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

Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#116902: Mar 21st 2016 at 8:28:19 PM

Was there ever talk of shutting the base down? I thought it was only ever the prison part that was being debated.

As for the US having it while having no relations with Cuba, the US goverment signed a contract with the old Cuban goverment after it helped Cuba gain independence from Spain, it's simply stuck to that contract since. The communist goverment obviously wants the base gone, but what's it gonna do? Drive the US military out by force? Cuba can't do that, reinforcements are a bit to lose for that to work.

edited 21st Mar '16 8:29:36 PM by Silasw

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
JackOLantern1337 Shameful Display from The Most Miserable Province in the Russian Empir Since: Aug, 2014 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
Shameful Display
#116903: Mar 21st 2016 at 8:43:46 PM

[up] No talks as of yet, but seeing as relations are improving, I expect their will be plans made for withdrawal shortly. The Cubans do not want us their, and the name reeks of scandal, both because of the prison, and the questionable legality of us being their in the first place.

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#116904: Mar 21st 2016 at 8:48:23 PM

[up]

Jack, please mind the your "there vs. their" in your posts.

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#116905: Mar 21st 2016 at 9:14:51 PM

Like the embargo, I doubt that the Republicans will allow Gitmo (the prison or the base) to be shut down as long as they hold at least one of the three houses in D.C.

edited 21st Mar '16 9:15:24 PM by Rationalinsanity

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Blueeyedrat Since: Oct, 2010
#116907: Mar 21st 2016 at 9:46:19 PM

[up] Based on that quote alone, the "awful legacy" bit sounds less of a comment on Obama himself, and more on all the opposition and obstruction he had to deal with from the moment he was inaugurated.

FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#116909: Mar 21st 2016 at 10:34:41 PM

Clintons and Obama have no love lost between them in actuality. Any praise is purely politics. Doesn't help that Obama doesn't strike me as the personally friendly type and while Hil can make friends, she has ego.

And I say this as a likely supporter of hers.

TerminusEst from the Land of Winter and Stars Since: Feb, 2010
#116910: Mar 22nd 2016 at 12:20:27 AM

Cracked undercover at a Trump rally

EDIT: Trump reveals unorthodox foreign policy views

He's giving us an excuse! Quickly, invade Poland!

edited 22nd Mar '16 12:48:56 AM by TerminusEst

Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele
Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#116911: Mar 22nd 2016 at 1:14:24 AM

If I well remember, all primaries between Hillary v Obama were full of mudslinging. It seems logical to believe there is a little enmity between them.

But come on Bill (assuming he refers to Obama's legacy being awful). I thought you were cooler.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
Luminosity Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Lovey-Dovey
#116912: Mar 22nd 2016 at 3:05:17 AM

[up][up] That Cracked article was eye-opening and insightful. I suggest everyone should read it.

The more I learn about this situation, the more I see that Trump is an inevitable result of that systemic gridlock the establishment has gotten itself into. The people feel the system has pushed them out, it doesn't want anything to do with them, and with Trump(and Sanders on the left) they are fighting back.

This is why the media strategy of trying to defeat Trump by panicking and screaming around him has spectacularly failed so far. Trump supporters see he makes the establishment shit all its expensive lobbyist pants, and they're smiling - for to make it shit its pants is exactly what they want. The more you squirm and panic - the more you sell the image of Trump as the scourge of the system, and thus the more he wins. A good chunk of Trump supporters doesn't want him to win - it wants you to lose. And the more you panic and scream, the more you lose.

Historically, radicalized movements have gained power when the government fails to provide for the people. In my country, the Red October was inevitable, due to Tsarist regime failing time and time again to move forward from the spot comfortable only for the top nobility. But it's really the White ignorance and failure to offer anything but a "return to old ways", without even trying to understand why no one wanted that, that won the Civil War for Reds.

Here, I see the same mistakes being made. The moderates can't see how their system failed the others, they dismiss the growing phenomenon as a surge of ignorance(and it is, but it's more than that), and refuse to do anything to address it. The establishment Republicans can't understand that it's their "do-nothing" policy that caused Trump, and the more they fear him - the stronger he becomes, for he runs on that fear. Likewise, the establishment Democrats do nothing to ease the Sanders supporter concerns that the party is dominated by corporate lip service(and it is, beyond Clinton - DWS, the blatantly undemocratic superdelegate system, all the DINO senators, etc) - instead painting them all as harrassers and bigots, warning others of their "evil", but then demanding they vote for Clinton "otherwise we're fucked" anyway. The more you use that argument, the more hollow it becomes.

