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

ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#115401: Mar 11th 2016 at 1:02:05 PM

[up]

Welp, fuck you, Debbie.

God damn this is a hell of a page-topper... the above is in reference to deregulating the Payday loan industry, which is infamously awful for causing a cycle of poverty. If this were the Middle Ages, they'd have been burned at the stake for Usury, seeing as it's common for them to charge 1,000% annual interest, and engaging in rampant Loophole Abuse in order to remain legal every time the government (on every level) tries to crack down on it.

edited 11th Mar '16 1:05:06 PM by ironballs16

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
ILoveDogs Since: May, 2010
#115402: Mar 11th 2016 at 1:14:13 PM

I have the sinking feeling that Schultz is going to destroy the Democratic Party and let the right wing lead us into a world of misery.

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#115403: Mar 11th 2016 at 1:19:28 PM

[up]Maybe you should step away from this stuff for awhile. You mentioned before having terrible anxiety right?

JackOLantern1337 Shameful Display from The Most Miserable Province in the Russian Empir Since: Aug, 2014 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
Shameful Display
#115404: Mar 11th 2016 at 1:37:07 PM

The Democrats best candidate for President is the one they already have. I think Obama rates so hight because, in a sea of candidates who are viewed as ether corrupt or insane, he stands out as just a normal guy. Ironically he is doing so well because people fear change. The article goes on to argue that we should do away with term limits, viewing them as a spiteful act passed by Republicans but hurt about FDR getting a forth term. I however disagree. The line between a great leader and a tyrant is a thin one, and it is one FDR often verged on crossing, for example with court packing or his alleged efforts to intimidate the justices. Mind you I don't think the modern day progressive movement would have a problem with dictatorship, so long as it served the case of social justice. They abandoned restraint because int their view their opponents did the same, and it is clear they hold the average American in contempt compared to the enlightened citizenry of Europe, and do not trust us to make our own decisions.

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#115405: Mar 11th 2016 at 1:40:33 PM

There is a long way from "no term limits" to "dictatorship". That argument is exceedingly thin, especially in a country with a moderately to fairly strong system of electoral democracy such as the US.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#115406: Mar 11th 2016 at 1:43:05 PM

[up][up]

Yeah, that'll never fly, regardless of which party holds the Presidency. As you said, the specter of President for Life hangs too heavy (especially given what's happened in a number of other nations), and even if one of the parties wanted to try enacting it, it would be viewed as a complete power-grab.

[up]

Two words: voter apathy. While Congress also has a gerrymandering problem, a big issue is the mentality of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", so whoever is currently in office, unless something huge has gone down that gets the electorate utterly pissed over things, is unlikely to get voted out.

edited 11th Mar '16 1:50:09 PM by ironballs16

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#115408: Mar 11th 2016 at 1:49:06 PM

[up] But...Sanders is hardly working-class either, is he?

Keep Rolling On
LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#115409: Mar 11th 2016 at 1:50:09 PM

Twit or not, I don't really see what that statement has to do with being upper-class.

edited 11th Mar '16 1:50:30 PM by LSBK

SolipsistOwl Since: Jan, 2016
#115410: Mar 11th 2016 at 1:50:25 PM

Judge rules against Husted in teen voting case

Franklin County Common Pleas Court Judge Richard Frye ruled against the Secretary of State in the case of a lawsuit filed by a national voting rights organization on behalf of nine 17-year-old plaintiffs.

The group is suing Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted over his decision to stop allowing 17-year-olds, who turn 18 before the election, to vote in the primaries.

In December the state’s chief elections official issued an update saying 17-year-old voters are not allowed to vote for presidential delegates, because delegates are elected, not nominated.

There is no word yet from Husted’s office on whether the ruling will be appealed.

ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#115411: Mar 11th 2016 at 1:55:24 PM

[up][up][up]

Sanders is upper-middle class, and that primarily because of how well Congress pays elected officials. Much hay has been made of the fact that, prior to becoming an elected official, Sanders wasn't very successful at private enterprise.

Also, there's a difference between Upper Class (e.g. Thomas Jefferson) and Upper-Class Twit (e.g. Jefferson Smith-Smythe-Smith), primarily that the latter has a tendency to be a Know-Nothing Know-It-All.

[down]

At the same time, Nancy's behavior could be considered Fair for Its Day - people tend to forget that gay rights have come a long way in a relatively short amount of time.

edited 11th Mar '16 2:00:31 PM by ironballs16

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
PotatoesRock Since: Oct, 2012
#115412: Mar 11th 2016 at 1:56:24 PM

He's been a professional Politician for his entire adult life, yes, but Sanders has been on the fringe and never been as successful as Clinton. Even if they're both 1%ers, Clinton is in the top 0.01% more or less.

