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

CrimsonZephyr Would that it were so simple. from Massachusetts Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
Would that it were so simple.
#122301: May 13th 2016 at 12:22:05 PM

"I'm not sure if you noticed, but I qualified my statement with "when it's functioning properly"; and indeed in periods were the government wasn't horrendously gridlocked/facing a political crisis, the two parties have been very close to one another ideologically; the high degree of polarization is a sign and arguably a cause for our system failing to work properly."

When the two parties were close to one another ideologically, neither of them stood for anything meaningful or worthwhile. I'm sorry, but when the two parties were in close concert with each other, vital issues were often ignored simply because it would have rocked the boat, and for our country to go back to a time when privileged white folk got to have their well-oiled political machine at the expense of minorities, women, homosexuals, and all manner of vulnerable and underrepresented communities is unconscionable.

I think you're idealizing the past too much, and to be honest, though I don't know your individual circumstances, talking about political ideology with as much academic detachment as you are indicates you don't have much skin in the game.

edited 13th May '16 12:32:18 PM by CrimsonZephyr

"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#122302: May 13th 2016 at 12:39:13 PM

Personally, I despise ideology. I'm in favour of moral pragmatism and "whatever gets the job done", with "For Happiness" being the one guiding meta-principle. I don't believe in clans, groups, bands, or identities. It automatically leads to idiocy, which leads to avoidable mistakes, which lead to suffering, which lead to hatred, which leads to more idiocy.

edited 13th May '16 12:39:56 PM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
flameboy21th The would-be novelist from California Since: Jan, 2013 Relationship Status: I <3 love!
The would-be novelist
#122304: May 13th 2016 at 12:52:33 PM

Ideology is simply what we believe and live by. For Happiness is an ideology. The Needs of the Many is an ideology. The Evils of Free Will is an ideology. Comes Great Responsibility is an ideology.

edited 13th May '16 12:55:28 PM by flameboy21th

Non Indicative Username
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#122305: May 13th 2016 at 1:16:53 PM

@Zephyr: I'm not saying the parties being close to each other ideologically is a good thing, and I would definitely not say I'm idealizing history; what I'm saying is they our politician system is incapable of functioning under conditions where the parties diverge from one another ideologically, as is happening now. Hence why I'm arguing that our political system is in need of major reform; it can never get anything done except when the political elite are more or less all of one mind on most issues, or a crisis results in a major restructuring of the political elite.

As far as the second point goes, believe it or not, I'm mixed race, not white (and visibly so, at least to the point where I very frequently get asked about my ethnic background). My grandparents were an interracial couple in a time where that was flat out illegal in a number of states, and can recount a fair number of stories related to that are frankly quite sickening. If I sound detached it's because I'm in a field where you are encouraged to write in a detached and clinical manner at all times (medical research). Possibly also because I have Asperger's Sydrome.

edited 13th May '16 1:20:10 PM by CaptainCapsase

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#122306: May 13th 2016 at 1:24:09 PM

You forgot FL, TX, and TN.
I didn't "forget" them, I didn't list them because they're not part of the Deep South. The South, yes, but not the Deep South.

By that same token, however, significant regions are Deep South-ish, and that's close enough. If we're talking about it as a political and cultural area, we would be remiss not to include them.
That's not how it works? You can't say "Deep South" and then turn around and say "what I actually meant is the Deep South and areas that are politically and culturally similar, not just the Deep South exclusively". That's called Moving the Goalposts.

in periods were the government wasn't horrendously gridlocked/facing a political crisis, the two parties have been very close to one another ideologically; the high degree of polarization is a sign and arguably a cause for our system failing to work properly.
No, actually, it's working precisely as it was designed to. The Constitution didn't set up a system of checks and balances so that the federal government would work with smooth efficiency; it's intentionally constructed so that one side can gridlock the whole system rather than accept the other side ramming through unpopular legislation.

In other words, that's a feature, not a bug.