Bottomline, there's a grain of truth in the "ivory tower liberals" argument, many of them really do fail to understand that anyone disagreeing with them might be a real person with concerns, instead of a fiery satanic goblin. I've seen it in this very thread. The moderate can defend themselves to death with fear, caution, and dismissal... and keep losing, for it won't sway the already furious.

Before anyone tries to paint me as a Trump supporter, no. Nope. I don't believe for a second Trump will ever address the legitimate systemic frustration fueling his campaign, should he actually win. And he's still one of the most discriminatory fucks ever, but it's too obvious to state. What I'm saying is that others(especially Clinton campaign) need a better strategy if they truly want to avoid the Trump presidency, because the current "moderate" strategy isn't doing anything.

edited 22nd Mar '16 3:12:25 AM by Luminosity

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.
#116913: Mar 22nd 2016 at 3:08:20 AM

Then what should be done?

Oh God! Natural light!
Ogodei Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers from The front lines Since: Jan, 2011
Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers
#116914: Mar 22nd 2016 at 5:32:28 AM

A significant chunk of Americans have always had reactionary tendencies, and their influence has waxed and waned over the years, but the silent majority thing works on the left, too. It was what stopped Goldwater and what will stop Trump. America is more diverse than ever, and that reflects in the electorate, along with sane-minded whites.

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#116915: Mar 22nd 2016 at 6:01:34 AM

Equating Trump and Sanders is silly. Trump is the product of a reactionary movement fueled by racists bitter over the fact that they're not allowed to be racist openly anymore. The Republican party has been using them for votes for decades without actually doing much that they want, which is why they're rebelling. They don't really care about anything else the Republicans supposedly stand for (small government, free market, etc etc), which is why they're willing to throw the establishment under the bus in order to keep the Mexicans and Muslims out of the country. They hate politicians for lying to them and promising things that they have no intention of actually delivering (which, to be fair, has actually been happening to them), which is why they want an "outsider" like Trump.

Sanders, on the other hand, is mostly a mainstream Democrat, just to the left on certain issues. He's been around for decades, but hasn't gotten much in the way of national attention because he's been too far to the left for the party authorities. Now that we've dealt with the better part of two terms of complete Republican stonewalling, there's a wing of the Democratic party that is saying "screw the whole compromise thing, if we're not going to get anything we might as well push for what we actually want", and Sanders is riding that wave (because that's basically been his stance for ages).

Basically, Trump wants to overthrow the Republican party establishment and set himself and his own followers up in their place, while Sanders is a representation of a relatively small divide in the Democratic party between the left and the center-left. There are huge, irreconcilable differences between Trump and the rest of the GOP, while the differences between Sanders and the rest of the Democratic party are fairly small and more of degree than of kind.

Honestly, presenting Sanders as "the Trump of the Democrats" is more of the cult of centrisim "both parties are the same" nonsense that we've been dealing with for years. Because if the Republicans have a psychotic whack job extremist candidate, then the Democrats must have one too, right?

edited 22nd Mar '16 6:02:53 AM by NativeJovian

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Xopher001 Since: Jul, 2012
#116916: Mar 22nd 2016 at 6:29:13 AM

What if we fought fire with fire? Tried to get a story on how Trump has in the past contributed to the political establishment?

Luminosity Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Lovey-Dovey
#116917: Mar 22nd 2016 at 6:31:21 AM

Then what should be done?

Long-term: Push the Republicans out of Congress onto the fucking moon and fucking never allow them back into Congress again.

Short-term: Honestly, I don't know. I really wanted Sanders to win for personal reasons, but also because Sanders can play Trump's game, due to also presenting himself as an outsider tapping into systemic unrest. For Clinton, however, it is impossible to wash the stain of the establishment off her at this point, and though I hope "Anyone but Trump" voterbase is big enough... I'm starting having doubts about that now.

Equating Trump and Sanders is silly.

I'm glad we agree on that out of nowhere.

They don't really care about anything else the Republicans supposedly stand for (small government, free market, etc etc), which is why they're willing to throw the establishment under the bus in order to keep the Mexicans and Muslims out of the country.

You throw this around in spite of evidence that had just been presented. Trump supporters are more diverse than that, and because of it - are more dangerous. You aren't going to defeat them like this, you haven't done so yet. The Republican party hasn't been advancing the agendas or causes of literally anyone, and that has led to Trump, because their voters are fed up with the system gridlock, for better or worse. Actually for worse. For so much worse.

Trump is the symptom of a real systemic problem, that needs to be addressed, otherwise his power of influence will remain even after he loses the general election. The article kind of opened my eyes that yes, Trump is just that dangerous for reasons that haven't been initially considered.

