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

TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#122726: May 17th 2016 at 11:16:02 PM

We already established that fifth-column independents were a negligible number. Drop that argument.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
GameGuruGG Vampire Hunter from Castlevania (Before Recorded History)
Vampire Hunter
#122727: May 17th 2016 at 11:27:13 PM

It makes much more sense, in the Occam's Razor way, that people who declare themselves as Independent are unhappy with both political parties and thus are more likely to vote for Outsider candidates like Sanders and Trump, siding with the outsider candidate whose policies they favor. After all if a person was satisfied with the Democrats or Republicans, then why wouldn't they just be a Democrat or Republican?

edited 17th May '16 11:32:00 PM by GameGuruGG

Wizard Needs Food Badly
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#122728: May 17th 2016 at 11:50:49 PM

@Handle: We have? I thought the argument established that it has happened and affected elections in the past.

Speaking as someone who has fifth-columned before, I'm not seeing it in this election - I'm seeing outsider Independents like myself rushing into the party to vote for Sanders in the name of hopechange, not Republicans putting on their trollfaces and sabotage voting.

(It's worth noting that the first time I fifth-columned, I voted for Sarah Palin for Governor. Our governor-at-the-time was that corrupt, not to mention that stupidly blatant about his corruption. Even in Alaska, you're supposed to try harder than appointing your own daughter to the Senate.)

edited 17th May '16 11:51:34 PM by Ramidel

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#122729: May 18th 2016 at 1:11:46 AM

Vox article on Nevada. To me, it seems like the weird caucus rules ended up giving Sanders the majority of state level delegates despite losing the base level vote. The state DNC apparently attempted to "fix" this issue by rigging the delegate selection process, and then things went haywire.

The conclusions I take from this is that a) the Nevada caucuses need to go away as they appear to be a source of problems and not just in this case, b) some Sanders supporters are seriously scary, c) sore losers and d) it's not clear to me why Sanders is half-egging this on (for lack of a better word choice).

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#122730: May 18th 2016 at 4:57:38 AM

I think that says more about Nevada's process than it does the Democratic Party as a whole. Note that it was just as screwed up on the Republican side.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#122731: May 18th 2016 at 5:13:32 AM

It's not even the first time things went messy in the Nevada caucuses. Apparently it was just as chaotic and controversial in 2012 and 2008.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Ogodei Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers from The front lines Since: Jan, 2011
Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers
#122732: May 18th 2016 at 6:13:46 AM

The first thing it shows is that caucuses are just a shitshow, and then the second factor is that Bernie needs to wake up and smell the coffee.

storyyeller More like giant cherries from Appleloosa Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: RelationshipOutOfBoundsException: 1
More like giant cherries
#122733: May 18th 2016 at 6:21:25 AM

it seems like the weird caucus rules ended up giving Sanders the majority of state level delegates

Technically, he got the majority of state convention delegate slots due to winning the county conventions, but Clinton had more eligible delegates actually show up to the convention.

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play
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
#122734: May 18th 2016 at 6:47:57 AM

it's not clear to me why Sanders is half-egging this on (for lack of a better word choice).

Probably because he feels like this fix has some serious political motive behind both its timing and its application. He's looking at it going "but under the rules I won, then you changed the rules because you judged the system that gave me the win unfair?", I mean come on, that's exactly what his supporters have been (at times rightly) acused of trying to do t a national level, and they've been laughed at for it, not given to power to do it.

But yeah this seems just like Nevada is fucking nuts. Unless the Convention has equally convoluted rules and and ends up with equally convoluted/suspicious fix there's not gonna be a riot.

edited 18th May '16 6:48:24 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
Mio Since: Jan, 2001
#122735: May 18th 2016 at 7:37:20 AM

There is some reason to believe that that there are at least a few Bernie supporters who will "riot" anyway unless they make Sanders the nominee.Also, aren't the conventions of either party kind of meant to have convoluted rules? If not by design then by evolution of the system.

Either way I don't really want to be that cynical of other Bernie supporters, and there should be no need for the DNC to engage in any kind of convention shenanigans given how things have gone to this point. If they do anyway then they really have no one to blame but themselves if this all falls apart and Trump becomes president.

