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

storyyeller More like giant cherries from Appleloosa Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: RelationshipOutOfBoundsException: 1
More like giant cherries
#116801: Mar 20th 2016 at 8:31:50 AM

Any fool can plug in numbers and fit a model to past data. What takes wisdom is realizing when you don't have enough data to justify the model.

You could just as easily say something silly like: My model shows that women have a 0% chance of being elected president. It's never been wrong before!

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play
AdricDePsycho Rock on, Gold Dust Woman from Never Going Back Again Since: Oct, 2014 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Rock on, Gold Dust Woman
#116802: Mar 20th 2016 at 9:08:37 AM

This is about as accurate and scientific as that octopus that can "predict" who'll win the World Cup.

Not even joking, there was an octopus that allegedly could do that. His name was Paul.

Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?
Ogodei Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers from The front lines Since: Jan, 2011
Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers
#116803: Mar 20th 2016 at 9:28:08 AM

Long-view "predictors" like that have only novelty value, like an almanac in a day when we have much better means of predicting outcomes.

Luminosity Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Lovey-Dovey
#116804: Mar 20th 2016 at 9:31:51 AM

Honestly he sounds like some guy who just wanted easy attention because "Trumpzilla!"

ILoveDogs Since: May, 2010
#116805: Mar 20th 2016 at 9:38:30 AM

I feel like you're underestimating how much of a disaster it would be if he was elected. No matter the likelihood, we need to avoid it at all costs.

Luminosity Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Lovey-Dovey
#116806: Mar 20th 2016 at 9:47:09 AM

[up] If you "cry wolf" one too many times, people will stop believing you. Real dangers of Trump are bad enough, let's not start freaking out over some fuck clearly exploiting them for attention.

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#116807: Mar 20th 2016 at 10:00:32 AM

I don't think anyone doubts a Trump Presidency would be disastrous. It's more that the majority aren't concerned with him getting elected in the first place. He's alienated way too many groups to appeal to the supporters he has now to stand a serious chance in the general.

3of4 Just a harmless giant from a foreign land. from Five Seconds in the Future. Since: Jan, 2010 Relationship Status: GAR for Archer
FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#116809: Mar 20th 2016 at 10:31:20 AM

[up][up]Yeah but the issue is apathy toward Clinton and also the dangers of assumption (as in, its so obvious Trump will lose I won't bother doing my part...and then he wins) cancelling out Trump's weaknesses in the general.

AdricDePsycho Rock on, Gold Dust Woman from Never Going Back Again Since: Oct, 2014 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Rock on, Gold Dust Woman
#116810: Mar 20th 2016 at 10:31:49 AM

[up][up]

Why at dawn? Why is it always at dawn?

Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#116811: Mar 20th 2016 at 10:34:16 AM

[up] & [up][up][up] Will the pistols have sucker darts?

tclittle Professional Forum Ninja from Somewhere Down in Texas Since: Apr, 2010
Professional Forum Ninja
#116812: Mar 20th 2016 at 10:39:52 AM

Rick Perry's spokesman tweeted out a response to a rumor Perry was thinking about a 3rd party run to prevent Trump from winning the presidency.

@Governor Perry has no interest in running as a 3rd party candidate. For the good of the country, he wants the GOP to unite around @tedcruz

"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."
Luminosity Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Lovey-Dovey
#116813: Mar 20th 2016 at 10:46:27 AM

[up] I have some choice words to describe this man's idea of "good of the country", but they are illegal to say on this forum and in several places of the planet.

storyyeller More like giant cherries from Appleloosa Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: RelationshipOutOfBoundsException: 1
More like giant cherries
#116814: Mar 20th 2016 at 11:09:18 AM

At this point, I'm not sure whether Ted Cruz or Donald Trump would be more likely to lose the general. They're both widely hated.

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play
FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#116815: Mar 20th 2016 at 11:16:45 AM

Again, don't assume. It depresses turnout.

Luminosity Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Lovey-Dovey
#116816: Mar 20th 2016 at 11:17:14 AM

Trump... is more widely hated. Cruz is less of an obvious celebrity(so he's not as well known to be as widely hated), and theocracy is sadly denounced less often(and is viewed more favorable in comparison) than Trump's brand of showoff racism, even though those two things are just as bad as each other. The inverse is also apparent, Trump supporters are far more devoted to Trump than Cruz supporters are to Cruz.