Basically, Trump wants to overthrow the Republican party establishment and set himself and his own followers up in their place, while Sanders is a representation of a relatively small divide in the Democratic party between the left and the center-left. There are huge, irreconcilable differences between Trump and the rest of the GOP, while the differences between Sanders and the rest of the Democratic party are fairly small and more of degree than of kind.

The only "irreconcilable" difference between Trump and the GOP is that the former wants to pursue the logical extension of their social policies openly, and that terrifies the fuck out of them, because they can't control him. They are far more like him than they want to admit, and the only thing they're truly pissed off about is their electorate getting taken out of their control by an "outsider" they have no idea how to deal with. He's demonstrating how laughably obsolete socially and politically the Republican party has become, to no one else's fault but their own.

With Sanders, the divide is different and bigger at the same time. Fed up with constant Republican obstructionism and futile Democrat attempts to compromise with what can't be compromised, Sanders voters also represent the wish to put the control back into the hands of the people. It's a far more significant divide, because the "Trump - GOP" divide is between the party and the voters(who overwhelmingly vote for Trump), but the "Sanders - Clinton" divide represents a crack in the actual voterbase between progressives and moderates.

Sure, Sanders is a mainstream Democrat. Yet mainstream Democrats aren't mainstream Democrats. So, a stranger he remains.

The Democrat voters are divided, the Republican voters aren't. That's the real danger.

Tried to get a story on how Trump has in the past contributed to the political establishment?

Clinton-like criticism to paint him as an establishment stooge... could work, but the source has to be considered. Trump voters are in total "lockdown of criticism" mode and it has to come from something they would actually listen to. For that matter, it'd be hard to present him as an ally of the establishment, when the same establishment has shat an entire city of bricks at this point thanks to him.

edited 22nd Mar '16 6:41:39 AM by Luminosity

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#116918: Mar 22nd 2016 at 6:57:08 AM

[up] These are all valid points. The problem now with persuading Trump voters to abandon him is that they have inured themselves to any form of external criticism. They simply will not accept it no matter the source.

So, the path for the Democratic candidate must be twofold: persuade the rest of the would-be Republican voters how ridiculous and dangerous Trump is, and persuade Democratic voters that he/she will not be a tool of the very same system that is alienating people and sending them to Trump's arms.

The difference between Clinton and Sanders is thus: Clinton may acknowledge that the "system" has not been delivering the results people want, but she thinks she can work within it to change it; indeed, she knows that she has to work within it, as tearing it down is too dangerous. Sanders says, "Enough is enough, let's toss it out and try again." In so saying, he deliberately channels the outrage of people who know that the system has shat on them for decades, and that's where the Trump parallels come in, fairly or not.

My fear is that, if Sanders gets the nomination, wins the election, and can't deliver what he promises, an entire generation of voters will be lost to our democratic system, and that's incredibly dangerous. That gives us people like Trump. Indeed, it's an echo of Obama, who was elected on a tide of "hope and change" and gave us ... well, quite a lot, but not as much as people were hoping for.

Fixing our broken political systems is hard. It's much easier to talk about from the outside than to do.


Edit: The funny thing (in a tragicomic way) is that the solution to our core economic woes is easily within reach: expansionary fiscal policy.

edited 22nd Mar '16 7:19:19 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#116919: Mar 22nd 2016 at 7:37:21 AM

I'm glad we agree on that out of nowhere.
The second sentence of your earlier post equates the two. "The people feel the system has pushed them out, it doesn't want anything to do with them, and with Trump(and Sanders on the left) they are fighting back."

You throw this around in spite of evidence that had just been presented. Trump supporters are more diverse than that, and because of it - are more dangerous.
"I saw a few hispanic people at a Trump rally!" is not the same thing as Trump having widespread support among hispanic people. His message is racist, and the people who agree with it are therefore also racist — or at least willing to tolerate racism in order to get whatever else they like about Trump (usually that he's a "political outsider"). The fact that Trump has more of the GOP-aligned hispanic demographic supporting him than any other candidate doesn't mean much when the vast majority of the hispanic demographic isn't GOP-aligned.

The Republican party hasn't been advancing the agendas or causes of literally anyone, and that has led to Trump, because their voters are fed up with the system gridlock, for better or worse. Actually for worse. For so much worse.
The ones you're painting as frustrated are the ones who caused the gridlock, largely via the Tea Party, by refusing to compromise on anything. They're not frustrated by the gridlock, they're declaring those Republican Congressmen heroes for stonewalling the sinister leftist agenda that the evil liberals are trying to push on Real America. They're frustrated, certainly, but at the fact that they haven't been able to get any mainstream support for their reactionary ideas, not at the fact that the GOP has been blocking the Democrats at every turn.