She's been in such a privleged bubble for Decades, she doesn't get 'it'. Praising Nancy is something someone in the Elite Bubble does to sound reasonable, thinking it's a good circling the square, without realizing the offense it strikes to the LGBT community and their allies.

Sanders, even if he's a wealthy man now, started off on the low rungs of life quality. Working class enough to understand the infuriation of the Left against the Country Club Elite. Hillary's basically been in a lap of privilege with a Silver Spoon her entire life since her father ran a business when she was born and basically has had 'Elite' jobs and high quality schooling her entire life.

Twit or not, I don't really see what that statement has to do with being upper-class.
She's an Elite who talks to other Country Club Elites and follows the opinion of Elites, and to them, Nancy was respectable and reasonable.

Basically, this is a "Let them have cake" Malaprop.

edited 11th Mar '16 1:57:39 PM by PotatoesRock

SolipsistOwl Since: Jan, 2016
#115413: Mar 11th 2016 at 1:57:29 PM

Sanders' net worth is $460,000.

Hillary Clinton's net worth is $31.3 million while her husband Bill Clinton is $80 million.

Bernie Sanders' wife accounts for all his reported assets (July 2015)

Bernie Sanders on Thursday reported less than $750,000 in assets — all of it in his wife’s name — according to his presidential personal financial disclosure form.

The Vermont senator, mounting a liberal insurgent campaign against front-runner Hillary Clinton, also listed between $25,002-$65,000 in credit card debt on his Visa cards.

According to the disclosure, Sanders and his wife Jane reported between $194,026-$741,030 in assets, a broad combination of investment funds.

edited 11th Mar '16 2:00:44 PM by SolipsistOwl

Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#115414: Mar 11th 2016 at 2:00:22 PM

Did someone mention Nancy's past homophobia with the whole HIV thing, or did clinton just blurt it out herself?

Sounds like she was scrambling to come out for praise for her, given how one can't speak ill of the dead but there were hundreds of thousands of other things she could have said that would have been better. Including nothing.

Not sure how that makes her an upper class twit though. She just acted like a dick.

Praising Nancy is something someone in the Elite Bubble does to sound reasonable, thinking it's a good circling the square, without realizing the offense it strikes to the LGBT community and their allies.

Refused to dance in the grave of the recently deceased is not a particularly awful thing. She seems to have spoken too much, but just because she refuses to spit on an open casket doesn't make her an enemy of the LGBT cause, really. She acted stupidly and apologized for it, so maybe the torches and pitchforks are not necessary

edited 11th Mar '16 2:05:06 PM 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
#115415: Mar 11th 2016 at 2:03:04 PM

Hillary Clinton Falsely Credits Reagans With Starting “National Conversation” on HIV/AIDS

Clinton’s telling of HIV/AIDS history doesn’t align with the facts. President Reagan waited seven years to address the HIV/AIDS crisis, even as thousands of Americans died from the disease. Dr. C. Everett Koop, the administration’s surgeon general, said the president dragged his feet on the issue “because transmission of AIDS was understood to be primarily in the homosexual population and in those who abused intravenous drugs.” Koop said their position was that AIDS victims were “only getting what they justly deserve.”

In 1985 the Reagans’ friend Rock Hudson, then dying of AIDS, traveled to Paris in a desperate attempt to be treated by a French military doctor. As Buzz Feed’s Chris Geidner reported last year, Hudson’s publicist sent the Reagan White House a telegram begging for help in getting Hudson moved to a French military hospital where the doctor could treat him. Nancy Reagan personally saw and rejected the request.

Nancy Reagan may have played a role in encouraging her husband to push for more funding for AIDS research, which Congress did appropriate. However, says Kevin Cathcart, executive director of Lambda Legal, “Shameful is not even strong enough a word for the record of the Reagan administration on this. Did she try and fail, or not try very hard? I really don’t know.”

In fact, the Reagan White House even laughed off questions about the epidemic as it was spreading across America, which is the subject of the new documentary When AIDS Was Funny. That is hardly the conversation the victims of HIV/AIDS needed.

edited 11th Mar '16 2:03:38 PM by SolipsistOwl

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
PotatoesRock Since: Oct, 2012
#115417: Mar 11th 2016 at 2:07:55 PM

Refused to dance in the grave of the recently deceased is not a particularly awful thing. She seems to have spoken too much, but just because she refuses to spit on an open casket doesn't make her an enemy of the LGBT cause, really. She acted stupidly and apologized for it, so maybe the torches and pitchforks are not necessary
There's a way of doing it tactfully. Going with the "Say No To Drugs" thing might of been good.

The thing is, Nancy and her husband are considered villains and monsters among the LGBT community.

