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#115190: Mar 10th 2016 at 10:10:23 AM

And are his criticisms invalid or otherwise worthless?

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
SolipsistOwl Since: Jan, 2016
#115191: Mar 10th 2016 at 10:11:17 AM

Yes. They're contradictory and invalid.

edited 10th Mar '16 10:11:34 AM by SolipsistOwl

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#115192: Mar 10th 2016 at 10:12:20 AM

Personally, the biggest reason I see to support Sanders over Clinton is that he's serious (to the point where he's been accused of being a single issue candidate) about addressing one of the fundamental problems with how American democracy works, namely the rather thinly veiled corruption that permeates it at the highest level.

He may or may not have an opportunity to enact meaningful campaign finance reform legislation, but I'm confident he'd do so if given the chance. I can't really say the same about Clinton, especially given how her campaign is funded.

Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#115193: Mar 10th 2016 at 10:12:44 AM

[up][up]Then you must be a better Judge, Jury and executioner of society than I am, because I myself would not dare to judge the petition of the president of a veteran's associations' calls for a more moderate approach as unreasonable.

Clearly the messiah is among us and I am blind/can't fit my camel through a needle's eye

edited 10th Mar '16 10:14:32 AM by Aszur

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
CassidyTheDevil Since: Jan, 2013
#115194: Mar 10th 2016 at 10:14:08 AM

It appears his criticism is founded on the idea that veterans issues can be dealt with in a way both brings Republicans and Democrats together in agreement and actually helps.

That is a pretty nice idea, but I'm not sure how realistic that is.

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#115195: Mar 10th 2016 at 10:14:29 AM

Those two statements are not necessarily contradictory. He could easily mean Sanders was being too unrealistic in certain areas while not doing enough in areas he might actually be able make a change. Adding a caveat doesn't invalidate that.

Luminosity Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Lovey-Dovey
#115196: Mar 10th 2016 at 10:15:06 AM

It seems like she was trying not to lose donors while at the same time making a point that they need to change how they do things. I could see why that would annoy people but I also get why she'd go about it like that in her position.

This is why you shouldn't have donors like that. Nobody pays to be opposed for real. Competely disregarding the speeches, having Wall Street among her donors is bad enough already and should have sank her campaign by now.

And she wonders why people don't trust her to ever actually stand up to Wall Street.

ILoveDogs Since: May, 2010
#115197: Mar 10th 2016 at 10:16:06 AM

Maybe I'm stupid, but who the hell else is going to donate?

Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#115198: Mar 10th 2016 at 10:16:42 AM

I hear Sanders gets his donations from at-cost sales of bread and fishes he multiplies himself every Sunday, whereas Clinton has to sacrifice at least three puppies to summon Mephisto

edited 10th Mar '16 10:16:58 AM by Aszur

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#115199: Mar 10th 2016 at 10:16:55 AM

[up][up][up]That sounds like a horribly impractical and unreasonable way of looking at things to me.

edited 10th Mar '16 10:17:18 AM by LSBK

SolipsistOwl Since: Jan, 2016
#115200: Mar 10th 2016 at 10:20:56 AM

[up][up][up]Average Americans? Sanders raised $5 million in the 24 hours following Michigan alone. He's consistently outraised Clinton in small-donor donations the last few months.

edited 10th Mar '16 10:21:24 AM by SolipsistOwl


Total posts: 417,856
Top