The Cracked article is basically "people at Trump rally support Trump because they agree with Trump's stances", which is obvious. The fact that not literally all of them are white doesn't mean that Trump isn't racist, or that Trump's supporters aren't overwhelmingly white, or that non-whites don't overwhelmingly oppose Trump.

Trump is the symptom of a real systemic problem, that needs to be addressed, otherwise his power of influence will remain even after he loses the general election.
I disagree; I view Trump as the last hurrah of the Dixiecrats. They fueled the Tea Party movement, which didn't accomplish much besides obstructionism (on the national level; on the state level is a different story). Now they've pivoted to Trump, who I'm pretty confident will lose in the general election. The only systemic problem he's addressing is the lack of support for out-and-out racism in national policy — which is a feature, not a bug. I'm not saying that he's not dangerous or that we should be dismissive of him, but I think he can be beaten as long as he's taken seriously, and then what? He'll become the next Sarah Palin, still making the news every once in a while, but not actually having much influence on anything.

The only "irreconcilable" difference between Trump and the GOP is that the former wants to pursue the logical extension of their social policies openly, and that terrifies the fuck out of them, because they can't control him.
Well, yeah. But that's like saying the only difference between Hitler and Ghandi is that one committed genocide. It's true as far as it goes, but that's kind of a big deal. GOP social welfare policy has been deliberately crafted to appeal to Dixiecrats, so pursuing the logical extension of that means "being a racist asshole", which is exactly what Trump is doing. The GOP mainstream has avoided going that far with it because they know it will lose them votes. The only people who like racist policies are racists, and that's not a big enough demographic to win a national election.

The Democrat voters are divided, the Republican voters aren't. That's the real danger.
That's straight-up not true. GOP voters who prefer other candidates hate Trump. Trump has a group of very loyal, very vocal supporters, which works great in the primary because they're the ones willing to get out and vote for him. Outside of those supporters, though, he's loathed, by voters as well as politicians. The big difference is that most Democrats, whichever candidate they support in the primary, are willing to vote for the other candidate. Sanders supporters in the primary will largely vote for Clinton in the general if she wins the nomination, and vice versa. This is not true of Trump. A lot of GOP voters will stay home rather than vote for Trump if Trump ends up the GOP nominee. You're focusing too much on the primary results and not considering the fact that the general election is a whole different kettle of fish.

edited 22nd Mar '16 7:38:13 AM by NativeJovian

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
Ogodei Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers from The front lines Since: Jan, 2011
Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers
#116921: Mar 22nd 2016 at 8:35:29 AM

I could actually see somebody beyond Trump being the last hurrah of the dixiecrats, just because they don't have any incentive to moderate themselves while they've got so many states and the House of Representatives on lock. The crazy will float to the top until they face challenges at more levels of government, and then the crazy will get weeded out by natural selection, which will embolden the moderate wing of the party.

Edit: TLDR, the timeline is that the GOP could get crazier for 2018 midterms and 2020 general, then possibly start moderating after that.

edited 22nd Mar '16 8:36:07 AM by Ogodei

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#116922: Mar 22nd 2016 at 9:02:15 AM

We all forget that we've been through this before . The resounding defeats of Barry Goldwater and George Wallace didn't kill the GOP; they just made its extremist elements retreat until they found a new voice. We still have neo-Nazi and Fascist parties in Germany, of all places; if anything is proof that extremism never dies, that should be it.

The fundamental error of the Republican leadership has been in believing that they could corral and ride these elements to victory amid shrinking wealthy white voter demographics. But even if Trump is defeated, they won't go away. They'll bide their time for the next economic downturn.

Also, Native Jovian, there is indeed an ideological split in the Democratic Party. I see it in my friends on Facebook who vilify Hillary Clinton and swear that they will vote for nobody if Bernie doesn't get the nomination. These people are the mirror of Trump supporters in terms of their alienation from the establishment, and they represent a significant voting bloc that can help a Democratic candidate win elections.

Let us not forget that the Democrats' core weakness, especially in midterm elections, is their inability to motivate large turnouts. Clinton being portrayed as an insider tool of Wall Street isn't going to help that problem. 2016 is not looking like a year when Democrats will turn out in giant masses for Hope and Change; our best hope is that the driving motivation for many voters will be Stop Trump, and that's not a recipe for success in the future.

edited 22nd Mar '16 9:04:08 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#116923: Mar 22nd 2016 at 9:10:19 AM

Especially not in 2018, when a fairly unfavourable Senate map is up for re-election.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#116925: Mar 22nd 2016 at 9:30:17 AM

Because he doesn't have an axe to grind or anything.

Also, recently stated? Dude's been dead for almost 20 years.

edited 22nd Mar '16 9:31:15 AM by FFShinra


Total posts: 417,856
Top