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

Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#119201: Apr 16th 2016 at 4:46:19 AM

Clinton is winning the states that look like the Democratic Party.

Contrary to the narrative that Clinton only wins "Republican" or "conservative" states, her voters most closely match the Democratic electorate.

Schild und Schwert der Partei
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#119202: Apr 16th 2016 at 6:58:19 AM

Some interesting reading, that.

"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
#119203: Apr 16th 2016 at 7:01:53 AM

I'll say that Sanders' line about the "conservative States" was misguided, but he could make an argument that part of Hillary's early successes stemmed primarily from her being far better known than he was.

And to address some of the issues raised on the previous page or two, part of why I'm hoping Sanders wins is because, while I doubt he'd get any of his stated goals accomplished, I'm also reasonably sure he'd push the Overton Window further to the left, which is kind of needed at this point. My mother, by contrast, is hoping for Kasich to get the nod out of the brokered convention because he'd have the best chance at getting Congress out of its inaction - my counterpoint is that the ones causing said inaction would take away the wrong lesson, and feel vindicated for "standing on principle" rather than being drummed out of office because they aren't doing their jobs to begin with.

[down]

Hillary is far better known for it recently - as others pointed out, Sanders was on the front lines of the Civil Rights Movement in the '60s, and I'm reasonably sure his overall position hasn't changed. It's more because his preferred drum to beat is economic inequality, rather than racial, and he likely sees the former as an intrinsic part of the latter.

edited 16th Apr '16 7:21:26 AM by ironballs16

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#119204: Apr 16th 2016 at 7:11:18 AM

See, my impression was that Hillary's win in South Carolina and other southern states was mainly because there African Americans are a dominant part of the Democratic party (if not the Democratic party full stop - if memory serves, in some parts of the South like Missisippi party affiliations split fairly closely along racial lines) and these tend to vote for Hillary because she and her husband have a solid record at race relations and improving their lives and Obama is sort of endorsing her while Sanders is a novice for the most part in these aspects.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
SciFiSlasher from Absolutely none of your business. Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
#119205: Apr 16th 2016 at 7:54:10 AM

[up] Name recognition is the biggest way to get people to just line up right behind you, yeah. Unfortunately, our politicians are looking more and more like Russia's oligarchs.

Trump not only doesn't know the Bible, he can't even be bothered to do his fucking research.

And good ol' Bill is the only one who could take Sander's point about one of Hillary's biggest fuck-ups ever and call it "LIBERAL LIES!".

"Somehow the hated have to walk a tightrope, while those who hate do not."
desdendelle Hooded Crow from Land of Milk and Honey (Sergeant) Relationship Status: Hiding
ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#119207: Apr 16th 2016 at 8:20:32 AM

[up]

Because, while "eye for an eye" is detailed in Exodus 21:24, Christ himself decries it in Matthew 5:38-39, stating that people should instead "turn the other cheek". The former isn't exactly "Christian" if you're trying to actually BE Christian. That's part of why I don't buy any arguments about America being a "Christian nation", as no nation on Earth could be considered a "Christian nation" by virtue of needing self-defense at minimum.

That said, it's very much in-line with Trump's expressed viewpoints, where he won't let any slight (real or perceived) go without trying to enact retribution for it.

edited 16th Apr '16 8:48:16 AM by ironballs16

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#119208: Apr 16th 2016 at 8:22:16 AM

[up] Yep, that's more absurdly orthodox Jewish or very Sumerian, since the earliest use of the concept comes from the Code of Hammurabi.

desdendelle Hooded Crow from Land of Milk and Honey (Sergeant) Relationship Status: Hiding
Hooded Crow
#119209: Apr 16th 2016 at 8:26:08 AM

Aha. I think I know why it confused me — when I hear "Bible", I think "Tanakh", not a Christian Bible.

On empty crossroads, seek the eclipse -- for when Sol and Lua align, the lost shall find their way home.
Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#119210: Apr 16th 2016 at 8:39:23 AM

There is an interesting little detail about the "eye for an eye" thing that is kind of relevant nowadays. When it was introduced in the Code of Hammurabi, it was the earliest known set of laws that acknowledged that the poor and working class should have some protections too. It was brutal and horrible, but if a rich person directly caused a poor person to lose an eye, the rich person had to lose theirs too. Granted, the rich nobility would dodge it whenever they could, but if the ancient Sumerian equivalent to the courts found out...welp, there goes your eye!

edited 16th Apr '16 8:40:28 AM by Zendervai

Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#119211: Apr 16th 2016 at 8:41:31 AM

I don't think Jesus was decrying the concept of "an eye for an eye". Keep in mind that, in another verse, Christ claims that he doesn't want to abolish Mosaic law, but to fulfill it.

In the case of turn the other cheek, I think he was referring to how you shouldn't escalate a situation if you can avoid it and to use unexpected kindness as a way of gathering attention. Trump easily fails at that, though.

Leviticus 19:34
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#119212: Apr 16th 2016 at 9:04:36 AM

It's worth mentioning that the "eye for an eye" thing was a limit, not a minimum. The point is that if someone makes you lose an eye, you're not allowed to kill them over it, the most you can do to them is take their eye in return. It wasn't saying that if someone makes you lose an eye, you have to take their eye regardless of what you think of the situation.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
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
#119213: Apr 16th 2016 at 9:12:12 AM

[up]X4 Yeah it's a weird thing with some US Protestants, they tend to focus not on the teachings of Jesus but instead on the Old Testament rules that were made for Jews. They seem to want to be Jews but with a few changes.

edited 16th Apr '16 9:15:12 AM 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
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#119214: Apr 16th 2016 at 9:14:14 AM

They focus on those rules because it gives them an excuse to be assholes to groups they don't like. Slavery, homophobia, sexism, all of it had some basis in the Bible and they used that to their advantage.

