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

ILoveDogs Since: May, 2010
#116151: Mar 16th 2016 at 11:58:05 AM

Stop that. You can't just shrug and go "just the facts, ma'am" when every single thing you post goes out of their way to paint the situation in the worst possible light. The articles might be hysterical, but your attitude is.

(And yes, I am being hypocritical, thank you for noticing)

Luminosity Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Lovey-Dovey
#116152: Mar 16th 2016 at 11:59:19 AM

Putin isn't holding you hostage, he's your president.

Sorry, but I feel you severely misunderstand the concept of an autocrat. He literally took children hostage as a response to your actions(the Dima Yakovlev List, response to the Magnitsky List).

What do you want the US (and the wider West in general) when it comes to Russia?

Ideally I'd want them to help stop Putin, but every time they try - they fail. So realistically I want them to leave us the fuck alone.

edited 16th Mar '16 12:03:49 PM by Luminosity

SolipsistOwl Since: Jan, 2016
#116153: Mar 16th 2016 at 11:59:35 AM

A military coup resulting in the murders of thousands of innocent people really is the worst possible light, and Secretary of State Clinton should be cast under it. Is it not part of her role as a public servant to accept responsibility for her actions and the consequences thereof?

Is it not my responsibility as a citizen to question her?

edited 16th Mar '16 12:00:25 PM by SolipsistOwl

smokeycut Since: Mar, 2013
#116154: Mar 16th 2016 at 12:01:03 PM

Dude. You quite literally just said Clinton committed genocide.

I don't know how that isn't hysterical.

SolipsistOwl Since: Jan, 2016
#116155: Mar 16th 2016 at 12:01:36 PM

I don't think you know what the word 'literally' means.

KarkatTheDalek Not as angry as the name would suggest. from Somwhere in Time/Space Since: Mar, 2012 Relationship Status: You're a beautiful woman, probably
Not as angry as the name would suggest.
#116156: Mar 16th 2016 at 12:01:38 PM

Soliptist Owl, while you certainly have the right to criticize Clintion, you have to admit that pretty much everything you link about her is negative towards her.

Oh God! Natural light!
ILoveDogs Since: May, 2010
#116157: Mar 16th 2016 at 12:02:55 PM

OK, then. What about the vicious ad hominem attack that she assaulted Sanders with that was perfectly normal and civilized? Or the filthy electioneering that almost certainly changed nothing? Or the disgusting speeches she gave at Goldman-Sachs that were probably fucking nothing?

TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#116158: Mar 16th 2016 at 12:04:29 PM

You mean, like, humping the air?

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#116159: Mar 16th 2016 at 12:06:09 PM

My understanding is that Putin actually has really high approval ratings within Russia. The guy might be an autocrat, but he's not exactly clinging to power at gunpoint.

All of which is besides the point. At the end of the day, getting angry at American politicians for prioritizing American interests over Russian interests is ridiculous. If you're going to talk about the American presidential election in the US politics thread, then saying "I hate Clinton because her policies have done economic harm to Russian citizens", then you're not going to get much traction on that angle.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
SolipsistOwl Since: Jan, 2016
#116160: Mar 16th 2016 at 12:08:01 PM

I haven't even mentioned the fact that Lanny Davis—longtime Clinton adviser and lobbyist—was working as a consultant for the Honduran chapter of the Business Council of Latin America. They supported the military coup.

I mean, I could pin the blame for the coup and killings on Clinton, but I try not to make insinuations.

Hillary Clinton sold out Honduras: Lanny Davis, corporate cash, and the real story about the death of a Latin American democracy

edited 16th Mar '16 12:11:49 PM by SolipsistOwl

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#116161: Mar 16th 2016 at 12:08:30 PM

[up]I'm amazed by this post. In just so many different ways. It takes a special sort of mindset to say "I try not to make insinuations" while making them.

@Totemic Hero

That the term's been used before doesn't make its use acceptable. The original Young Turk movement could charitably be described as militaristic, genocidal, and proto-fascistic. It doesn't help that Cenk has repeatedly refused to discuss the topic of the genocide, and has repeatedly edged towards outright genocide denial. During an Ask Me Anything session he spent much of it dodging questions about his stance on the genocide, which pretty much defeats the Ask Me Anything nature of it.

Taken altogether, it makes the show bloody uncomfortable to watch.

edited 16th Mar '16 12:09:47 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#116162: Mar 16th 2016 at 12:09:09 PM

Luminosity: there's no guarantee that Sanders would "leave you the fuck alone" as president. Or that Putin wouldn't do something that would require a US response. You're basically asking something that literally no one can promise you, because the US president is far from the only factor. You want the impossible.

Solipsist: It seems like you're placing even more responsibility on Clinton for this stuff in Honduras than even the article is. In any case, when you consistently post articles that put Clinton the worst light possible, going "i'm only posting the facts" when it's commented on is in fact disingenuous. For us to believe that you were interested "in just the facts" you'd have had to have made an attempt at neutrality and posted at least some neutral to positive articles about her.

This isn't to say that you shouldn't be criticizing her, that's not a healthy conversation. But you clearly have an ideological ax to grind against Clinton which is causing the rest of us to take what you say with a grain of salt. Going forward, you should be aware of that. And that's all I'm going to post on this because quite frankly it's verging on an argument now and I'd like everyone to just take a step back for a moment.

smokeycut Since: Mar, 2013
#116163: Mar 16th 2016 at 12:09:22 PM

You have been doing nothing but make insinuations.

You just insinuated that she's responsible before saying "but i try not to insinuate anything".

LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#116164: Mar 16th 2016 at 12:09:54 PM

Ok the problem with Russia is thus.

The West is perfectly within it's rights to push back against Russia and keep our own interests safe.

