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

PotatoesRock Since: Oct, 2012
#119251: Apr 16th 2016 at 4:56:02 PM

Again: what does that even mean?
It means she's hitting a voting bloc that's been around for 30 years and generally agrees with enough of the policies of New Democrats/Neo Liberals to elect them repeatedly. A voter block still are voting because they still are on top as the younger voter base is still ascending. It's not the exact 100% same demographics but it overlaps with the last two Democratic presidents on enough policy to count it as the same group who has plurality / majority weight for an extended period.

That assumes that the young people pulling for Sanders now don't moderate their politics in the coming years, which isn't a given. It's easier for young people, who have no stake in the current system and relatively little to lose in political upheaval, to vote for radical sweeping change. Give them ten or twenty years to settle down, start families, buy houses, etc and they may feel differently. Or they may not. We won't know until we get there.
How do we know they don't have a stake.

The current system piles on crushing student debt. A number of these kids saw their parents go bankrupt, lose their 401ks/savings, got defaulted on, their houses revoked or even saw their parents get screwed by insane medical bills.

The economic recovery has failed to supply enough jobs for workers at a meaningful pace causing a potential lost generation like Japan who were jammed through school and college, told they could get a good job if they just got a degree, and surprise surprise, all that waited them at the other end of the tunnel was a Boat going to Shitcreak.

I wouldn't say a young person potentially voting for Sanders and wanting universal healthcare or less crushing college debt or guarantees of steady, if not expanded, Social Security / Medicare for their parents, doesn't have a stake.

The claim that, essentially, Clinton is only winning because older people are voting for her struck me as an attempt to suggest that Sanders, who is clearly the wave of the future, deserves the nomination so that the country can be on the right side of history, rather than letting a bunch of old farts keep us anchored in the past. I was probably reacting more to generic Sanders supporters I've seen online than to you specifically, which is my bad.
Nah. Sanders if he can't get the numbers or convince the Superdelegates of his argument, isn't more deserving. People have the right to their vote. And Hillary is likely to win because the current vote bloc aligns with Centrist Democrats (i.e. why Bill and Obama got in, Hillary follows a similar arc on econ policy, though each of them whether they want to or not, has been more progressive on Social Justice rights than the last guy.)

I WILL admit I plan to vote for Sanders in the primary and I would be way more thrilled with him than Hillary, because I'd like to see more Healthcare, less Military spending, more Government provided social services, more Anti-Trust crackdowns, etc.

I agree with basically both of their policies one way or another but ultimately I think Hillary is the worse candidate not based on she has inferior policy (she's more nuanced but I think squaring the circle has its limits and we've reached those limits)., Personally I think she's fucking gaffe prone as Biden, if not worse than him. You might chalk it up as media blowing it up but issues with her bringing up Harry Kissinger as a good example and trying to awkwardly Nancy Reagan as pro Gay with the "Conversation on AIDS" worries me.

There's also the problem she comes off as horrendously secretive with the E-Mail Server and the Wall Street speeches, which runs afoul and counter to Obama, while not entirely transparent or open, at least made efforts and motions to be more transparent, which makes her seem squirrely and "hiding something".

Basically I'm terrified Hillary, even though she's probably going to be a more hawkish Obama and the general vibe she'll be laxer on Wall Stree, and thus middle of the course, is going to shoot herself in the foot with a Gatling gun because she and her campaign staff/speechwriters seem to have all the self awareness/self preservation of the common depiction of the Lemming running off of a cliff, with regards to poison pill statements she keeps blurting out. Which is why I keep accusing her of being in a bubble. Because I don't trust her to stop these mental time warps to the past.

Personally, I'd feel relieved with Clinton if she got the nomination and then was cryogenically frozen until after Election Day so she doesn't blurt out some other nonsense or implicate herself with some other thing she's squirreling away.

She did better than him there because it's got the highest minority population in the country, and she does much, much better than him among minorities.
Which is of interesting note. African Americans on the whole from a sociological general analysis of polls and the like, based on general reporting, are much more in line with Sanders, if not further left than him. I believe the one Reddit thread that was linked a while back basically summed it up as "Dude, we don't know you" with regards to Sanders.

Which potentially puts it that the Democratic electorate is much more to the left than Clinton, but Hillary via her husband, Senatorship and running the State Department, has the trust of the public over a relatively minor if very dedicated senator.

You're assuming that we don't get another crash by 2024, perhaps originating in Europe this time, I belvie the idea of a possible second crash has been floated a few times, especially if the banks aren't reigned in.
Basically yes. It's been increasingly flouted that a second crisis is very likely to happen due to failure to adequately reign in the banks or provide sufficient stimulus to feed the Working and Middle Classes.

Either China or Europe would be the most likely places for a next-gen crisis to occur. Europe if the Euro starts unraveling, while China's economic boom sputters out.

edited 16th Apr '16 5:02:32 PM by PotatoesRock

RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#119252: Apr 16th 2016 at 5:02:30 PM

Which is of interesting note. African Americans on the whole from a sociological general analysis of polls and the like, based on general reporting, are much more in line with Sanders, if not further left than him.