[down]That implies these idiots actually care what the Bible says.

edited 16th Apr '16 9:24:27 AM by Kostya

smokeycut Since: Mar, 2013
#119215: Apr 16th 2016 at 9:22:04 AM

Trump could really use another look at the bible. Try "may mercy, and peace, and love be fulfilled through you".

Oh wait, sorry, that's the exact opposite of everything Trump believes.

CassidyTheDevil Since: Jan, 2013
#119216: Apr 16th 2016 at 9:45:07 AM

@Jove: Yeah, I totally agree with an eye for an eye. It's simply the proportionality of punishment, which is a fundamental principle of modern secular law as far as I'm concerned.

And yeah, it certainly doesn't mean more peaceful options should be ignored.

I would say the abusive notion of justice common to conservatives (but also popular with Democrats) is a violation of that.

TerminusEst from the Land of Winter and Stars Since: Feb, 2010
#119217: Apr 16th 2016 at 10:35:27 AM

[up][up]

He'd just read the parts about killing all the heathens.

Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele
TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#119218: Apr 16th 2016 at 11:00:30 AM

A MIC DROP! A FREAKING MIC DROP! THIS RACE IS BASED!

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
darksidevoid Anti-Gnosis Weapon from The Frontiers (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: Robosexual
Anti-Gnosis Weapon
#119219: Apr 16th 2016 at 11:44:01 AM

Contrary to the narrative that Clinton only wins "Republican" or "conservative" states, her voters most closely match the Democratic electorate.
Bzzzzzt! Don't draw an inaccurate conclusion from this. She has won the states in which the population closely matches the national Democratic electorate. That could not equate to "her voters" unless she had won 100% of the vote in said states. I'm unclear on whether Silver was referring to overall state population or the subset that is the Democratic electorate in each state, because he didn't seem to specify. Damnit, Nate! It's also worth noting that the model they are comparing to is the electorate 538 has projected, and although I'm not knocking the general usefulness of projections, it's entirely possible that the electorate may be different in some significant way come November, especially considering the oddity of this year's primaries.

GM: AGOG S4 & F/WC RP; Co-GM: TABA, SOTR, UUA RP; Sub-GM: TTS RP. I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new Empire.
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#119220: Apr 16th 2016 at 12:28:11 PM

She has won the states in which the population closely matches the national Democratic electorate. That could not equate to "her voters" unless she had won 100% of the vote in said states.
Seems like a distinction without a difference to me. We're talking about trends and averages of people's voting preferences and their demographic. "It doesn't apply to 100% of the people 100% of the time" isn't really a valid criticism.

It's not inaccurate to say that the closer a state's demographics are to the demographics of the Democratic party on the national level, the better Clinton does. If a state has a larger minority population than the Democrats nationally, she does even better. Sanders has only won in states that are significantly whiter than Democrats as a whole are.

And there's no projections in that article. It only compares established census records with states that have already completed their primary.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
PotatoesRock Since: Oct, 2012
#119221: Apr 16th 2016 at 12:53:31 PM

At the same time, Clinton seems to be the one winning older voters and Sanders younger voters. Which can thus be interpreted, along with where she's winning:

Hillary's winning the past and present, Sanders is winning a significant amount of the future.

Meanwhile, with regards to bellyaching that Sanders isn't backing state parties:

Hillary Clinton's committee raised 33 million, but only 2 million of that when to the states

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#119222: Apr 16th 2016 at 1:02:25 PM

Hillary's winning the past and present, Sanders is winning a significant amount of the future.
I have no idea what that even means. It's unlikely that Sanders is ever going to make another Presidential bid if he loses this one, so it's not like he's garnering support for his future political ambitions. Yes, the fact that younger voters seem to prefer Sanders' farther-left politics is an interesting data point, but it's not really relevant for this race (Clinton's minorities-and-older-people is beating out Sanders' young-people-and-whites).

Saying "but Clinton only has support from old people!" is another "real America" jab, where apparently older voters don't count because you disagree with the way they're voting.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#119223: Apr 16th 2016 at 1:09:27 PM

I think that line refers more to political ideology rather than electoral success.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
PotatoesRock Since: Oct, 2012
#119224: Apr 16th 2016 at 1:09:35 PM

Clinton is winning the current regular voters of the Democratic Party, Sanders is winning the people who will be voting for the next 40-50 years. It's not an invalidation of her worth but she's winning basically Boomers/Boomer Kids, Sanders is winning their kids.

Sanders tends to win younger voters. The younger voters are more liberal than the past generation.

So of COURSE Hillary is winning people representative of the Democratic Party, she's winning the 'current' version of the party. Sanders is winning the party's potential future voting base.

edited 16th Apr '16 1:10:44 PM by PotatoesRock

theLibrarian Since: Jul, 2009
#119225: Apr 16th 2016 at 1:14:36 PM

Yeah, Hillary wins with the older people that think "Everything is fine", Sanders is winning with the young kids that say "everything is not fine and the older people will leave us nothing."


Total posts: 417,856
Top