BlueNinja0 The Mod with the Migraine from Taking a left at Albuquerque Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
The Mod with the Migraine
#122736: May 18th 2016 at 7:42:27 AM

It's not even the first time things went messy in the Nevada caucuses.
It's Nevada. I'm sometimes surprised my home state doesn't do the primaries via slot machine. tongue

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw
ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#122737: May 18th 2016 at 7:55:22 AM

There were a number of complaints about election fraud in Kentucky, by the by. None have been investigated as yet, though. Also, I do have to wonder how many instances of "fraud" is actually routine, procedural garbage that happens literally every election but simply never gets talked about because no one really cares, except this election has been far more contentious so people are on high alert?

Kind of like the "Summer of the Shark" BS from back in the early aughties, when there was actually fewer deaths, but no other major news stories to "distract" from them.

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#122738: May 18th 2016 at 8:20:34 AM

I've got to say, after doing some hunting online, I'm rather mad at myself for having bought the hard-left narrative about Sanders. I've always thought Clinton had a better chance in the general, but I accepted the idea that Sanders was more to the left than her, and was the candidate we'd want in a perfect world.

Boy was I letting myself get suckered. This is a man who thinks 13 year olds who aren't getting laid are "repressed". Who opposes reparations because "what about poor white people?" Who tried to have toxic waste dumped next to a poor Hispanic community who didn't want it there. Who opposes gun control because "urban" victims shouldn't effect his constituents. Who accuses Clinton of only being nice to Obama to win over black voters.

I've always known that Sanders wasn't the messiah his supporters made him out to be. But hell, I'm not sure he's even a genuine progressive. His more rabid fans like to accuse people like Clinton of being part of the "regressive left". It's a term that all-too often gets hijacked to mean "people who won't slag Muslims Sam Harris-style", because not being a bigot is apparently regressive somehow. To them I say this—you want to talk about regressive leftists? Sanders' policies have a proud tradition of being racist and sexist, supporting his white constituency at the expense of everyone else. He's practically a Dixiecrat on some issues, and that's about as "regressively leftist" as you can get.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#122739: May 18th 2016 at 8:25:47 AM

I was concerned from the getgo that his economic policies weren't really informed by Keynes and/or Hicks, as I'd expect any "progressive" Democratic candidate's to be. I'm not convinced that he's really a closet racist, although it is indisputable that there remain such folks among the left.

edited 18th May '16 8:26:32 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
#122740: May 18th 2016 at 8:25:59 AM

This all sounds very strawmannish to me, to be honest.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
kkhohoho (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#122741: May 18th 2016 at 8:28:41 AM

As someone who doesn't want to read through the last several pages to understand just what's going on here, can someone please give me the cliffnotes version of just why everyone's suddenly turning on Bernie? Because just 10 pages or so back, everyone was still praising him to high heaven, but now, they're acting like he's not that much better than Trump. Is there something I'm missing here?

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
#122742: May 18th 2016 at 8:29:59 AM

Does Sander oppose gun control or does he oppose worthless stuff like bans on cosmetic features while favouring stuff like background checks? Because Clinton's gun control stance is actually the loony left one, it's based on cosmetic features and what looks scary, not on what's sane and reasonably like background checks, safe storage laws and proper training.

[up] Nevada primary was a shit show and some Sanders supporters did some crazy shit in response (as in death threats level of crazy), Sanders condemned it but also condemed the DNC shit show that was the Nevada primary, folks feel that he should have just condemed the crazy shit his supporters did and not spoken about the mess that Nevada was/his condemnation of his supports actions doesn't count for some reason.

edited 18th May '16 8:32:38 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
Mio Since: Jan, 2001
#122743: May 18th 2016 at 8:33:16 AM

[up][up][up][up]Why would you expect that unless you specifically defining "progressives" as "people you like"? I imagine there are more leftist economic views then just Keynes/Hicks.