However, every time we do that we cement Putin's power further and further and he doubles down on military spending at the expense of the common Russian like Luminosity.

Putin is also smart. He doesn't start fights and proxy wars he won't win. So the end result is us pissing our power away in conflicts that won't end in our favor while the Russians get stronger and stronger.

Diplomacy is ultimately going to be the only long term solution that'll work for either of us.

Oh really when?
Luminosity Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Lovey-Dovey
#116165: Mar 16th 2016 at 12:12:29 PM

My understanding is that Putin actually has really high approval ratings within Russia. The guy might be an autocrat, but he's not exactly clinging to power at gunpoint.

High approval ratings don't make him any less of an autocrat. And don't remove the fact that he created counter-sanctions and other acts that literally hold some of us hostage as a response to your attempts to stop him. Even before Crimea, mind you.

All of which is besides the point. At the end of the day, getting angry at American politicians for prioritizing American interests over Russian interests is ridiculous. If you're going to talk about the American presidential election in the US politics thread, then saying "I hate Clinton because her policies have done economic harm to Russian citizens", then you're not going to get much traction on that angle.

I'm saying how I see it. I'm not a bloody missionary, I'm not converting anyone. Clinton is a continuation of pointless and damaging foreign policy antics that do nothing they actually set out to do, but damage us. I'm pretty sure I'm within my rights to hate the living shit out of that.

Luminosity: there's no guarantee that Sanders would "leave you the fuck alone" as president. Or that Putin wouldn't do something that would require a US response. You're basically asking something that literally no one can promise you, because the US president is far from the only factor. You want the impossible.

Sanders is a dove. He favors diplomacy. He doesn't randomly antagonize nations. His understanding of Putin isn't perfect either and I can't say him leaving us alone is a certainty, but I trust him to do that much more than someone with a long history of warhawkery.

edited 16th Mar '16 12:12:43 PM by Luminosity

SolipsistOwl Since: Jan, 2016
#116166: Mar 16th 2016 at 12:13:11 PM

I'm making it clear that there is plenty of evidence for shady shit involving the Clintons that I personally believe is true, yet never post or even mention.

I only ever share information that I can source. And yet even that is "hysterical."

Maybe Clinton should work harder on positive news coverage? It's kind of difficult to mention her without also going into that particular day's controversy.

Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#116167: Mar 16th 2016 at 12:14:01 PM

@ Solipsist: Straight answer time:

Clinton vs Trump, who would you vote for, or would you not vote at all?

Keep Rolling On
LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#116169: Mar 16th 2016 at 12:14:35 PM

That's very telling

Oh really when?
Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#116170: Mar 16th 2016 at 12:14:45 PM

In case anyone is wondering, the Honduran Supreme Court is the body that ordered the military to remove Zelaya from power, which they were going to do regardless of whether or not there was private backing from the US.

SolipsistOwl Since: Jan, 2016
#116171: Mar 16th 2016 at 12:15:14 PM

It's not my fault there's only two available choices and this election cycle doesn't offer very good ones.

FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#116172: Mar 16th 2016 at 12:16:25 PM

Russian politics for the Russian thread perhaps...

On Clinton and Foreign Policy, speaking as someone who actually studies and focuses on foreign affairs, I can tell you Clinton is probably the only reasonable person on either side in terms of foreign policy. GOP people are fleeing to the extremes, Bernie wants to ignore everything but what helps his protectionism (the one place where he and Trump have very little daylight), the other candidates before they dropped out in the Dem side basically want Dove At All Cost.

Clinton is the only one left (Jeb was the other) who wanted to engage the world on a case by case basis, not just Attack! Attack! Attack! or vice versa. And it should be noted that the US and Russia, while still cold to each other, played a lot nicer with each other when she was Sec State.

ILoveDogs Since: May, 2010
#116173: Mar 16th 2016 at 12:16:50 PM

[up][up]But by refusing to act, you might allow the infinitely worse option to rise to power.

edited 16th Mar '16 12:17:10 PM by ILoveDogs

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
#116174: Mar 16th 2016 at 12:21:37 PM

Clinton is far too smart to measure dicks against a tinpot dictator.
Let's hope.note 
It's basically also asking us to ignore Putin's generally negative effect on the citizens of other countries, which is its own kind of myopia.
Let's be fair, the US population on average is ''pretty good' at ignoring the negative effect of anything that doesn't happen inside 'Murica.
Sanders being the president is no kind of guarantee there won't be a militaristic response.
I don't think it matters if we elect Ahnold as President, Putin will still try to start shit.
and ending with that godawful, offensive name.
The only Young Turks I'm interested in are Reno and Rude as children.
Your methods on dealing with him have done nothing to stop him, while I am the collateral damage.
What could you, as a Russian citizen, do to get rid of Putin? What would you, as a Russian and therefore not American citizen, do to get rid of, say, President Drumpf?

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw
Luminosity Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Lovey-Dovey
#116175: Mar 16th 2016 at 12:22:38 PM

@Shinra This might be ad hominem bias, so forgive me, but I do not trust that your definition of reasonable is anywhere near mine, given that you have consistently favored warhawkery. I also assume mine and yours definitions of Attack! Attack! Attack! policy significantly vary in severity.

Clinton is the only one left (Jeb was the other) who wanted to engage the world on a case by case basis, not just Attack! Attack! Attack! or vice versa. And it should be noted that the US and Russia, while still cold to each other, played a lot nicer with each other when she was Sec State.

And this is precisely why I do not trust you. Jeb? The Jeb that said he'd authorize the Iraq invasion even if the knew the consequences? That Jeb?

edited 16th Mar '16 12:22:57 PM by Luminosity


Total posts: 417,856
Top