Personally, I despise ideology. I'm in favour of moral pragmatism and "whatever gets the job done", with "For Happiness" being the one guiding meta-principle.
I have bad news for you: "guiding meta-principle" is just using more words to say "ideology". All an ideology is is a set of beliefs or values that informs your attitudes and actions. "For Happiness" is just as much an ideology as more defined political views are.

our politician system is incapable of functioning under conditions where the parties diverge from one another ideologically, as is happening now
The parties have always diverged from each other ideologically. The difference now is that one side is unwilling to compromise, which is new at least in the near term. (I'm sure you could find examples of it further back in history if you looked, but short of the Civil War i'm not familiar with any off the top of my head.)

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#122307: May 13th 2016 at 1:25:31 PM

[up] The civil war is exactly what I had in mind, and that's the sort of crisis that I'd very much like to avoid.

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#122308: May 13th 2016 at 1:28:45 PM

A civil war is absolutely not going to happen and any suggestion that it's even a possibility is either deliberate fearmongering for a specific agenda or else someone needlessly giving themselves an anxiety attack.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#122309: May 13th 2016 at 1:30:25 PM

[up] Not at any point in the next few decades, but i was using it as an example as the kind of crisis that the US political system requires for significant change to happen.

Whether you agree with me on the comparative stability of parliamentary versus presidential democracies, the anti-deadlock fail safes present in the former system is something the United States could sorely use, since there is basically no way out of our current gridlock barring a mass political movement that results in the obstructionists being removed from power, hence why I favored Sanders.

edited 13th May '16 1:36:03 PM by CaptainCapsase

Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#122310: May 13th 2016 at 1:31:41 PM

Don't worry. When civil war breaks out, I will win it.

Or the ducks. Or Iron Man.

edited 13th May '16 1:31:58 PM by Protagonist506

Leviticus 19:34
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
#122311: May 13th 2016 at 1:32:41 PM

A civil war no, but an armed insurgency in some parts of the country? That's only not going to happen because a lot of people are walking on eggshells to avoid it happening.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
CrimsonZephyr Would that it were so simple. from Massachusetts Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
Would that it were so simple.
#122313: May 13th 2016 at 1:48:44 PM

Most of the people who ramble about armed rebellion against the government tend to be Boisterous Weakling types. They talk big, but never deliver, because the deprivations of rebellion are intolerable, except to the extreme desperate.

"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#122314: May 13th 2016 at 1:51:42 PM

[up][up] I will be thrilled if she goes on to prove me and other skeptics wrong when and if she's in power.

edited 13th May '16 1:52:40 PM by CaptainCapsase

Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#122315: May 13th 2016 at 1:54:19 PM

I certainly hope not. I'm voting for her because she's moderate.

Leviticus 19:34
ILoveDogs Since: May, 2010
#122316: May 13th 2016 at 1:54:58 PM

[up][up][up][up] As much as I hope that Clinton wins, isn't MSNBC sort of really fond of her?

edited 13th May '16 1:55:10 PM by ILoveDogs

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#122317: May 13th 2016 at 1:55:01 PM

You know, I've been musing for a while how Hillary would perform in a direct confrontation with Trump.

See, my impression is that Trump is very effective at character assassinating men (see "Lyin' Ted", "Cruz hates New York", "Little Marco", "Bush is running a low-energy campaign" et cetera) but stumbles with women (that debate debacle with Fiorina, the confrontation with Megyn Kelly, the confrontation about Heidi Cruz, the current spat with Liz Warren). Seems like a good omen really.

Finally, I wonder if Hillary isn't becoming more centerist because with Trump at the helm the opposition has no leg to stand on and too much to infight about in terms of "too extreme policies".

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#122318: May 13th 2016 at 1:55:31 PM

[up][up] Them and CNN.

edited 13th May '16 1:56:06 PM by CaptainCapsase

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#122319: May 13th 2016 at 1:55:53 PM

Most of the people who ramble about armed rebellion against the government tend to be Boisterous Weakling types. They talk big, but never deliver, because the deprivations of rebellion are intolerable, except to the extreme desperate.