Really? What I'd heard were that there are a lot of black Americans who are pretty socially conservative, but still usually vote for Democrats because they're not the party actively catering to racists.

wehrmacht belongs to the hurricane from the garden of everything Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
belongs to the hurricane
#119253: Apr 16th 2016 at 5:03:45 PM

[up]I've heard similar things about hispanic/latino voters as well.

PotatoesRock Since: Oct, 2012
#119254: Apr 16th 2016 at 5:05:53 PM

African Americans, in sociological generalization, are socially/religiously conservative (thus putting them at odds with LGBT rights) but typically more left wing on econ and racial justice. One of the biggest constituencies of the American Communist Party, between the 1940s to 1960s were African Americans and were constantly the targets of the government during the Cold War due to providing left wing services, including community centers/organization and providing kids in their neighborhood free meals (along with the issue of the Black Panthers)

African Americans being left wing on economics and social justice makes sense if you assume African Americans are Left Wing Christians, and follow Socialist Christian tendencies.

edited 16th Apr '16 5:11:32 PM by PotatoesRock

CassidyTheDevil Since: Jan, 2013
#119255: Apr 16th 2016 at 5:07:46 PM

I'm not familiar the demographics, but I can say with certainty that yes, social conservatism is not exclusive to white people, nor is it only a thing only minorities believe in.

Also: Although your (not-so)average wealthy white gay guy may not be crazy about social conservatism, you do see kind of similar tendencies there, sometimes.

edited 16th Apr '16 5:30:06 PM by CassidyTheDevil

majoraoftime (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#119256: Apr 16th 2016 at 5:34:40 PM

[up] There are definitely more than a few gay libertarians. At least three that I know came out of my fairly small hometown.

edited 16th Apr '16 5:35:28 PM by majoraoftime

Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#119257: Apr 16th 2016 at 5:36:27 PM

Libertarians aren't social conservatives, though. They're basically capitalist social liberals.

Leviticus 19:34
majoraoftime (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#119258: Apr 16th 2016 at 5:40:13 PM

[up] They often have some fairly conservative positions, even if they're for legalizing drugs/don't want to ban gay sex. "Blacks need to pull up their pants, get off welfare and get a job, feminists need to stop whining, I don't want any more Muslim immigrants", that kind of thing.

Generally not the sort of positions that would make them popular with the progressive left.

edited 16th Apr '16 5:41:55 PM by majoraoftime

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#119259: Apr 16th 2016 at 5:41:09 PM

That might be what proper libertarianism is but in the US most libertarians are just people that want the government to stop restricting their asshole behavior.

Falrinn Since: Dec, 2014
#119260: Apr 16th 2016 at 5:41:26 PM

[up][up][up] That's true in a technical sense. But in America at least, self-identified Libertarians do tend to skew socially conservative.

edited 16th Apr '16 5:41:40 PM by Falrinn

CassidyTheDevil Since: Jan, 2013
#119261: Apr 16th 2016 at 5:46:47 PM

I would argue that Left and Right are more general attitudes that people approach issues with rather any specific positions.

edited 16th Apr '16 5:47:11 PM by CassidyTheDevil

Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#119262: Apr 16th 2016 at 5:49:37 PM

According to Wikipedia, Leftism vs Rightism is "Egalitarianism vs. Hierarchy". So there is a definition, here.

Leviticus 19:34
CassidyTheDevil Since: Jan, 2013
#119263: Apr 16th 2016 at 6:03:53 PM

According to Wikipedia, Leftism vs Rightism is "Egalitarianism vs. Hierarchy". So there is a definition, here.

Yes, but needless to say, that doesn't translate into actual practical beliefs precisely, mostly just feelings that people labeled. Certainly, they may tend to agree in practice on issues, but that's mostly culture.

So, for example, you do see plenty of libertarians who were drawn to the ideology because they felt subconsciously it was a way to defend the hierarchies they felt they belonged to and so they tend to have lower empathy for the marginalized.

But obviously, there's nothing intrinsically right-wing about being for free speech or civil liberties in general, for example. It's how you approach the issue emotionally that matters, not so much how that translates to policy.

I have to point out that classical liberalism, waaay back, was originally cooked up by egalitarians who believed the government was unfairly granting privilege. Which, they were. But it only took a right-wing apologetic character later on.

As I was saying earlier, although the New Left isn't particularly pro-market to say the least, they started to use the same sorts of "free market" arguments against corporations.

edited 16th Apr '16 6:17:17 PM by CassidyTheDevil

BonsaiForest Since: Jan, 2001
#119264: Apr 16th 2016 at 6:18:52 PM

It's how you approach the issue emotionally that matters, not so much how that translates to policy.