I can stomach "lesser evil" arguments on Clinton, as sick as they make me feel, but when those arguments are thrown Cruz's way... fuck no oh fuck no.

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#116817: Mar 20th 2016 at 11:19:57 AM

Would Clinton become a good candidate in your eyes if matched with a bona fide Democrat-controlled Congress?

edited 20th Mar '16 11:20:09 AM by SeptimusHeap

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#116818: Mar 20th 2016 at 11:34:28 AM

[up] Tell the truth, I'm not sure. In my more naive days, I used to think having the Executive and Legislative branches controlled by different parties was a good thing in some ways, since it kept the more extreme elements at bay and prevented rubber stamp legislature. The Republicans being how they've been, though, I'm inclined to think seeing congress switch hands would be beneficial.

Luminosity Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Lovey-Dovey
#116819: Mar 20th 2016 at 11:39:01 AM

[up][up] If a Democrat-controlled congress made her support single-payer and tone down her warhawkery - yes, she'd be good. I have a lot of gripes with her, but those two are personal.

I'd be even happier with a meaningful move against Wall Street, instead of toothless lip service displayed so far. Though by now, even I'm not sure what would offset her tainted history.

edited 20th Mar '16 11:53:06 AM by Luminosity

FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#116820: Mar 20th 2016 at 11:53:07 AM

She doesn't need to have her warhawkery toned down. She's relatively moderate compared to the extremes everyone else is going to, either dovish or hawkish.

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#116821: Mar 20th 2016 at 12:00:09 PM

[up][up]If you don't mind me asking, when did she say no single-payer ever. Because I can image her going "right now, that's not an option" but you've said she come out and said "it's never going to happen, ever" and that just doesn't sound right.

Also,

Though by now, even I'm not sure what would offset her tainted history.

That's sort of weird of you to say. Besides that guy who got banned you were going on about her "tainted history" more than anyone.

edited 20th Mar '16 12:01:42 PM by LSBK

Luminosity Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Lovey-Dovey
#116822: Mar 20th 2016 at 12:06:46 PM

[up] Here's proof of her statement on single-payer.

As for her tainted history - we have clearly different definitions of "tainted history". Her voting record on corporations is mixed - my link in OnTheIssues shows that. And I consider just the act of taking donations from Wall Street, Comcast, and other evil sacks of shit tainting enough, without all that conspiracy-like bullshit.

edited 20th Mar '16 12:30:26 PM by Luminosity

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#116823: Mar 20th 2016 at 12:11:09 PM

Without a greater scope that just seemed like her attacking Sanders' plan, specifically, no the idea of universal healthcare or single-payer, in general.

Which, as I think was the point of video, is a bit hypocritical of her. But at the same time, they are political opponents so...

And my point about her "tainted history" is that you seem to consider everything about her tainted so I found your statement a bit strange. "Even I'm no sure" doesn't mean considering who we're talking about and your very vocal opinion about her. Which I'm not even necessarily disagreeing with, at least, entirely. So maybe I'm just messing with semantics or word play when I shouldn't.

edited 20th Mar '16 12:18:50 PM by LSBK

Luminosity Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Lovey-Dovey
#116824: Mar 20th 2016 at 12:17:42 PM

Without a greater scope that just seemed like her attacking Sanders' plan, specifically, no the idea of universal healthcare or single-payer, in general.

It seems like more the news themselves framing it within Sanders plan. Of course she primarily means Sanders, but the statement attacks "some theoretical idea that will never ever come to pass" and is used in contrast with her own "realistic" plan to expand Obamacare.

She frames advancement of single-payer and Obamacare as mutually exclusive, in a characteristically dishonest way. Sanders actually was involved in creation of Obamacare, and although it is very complicated to determine just how much credit he deserves, trying to frame him as someone who'll just sit on his ass waiting for Congress to pass Medicare-for-all is... the "d" word again, yes.

"Even I'm no sure" doesn't mean considering who we're talking about and your very vocal opinion about her.

Ah, sorry. Language derp on my part. "I'm not even sure" should have been used instead.

edited 20th Mar '16 12:43:56 PM by Luminosity

rikalous World's Cutest Direwolf from Upscale Mordor (Before Recorded History) Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature

Total posts: 417,856
Top