It's kinda like saying to Jews "We should thank Adolf Hitler for starting a conversation about Anti-Semetism"

There's also speculation Hillary and Her Team were doing this as a way to fish Socially moderate Republicans from the GOP during Trumptime by making LGBT issues sound somewhat Bipartisan.

edited 11th Mar '16 2:09:58 PM by PotatoesRock

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#115418: Mar 11th 2016 at 2:09:47 PM

I sort of get Ronald but what did she do?

Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#115419: Mar 11th 2016 at 2:10:28 PM

At the same time, Nancy's behavior could be considered Fair for Its Day - people tend to forget that gay rights have come a long way in a relatively short amount of time.

It is very possible. And as Clinton mentioned, it is hard to think it unless you were there yourself, actuall speaking to her as she was. Maybe Nancy did more than it is possible for us to know.

But Clinton still should have known better. it is 2016, and Nancy Reagan's explicit behavior is not tolerated now. She could have worded it a lot better.

Granted for Clinton, it was in the middle of a funeral, were emotions and tensions are high, but still nothing praiseworthy. At least she apologized. Soon after, too.

It's kinda like saying to Jews "We should thank Adolf Hitler for starting a conversation about Anti-Semetism"

Listen, I am all for calling out Clinton on this huge gaffe she did, but from there to going directly into putting a red armband on her arm is making a hyperbole out of it.

There's also speculation Hillary and Her Team were doing this as a way to fish Socially moderate Republicans from the GOP during Trumptime by making LGBT issues sound somewhat Bipartisan

wild mass guess Or we can go from hyperbole to tin foil hat time. Don't want Clinton's magic words to steal muh vote.

edited 11th Mar '16 2:13:41 PM 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
#115420: Mar 11th 2016 at 2:10:50 PM

She put "pander to right-leaning independents vs alienate south Florida's LGBT community right before a primary" into the campaign calculator and rolled the dice.

edited 11th Mar '16 2:11:37 PM by SolipsistOwl

PotatoesRock Since: Oct, 2012
#115421: Mar 11th 2016 at 2:11:49 PM

The Rock Hudson thing. Basically she and her husband refused to do anything about it and treated it as "Someone Else's Problem". It's sort of the same thing Hillary has problems with:

"Guilt by association and refusal to break the line with the spouse, and both have very similar opinions."

making a hyperbole out of it.
I run on Hyperbole. The point is she tried to credit a person seen as a villain among the LGBT community as one of its heroes.

Don't want Clinton's magic words to steal muh vote.
It's not Tinfoil to assume she and the DNC might trying to fish a few votes to reduce the GOP's power as a national party at a point in time that it's a golden opportunity to do so.

edited 11th Mar '16 2:17:25 PM by PotatoesRock

Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#115422: Mar 11th 2016 at 2:16:20 PM

Kinda related now that you mention it though. I thought the Reagans also had an awful record on dealing with drugs?

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
PotatoesRock Since: Oct, 2012
#115423: Mar 11th 2016 at 2:20:32 PM

Yes. Completely bug fucks awful, but at least the "Say No To Drugs" can be framed as "well intended if foolish".

Ditto Hillary could of tried framing her as Pro-Alzheimer's research, even if she only started in the 90s.

Trying to frame Nancy as a LGBT ally is non-starter. She and her husband are seen as a big reason it took so damn fucking long for Homosexuals to gain any traction on not being treated as monsters and public dangers.

There are other more reasonable things you can do then try to frame Nancy Reagan as an LGBT ally.

edited 11th Mar '16 2:21:01 PM by PotatoesRock

ILoveDogs Since: May, 2010
#115424: Mar 11th 2016 at 2:21:03 PM

Again, at least she apologized rather than puke up more diseased bile, like some other politicians.

Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#115425: Mar 11th 2016 at 2:25:39 PM

The point is she tried to credit a person seen as a villain among the LGBT community as one of its heroes.

"Started a conversation" makes someone a hero? That borders the Damned by Faint Praise sort of thing more, really. She was just trying to say something nice about someone loads of people near her were grieving for.

Which is a big mistake considering the cameras were on her. It was stupid on her.

It's not Tinfoil to assume she and the DNC might trying to fish a few votes to reduce the GOP's power as a national party at a point in time that it's a golden opportunity to do so.

If they were moustache-twisting villains tying damsels to traintracks, yes. Using a funeral as a political ploy is downright vile, it is a pretty serious accusation since you're just literally demonizing a person as incapable of empathy: That she gave so little fucks about the family members grieving that she only got dollar signs in her eyes out of their tears.

It's just fucking vile. I know you might not be happy with the establishment but it's not reason to go flinging shit around like that.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

Total posts: 417,856
Top