Yeah, there does tend to be a lot of, "It's time for Revolution! Tear down the government! Burn Washington! You guys go ahead, I'll be there in a bit," that goes around.

But there's also certain groups that, while not large enough to be classified as civil war, are sitting with fingers on the trigger waiting for an excuse to launch an insurgency that will inevitably be crushed by overwhelming national force but might claim a lot of innocent lives before it's done.

edited 13th May '16 1:56:14 PM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#122320: May 13th 2016 at 1:58:03 PM

Yeah look I go on about the hellhole I live in but really if they were to properly act up I'd give them a week before the 101st kicks them all to the curb.

But I'd really like to avoid a week of hiding from snipers and dodging IEDs on my way to go buy/steal food.

edited 13th May '16 1:58:31 PM by LeGarcon

Oh really when?
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#122321: May 13th 2016 at 1:59:14 PM

Whether you agree with me on the comparative stability of parliamentary versus presidential democracies, the anti-deadlock fail safes present in the former system is something the United States could sorely use, since there is basically no way out of our current gridlock barring a mass political movement that results in the obstructionists being removed from power, hence why I favored Sanders.
I'm not sure what you mean by "our current gridlock" in this context. It sounds like you think we need a political outsider to "clean house" and allow for real progress to be made — but there's been a ton of stuff done during Obama's presidency, from the most significant health care reform since Medicare to legalizing of gay marriage to pulling the country (and to some extent, the world) back from the brink of what could have been much worse than merely a recession — not to mention ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, repairing much of the foreign relations damage done by two terms of Bush Jr, and negotiating the nuclear deal with Iran.

The guy hasn't accomplished everything he wanted, or nearly as much as he could have with a Congress that was willing to compromise (much less one that was actually supportive), but to portray the political situation as complete gridlock where nothing was accomplished and progress is impossible is clearly wrong.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#122322: May 13th 2016 at 2:11:49 PM

See, my impression is that Trump is very effective at character assassinating men (see "Lyin' Ted", "Cruz hates New York", "Little Marco", "Bush is running a low-energy campaign" et cetera) but stumbles with women (that debate debacle with Fiorina, the confrontation with Megyn Kelly, the confrontation about Heidi Cruz, the current spat with Liz Warren). Seems like a good omen really.

That's been my impression as well. His shock tactics and personal attacks have been immensely effective against men like Cruz and Rubio because they're accustomed to a certain level of professionalism. When they compare tax plans, they expect an opponent to talk about their tax plan, not to literally start comparing dick sizes.

But women in Washington have a lot of experience with childish antics and ad hominem attacks. They hear something to the tune of, "A vote for her is a vote that should be making me a sandwich!" on a daily basis. It doesn't shock them, it doesn't throw them off their game, because if it did, they wouldn't have made it this far in the first place. Cruz may be flabbergasted by Trump's tactics but Hillary's been playing that game for twenty years, and that's a good sign.

edited 13th May '16 2:12:27 PM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#122323: May 13th 2016 at 2:11:52 PM

[up][up] The problem has gotten exponentially worse over the course of his terms; where were at now is what I'd describe as near total gridlock. Gay marriage was only possible because of the Supreme Court, anything that involves congress is more or less off limits, and I don't see that changing without a paradigm shift:

edited 13th May '16 2:13:59 PM by CaptainCapsase

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#122324: May 13th 2016 at 2:17:19 PM

[up] Blaming the Democrats for that gridlock is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? Do you really imagine it improving with a Sanders presidency?

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#122325: May 13th 2016 at 2:18:49 PM

[up] Where am I blaming the democrats?

Anyway, a Sanders' presidency wouldn't be an improvement without the sort of mass movement he was calling for. I simply do not trust Clinton in the slightest.

edited 13th May '16 2:21:13 PM by CaptainCapsase


Total posts: 417,856
Top