This part I'm curious about. Although I think I know what you mean. During my conspiracy nut phase (let's just say I used to be a 9/11 truther), I was heavily libertarian thinking, but for left-wing reasons. My brother is libertarian for extremely right-wing reasons.

I wanted to see government collapse so I could see a new one that represented the needs of all the regular people be created in its place. My brother wants to see the government collapse because he believes it's enabling the racial and gender equality he hates so much. Really makes me rethink the stupidity of my past views on government.

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
#119265: Apr 16th 2016 at 6:24:47 PM

That doesn't sound like you were a Libertarian so much as either an Anarchist (if the replacement govemrent you wanted was meant to no longer be top down) or an old style revolutionaryist, possibly of the Communsit variety.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
BonsaiForest Since: Jan, 2001
#119266: Apr 16th 2016 at 6:27:43 PM

True. My cousin is anarchist, and pretty right-wing.

My brother arguing that government is needed to enforce equal rights (and remember, he's against equal rights) made me really start to think about just what it is these minarchists want.

pwiegle Cape Malleum Majorem from Nowhere Special Since: Sep, 2015 Relationship Status: Singularity
Cape Malleum Majorem
#119267: Apr 16th 2016 at 6:31:36 PM

My brother is libertarian for extremely right-wing reasons.

Oh. My. God. He sounds like a SJW, but in reverse. The same emotionally-charged self-righteousness; the same ill-informed, myopic, hypocrisy.

This Space Intentionally Left Blank.
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
#119268: Apr 16th 2016 at 6:35:21 PM

The day the term "SJW" leaves the intelligent discussion vocabulary will be a good one, it's such a meaningless and subjective term.

Assholes are assholes, just call them that.

Honestly Bonsai, you seem to have some 'fun' family politically, I'd guess anger at the system can drive people in a variety of directions.

Oh and apparently this[1] has been appearing on the NYC subway, the top comment is worth a good chuckle.

edited 16th Apr '16 6:36:09 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
CassidyTheDevil Since: Jan, 2013
#119269: Apr 16th 2016 at 6:35:21 PM

Those people always existed. That's why I'm not really a big fan of the SJW slur, it's misused so much by moronic bigots.

wehrmacht belongs to the hurricane from the garden of everything Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
belongs to the hurricane
#119270: Apr 16th 2016 at 6:39:02 PM

Gonna have to agree, you can just call asshole "progressives" what they are, assholes. You find rotten apples in every political group ever.

[up] He actually does look like Obama lol

edited 16th Apr '16 6:39:44 PM by wehrmacht

DrunkenNordmann from Exile Since: May, 2015
#119271: Apr 16th 2016 at 6:47:38 PM

[up][up] Which is kind of funny, considering the people who fit the "SJW" stereotype are also moronic bigots.

We learn from history that we do not learn from history
CassidyTheDevil Since: Jan, 2013
#119272: Apr 16th 2016 at 6:55:59 PM

Yeah...Ironic. The big shouty hypocrites hate each other for the exactly the same reasons. Who would've guessed?

This part I'm curious about. Although I think I know what you mean.

Yeah, I think you've got the right idea what I meant. But I don't really have much to add to that, although if you have any money I'd recommend The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin. Author is a liberal, but conservative reviewers have said it's accurate, which seems high praise.

That's why I prefer meritocracy, personally...Maybe not workable in reality, but to me it's a preferable middle ground ethically. But conservatives don't actually like meritocracy much, just give it lip service occasionally. Liberals at least try to take it seriously to an extent.

edited 16th Apr '16 8:36:32 PM by CassidyTheDevil

Demonic_Braeburn Yankee Doodle Dandy from Defective California Since: Jan, 2016
Yankee Doodle Dandy
#119273: Apr 16th 2016 at 9:06:22 PM

Ted Cruz swept Wyoming’s remaining 14 delegates at Saturday's state convention.

Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval (R) endorsed John Kasich for president on Saturday.

edited 16th Apr '16 9:13:44 PM by Demonic_Braeburn

Any group who acts like morons ironically will eventually find itself swamped by morons who think themselves to be in good company.
Antiteilchen In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good. Since: Sep, 2013
In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good.
#119274: Apr 16th 2016 at 9:27:58 PM

[up][up]Meritocracy is just another form of social darwinism. If it is supposed to be fair, you'd have to reward merit relative to the maximum potential of a person instead of objective merit. Otherwise unintelligent people or the handicapped are just fucked from the start.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#119275: Apr 16th 2016 at 9:33:10 PM

The core problem with a meritocracy is deciding how merit is chosen. The "choosers" will inevitably discover that they have the power to control the system and will become corrupt. If there are no choosers, then it will become a Social Darwinist anarchy that forms its own power cliques, who will then seize control of the society.

There is no way to guarantee a stable equilibrium without making its governance no longer meritocratic. For all its flaws, Divergent makes a very interesting study of this problem: its core social stratification mechanism is meritocratic.

edited 16th Apr '16 9:38:40 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Total posts: 417,856
Top