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

pwiegle Cape Malleum Majorem from Nowhere Special Since: Sep, 2015 Relationship Status: Singularity
Cape Malleum Majorem
#117326: Mar 26th 2016 at 11:50:47 AM

My voter registration hasn't changed, and is still active. But I'm registered "No Affiliation" which means I can't vote in the PA primary.

Pennsylvania's primary is not "winner takes all" — the party rules are confusing, but only a small fraction of the delegates are actually "locked in" by the primary results. The majority of the delegates remain "unpledged" and are free to vote for whoever they choose.

This normally doesn't matter very much, since party nominations are usually a foregone conclusion by the time PA's primary comes up. This year is different, though. PA is one of the last major state primaries, so it could have a significant influence.

This Space Intentionally Left Blank.
Iaculus Pronounced YAK-you-luss from England Since: May, 2010
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
#117327: Mar 26th 2016 at 1:23:31 PM

The problem with meritocracy is that merit is heritable. I'm not talking about some sort of daft eugenics stuff, mind you, I'm simply saying that rewarding someone for their particular merit gives them privilege and resources that they can then pass on to their kids, giving those kids a much easier time acquiring the skills and connections they need to attain merit. Give it a couple of generations, and you've got a new elite, where only a fraction of society has the chance to acquire the prerequisites necessary for the jobs that society values.

To put it another way - in a meritocracy, who defines merit, and what happens to people who don't have it?

What's precedent ever done for us?
Eschaton Since: Jul, 2010
#117328: Mar 26th 2016 at 1:32:03 PM

[up]Precisely my issue with it as well.

And a meritocracy is not necessarily a capability-ocracy, despite its intentions.

Merit is used as an indication of capability, but as mentioned, measuring it can can get complicated very quickly.

edited 26th Mar '16 1:34:32 PM by Eschaton

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#117329: Mar 26th 2016 at 1:43:59 PM

Technically we're already living in a meritocracy. Richer people have a much easier time getting their children into schools better prepared to teach well, giving them a much better start education wise. Also better healthcare, which means they tend to be more physically fit as well.

So yeah, I think we have a pretty good model for what happens already. (This is why school funding shouldn't be tied to bullshit like local property values. And should basically be funded equally/according to their actual need.)

Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#117330: Mar 26th 2016 at 1:50:08 PM

[up]

This is why school funding shouldn't be tied to bullshit like local property values. And should basically be funded equally/according to their actual need.

On the other side of the Atlantic in Britain, the opposite is the case — local property values are often tied to the catchment area of the school, especially if it is a good-performing school.

Keep Rolling On
CassidyTheDevil Since: Jan, 2013
#117331: Mar 26th 2016 at 1:51:53 PM

It's not really that progressive any more, but why lose that progress?

I don't view socialism or communism as "progressive", I'd argue they're both rather regressive (especially communism, but I think we'll agree on that). Meritocracy is the metric by which I would call a system "progressive". Socialism isn't very meritocratic, and therefore not truly progressive.

I am in total agreement with that reasoning, but I very much don't think we have a meritocracy right now, in large part because of renting seeking behavior from nominally market actors using the state to subvert the market, mostly big business (huge amount of state intervention, basically cartels control the government now) but also a huge amount of restrictions on the lower level that causes major barriers to entry.

That's why I'm very suspicious of most conservatives today, they've grown to love free market rhetoric and gleefully use it to defend big business, but behind the curtain they're actually big state cronyists and all the supposedly free market reforms are simply socialism for the rich.

Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#117332: Mar 26th 2016 at 1:55:37 PM

[up]While it is true that many so-called "capitalists" support socialism for the rich, they legitimately aren't really capitalists, either. And, no, that's not a No True Scotsman.

edited 26th Mar '16 1:59:59 PM by Protagonist506

Leviticus 19:34
Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#117333: Mar 26th 2016 at 3:13:07 PM

It's that a "true capitalist" would actively encourage competition, while a lot of the wealthier people nowadays want to prevent it, right?

Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#117334: Mar 26th 2016 at 3:22:02 PM

[up]Exacto-Mundo. Rich people want to keep their monopolies, and therefore don't necessarily want a capitalist society.

Leviticus 19:34
MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#117335: Mar 26th 2016 at 3:22:02 PM

Bernie wants Elizabeth Warren for a Cabinet position.

Blueeyedrat Since: Oct, 2010
#117336: Mar 26th 2016 at 3:28:21 PM

FiveThirtyEight's electorate projections if a Clinton/Trump election were held today.

BTW, a lot could change. Clinton can't take anything for granted. But that's about what a 10-11% Dem win would look like these days.
On a more amusing note, here's how it would play out if every woman in America refused to vote for Trump.

edited 26th Mar '16 3:29:07 PM by Blueeyedrat

desdendelle Hooded Crow from Land of Milk and Honey (Sergeant) Relationship Status: Hiding
Hooded Crow
#117337: Mar 26th 2016 at 3:35:53 PM

The second one's unsurprising considering that around 50% of the population is female.

On empty crossroads, seek the eclipse -- for when Sol and Lua align, the lost shall find their way home.
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#117338: Mar 26th 2016 at 3:43:31 PM

Well, talk about crash and burn there...

What about other constellations?

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Iaculus Pronounced YAK-you-luss from England Since: May, 2010
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
#117339: Mar 26th 2016 at 3:47:14 PM

[up][up]Pretty sure that was the joke, yes.

What's precedent ever done for us?
desdendelle Hooded Crow from Land of Milk and Honey (Sergeant) Relationship Status: Hiding
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
Clarste One Winged Egret Since: Jun, 2009 Relationship Status: Non-Canon
One Winged Egret
#117342: Mar 26th 2016 at 4:10:25 PM

[up]Exacto-Mundo. Rich people want to keep their monopolies, and therefore don't necessarily want a capitalist society.