[up][up]Some recent incidents with his supporters and his seeming hesitance to completely disavow them has soured a lot of people's opinion of him. There is also the fact that he is still contesting Clinton even though the he has little hope of winning and the right seems to be coalescing around Trump.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#122744: May 18th 2016 at 8:36:54 AM

[up] There are few realistic views other than Keynes/Hicks, and the problem with Sanders' ideas is that they seem inspired less by actual economic doctrine and more by rank populism. His stance on breaking up big banks is popular, but is not supported by mainstream economists.. His stance on Glass-Steagal is kind of reactionary, since it wouldn't have prevented the 2008 crisis. His stance on globalization is just plain wrong; there is no evidence that "bringing the jobs back" is a thing that would happen or that would work to increase prosperity if we suddenly bailed from NAFTA.

If a Democratic politician is going to run on an economic platform, I want it to be a rational one, not one that appeals to popular memes.

Some of his other ideas are good in principle, but are not necessarily sound economics, either.

  • Free public college education. Sure, it's an equalizer of opportunity to some extent, but when we have people with Masters degrees flipping burgers, it's not exactly a guarantee that you'll get ahead, and it won't do jack for people who can't get into college at all.
  • Nationalizing health insurance. It's a thing that many nations do, to a great deal of success, but his plan oversells the benefits and undersells the costs by drawing assumptions about savings that it cannot produce as written.
  • "$15 minimum wage". Yes, let's get that done, but we really need a Minimum Basic Income. Still, it's a worthwhile stepping stone. Note that Clinton supports it, too, and even a large chunk of Republican voters.

edited 18th May '16 8:42:15 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
#122745: May 18th 2016 at 8:37:02 AM

Sanders was originally elected to Congress because of his opposition to an assault weapon ban, if memory serves. Vermont is a very rural state so they tend to be more liberal on gun restrictions than a typical liberal state. From what I know he's got a bit of a mixed record on gun laws, but nothing like "Who opposes gun control because "urban" victims shouldn't effect his constituents.".

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Mio Since: Jan, 2001
#122746: May 18th 2016 at 8:42:15 AM

[up][up]I just don't see how that makes him any less "progressive" then any other (whom are also unlikely to base their policy on Keynesian economics).

Of course I'm assuming progressive is just a way of saying a "left" or even "leftist" candidate as opposed to anything more specific.

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#122747: May 18th 2016 at 8:45:45 AM

Sanders is very progressive. But he's a novice at the race relations aspect of left-wing policies as was hinted at during the reparations discussion and he has little to no record on it. A lot of people perceive him as an economy Single-Issue Wonk, and that is not enough to fix race issues.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#122748: May 18th 2016 at 8:52:54 AM

Sanders claimed that the real cause of gun violence was the "lack of job opportunities in urban communities" and opposed gun control on the basis of that. He's made similar statements since. And if that's not meant to be a dog-whistle it sure as hell sounds like one.

Here he is again on the differences between urban and rural areas:

"I come from a state that has virtually no gun control and it turns out one of the safest states in the country... I understand that guns in my state are different than guns in Chicago or Los Angeles," Sanders said. "People in urban America have got to appreciate that the overwhelming majority of people who hunt know about guns and respect guns, and are law-abiding people, that's the truth. And people in rural America have got to understand that in an urban area, guns mean something very, very different."

Because banning certain kinds of automatic weapon was really going to impact hunters.

edited 18th May '16 8:55:24 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#122749: May 18th 2016 at 8:57:58 AM

Not a dog whistle, at least not one that I can tell easily. And he's mostly right about the rural vs. urban differences and the reasons for gun crime as well.

I also want to know when that was said because political opinions change over time.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
kkhohoho (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#122750: May 18th 2016 at 8:58:51 AM

My opinion on gun control is that it shouldn't be as much of an issue as people are making it out be. Does the public availability of guns help lead to more unnecessary deaths and violence? Probably, but as the old adage goes, 'Guns don't kill people; people do.' Limiting gun usage might help crack down on gun violence, but all that's going to do is lead an increase in knife violence and the like, because if someone wants to kill somebody, they're not going to care how they do it as long as they can do it. Do I think we should just not care about controlling gun usage at all? No, but I think that some people who are solely stuck on strictly controlling gun usage are missing the point, focusing on the fact that guns are being used rather than the actual underlying cause of said gun usage, which isn't limited only to guns.


Total posts: 417,856
Top