The problem is that this undermines the fundamental premise of capitalism, which is that rational human behavior will naturally optimize everything and "the invisible hand of the market" will solve most problems. If people behaving in their own rational self-interest leads to monopolies and oligarchies, which it has been proven by history that it does (and quite frankly, why wouldn't a rich person want a monopoly? that's just good business sense), then honest capitalism simply cannot work in any form. If you need significant government intervention to police it (anti-trust laws, etc), then you're back to your same complaints about socialism: who decides what the correct shape of the economy is?

edited 26th Mar '16 4:12:37 PM by Clarste

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#117343: Mar 26th 2016 at 4:10:35 PM

Just got back from caucusing today. It was absolutely pandemonium in there. The Democrats had gone in expecting a caucus of hundreds, and thousands of people showed up chanting for "Bernie! Bernie!" We went overtime by hours and worked right through lunch trying to get everything done.

It was so bad, in fact, that the Fire Marshal showed up in person to tell us all that the building was over capacity and had become a safety hazard. We ended up pouring several districts out of the building and into the parking lot for the caucus.

Suffice to say, we got turnout.

CassidyTheDevil Since: Jan, 2013
#117344: Mar 26th 2016 at 4:30:32 PM

If people behaving in their own rational self-interest leads to monopolies and oligarchies, which it has been proven by history that it does (and quite frankly, why wouldn't a rich person want a monopoly? that's just good business sense), then honest capitalism simply cannot work in any form.

Sort of true, the symbiotic relationship between big business and government which leads to unfree markets is kind of difficult avoid when you directly hand them the keys and give them your good will to use the power of government for themselves.

If you need significant government intervention to police it (anti-trust laws, etc), then you're back to your same complaints about socialism: who decides what the correct shape of the economy is?

You do, but one of the most important reforms to make is to abolish all laws which give preferential treatment to big business and artificially suppress their competition. That's what progressives should be pushing for, but they accept the conservative framing that big business purely laissez-faire in nature. Policing if you have exactly the wrong idea in mind won't help. You'll at best manage to get rich people to cough up more money to prevent unrest, which is all well and good to be sure, but is rather putting the underlying problem to the side.

GameGuruGG Vampire Hunter from Castlevania (Before Recorded History)
Vampire Hunter
#117345: Mar 26th 2016 at 5:25:39 PM

Pure capitalism is just as impossible as pure communism, as people, be they rich or poor, cannot be trusted to not do something to screw over others if it helps them gain power. In practice, the best scenario is when big government and big business are at odds with each other, with big government putting rules on big business to keep them from harming their citizens and big business suing when big government tries to harm their customers.

edited 26th Mar '16 5:26:48 PM by GameGuruGG

Wizard Needs Food Badly
theLibrarian Since: Jul, 2009
#117346: Mar 26th 2016 at 5:29:26 PM

Really we just need a mix here between capitalism and socialism, which I hope Bernie realizes if he gets elected.

Also, if Washington State is worth 101 delegates how are there only like 25 or so? Is that superdelegates?

edited 26th Mar '16 5:30:04 PM by theLibrarian

ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#117347: Mar 26th 2016 at 5:30:04 PM

So remember that whole "thing" with Bill visiting various Massachusetts polling stations? Well, he was caught doing it again in Illinois.

However, an article I overlooked when posting about this last time had Massachusetts officials explain why Clinton didn't break any laws by being there. That said, I can't recall having heard about a candidate or their spouse visiting a polling place when they're on the ballot, and I'm thinking it has to do with not wanting to even look like there's impropriety occurring.

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
xanderiskander Since: Mar, 2012
#117348: Mar 26th 2016 at 5:44:19 PM

The thing is that's not true. People were prevented from voting. Bill is protected by the secret service, and police barricaded every polling area he was in because of that, and asked people to leave. Also every polling station he went to was in a poor county, where he stayed for two hours. The people in those areas can't stay and wait for him to leave that long. They have to go to work or they risk losing their jobs.

CassidyTheDevil Since: Jan, 2013
#117349: Mar 26th 2016 at 5:48:06 PM

Pure capitalism is just as impossible as pure communism, as people, be they rich or poor, cannot be trusted to not do something to screw over others if it helps them gain power. In practice, the best scenario is when big government and big business are at odds with each other, with big government putting rules on big business to keep them from harming their citizens and big business suing when big government tries to harm their customers.

As I was saying, this is a popular mythology among both liberals and conservatives, they're mostly in agreement that free markets lead directly to big business, while government responded against them. They just switch who the good and bad guys are. But the fact is, it's just mythology, the reality is that big business was always a result of state cronyism, and the so-called progressive heroes like FDR were actually allied with big business. A large segment of businessmen at the time had a technocratic bent and were willing to cough up some money in exchange for more rationalization of the economy.

But regardless of one's opinion on markets vs government, the desirability of pushing of this has nothing to do with pure capitalism or socialism or whatever. You can be a socialist who thinks markets are innately harmful and need strong government regulation and accept that laws which unfairly favor big business and suppress competition ought to be gotten rid of.

edited 26th Mar '16 5:57:50 PM by CassidyTheDevil

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#117350: Mar 26th 2016 at 7:17:07 PM

The Sanders path to victory: Wisconsin, then New York, then California

In other words, Sanders can still possibly win, but it requires a real long shot and probably for some of Clinton's superdelegates to break ranks.

edited 26th Mar '16 7:17:17 PM by Ramidel


Total posts: 417,856
Top