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

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#123226: May 22nd 2016 at 1:43:17 PM

[up][up][up]I didn't mean getting rid of specific districts, I meant making the practice of gerrymandering illegal entirely. Right now, in a lot of states, congressional districts are drawn by the state legislature and there are no rules beyond each district having a certain population. That's how you end up with torturously drawn districts in order to give one side or another an advantage. What needs to happen is federal laws making gerrymandering illegal, preferably overseen by the Department of Justice, so that when districts are gerrymandered, the people affected can sue and get them redrawn fairly. (Some states have done this already, but without recourse on the federal level, it's hard to make it stick. Florida made gerrymandering illegal in 2010, but there are still lawsuits over it because it's still the state government — which is pretty much entirely Republican-controlled because of gerrymandered districts — that is in control of the process.)

Since it's a state law, not a federal one, no one can bring in the federal court system. If a Democratic congress passes a federal anti-gerrymandering law, then that would no longer be the case. That would mean that the Democrats couldn't gerrymander either, of course, but Republicans benefit more from gerrymandering than Democrats do, both because Republicans control more states and because demographics favor Democrats in general, meaning that fairly-drawn districts will be better for Democrats than they will be for Republicans. (Of course, both parties should be pushing for fair districts regardless of the political equation because unfairly drawn districts are bullshit, but realpolitick is a thing.)

edited 22nd May '16 1:43:28 PM by NativeJovian

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
JackOLantern1337 Shameful Display from The Most Miserable Province in the Russian Empir Since: Aug, 2014 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
Shameful Display
#123227: May 22nd 2016 at 1:54:33 PM

[up] I'm not sure why the Democrats would pass a law like that, instead of just gerrymandering the districts so the Republicans get as few seats as possible.

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#123228: May 22nd 2016 at 1:55:55 PM

What criteria do you want to use for district drawing them.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#123229: May 22nd 2016 at 1:56:54 PM

@ Jovian: How about passing the drawing of Districts at all levels to a nominally independent Federal Commission?

Keep Rolling On
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#123230: May 22nd 2016 at 1:59:08 PM

You'll see attempts at rigging the Commission, then. It did happen in Arizona and allegedly in California.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#123231: May 22nd 2016 at 2:35:30 PM

I still say we should scrap the district system and assign seats based on the party distribution of each state.

Discar Since: Jun, 2009
#123232: May 22nd 2016 at 2:47:44 PM

I'm not sure why the Democrats would pass a law like that, instead of just gerrymandering the districts so the Republicans get as few seats as possible.

Well, yes, that's what currently happens, but it's a short-sighted solution. Republicans benefit more from gerrymandering than Democrats do, and they're better at it than Democrats. What Jovian is saying is that if they're smart, a Democratic federal government will realize that they'll gain more in the long run by outlawing gerrymandering.

I still say we should scrap the district system and assign seats based on the party distribution of each state.

The problem is that that encourages elected officials to ignore the individual districts and just do things that benefit the state as a whole. Now, that's not the worst outcome, but that's how you get things like the state or federal government dropping a giant factory next to some podunk town no one cares about. The town complains, but they don't have enough people to make anyone listen.

I say this every time the subject gets within artillery range, but I really think it would help to have a virtual congress. The various congresscritters live in their districts and just do their meetings and whatnot through Skype. It would improve internet infrastructure and cut down on them treating their districts like piggy banks.

Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#123233: May 22nd 2016 at 3:24:24 PM

I don't see how the district system solves that issue. One congress member can't do much in that situation.

JackOLantern1337 Shameful Display from The Most Miserable Province in the Russian Empir Since: Aug, 2014 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
Shameful Display
#123234: May 22nd 2016 at 3:26:39 PM

I doubt the Democrats will think in the long term. Half of the new Congress will be hardcore progressives, who will want to kick the Republicans in the balls, and will call anyone not in favor of their plans to gerrymander the shit out of the GOP as cowardly Neo Liberal shills who accept the "golden means fallacy." The other half will be the actual cowardly neo liberal shills, who are incapable of thinking of anything other than short term political gain.

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#123235: May 22nd 2016 at 3:29:56 PM

There's an awful lot of strawmanning in that post there, Jack.

JackOLantern1337 Shameful Display from The Most Miserable Province in the Russian Empir Since: Aug, 2014 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
Shameful Display
#123236: May 22nd 2016 at 3:51:45 PM

[up] Well an awful lot of it is true.

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#123237: May 22nd 2016 at 4:01:32 PM

He's not wrong about "neo-liberal shill" becoming the Democrats answer to "RINO", the Dem left wing is starting to manifest a Tea Party like obsession with ideological purity.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#123238: May 22nd 2016 at 4:01:59 PM

No. No it's not. Seriously, Jack, saying that Democrats are just either hardcore progressives who care about nothing but opposing Republicans or cowardly neoliberal shills is 100% bullshit. Cut it out.

[up]Except that that's not what he means.

Furthermore, the Democratic center-left hasn't embraced the hard-leftists like the Republicans have embraced the hard-right. They've in fact refused to deal with anyone who's much further left than Bernie Sanders - you don't see anti-vaxxers, for example, anywhere near a Democratic candidacy, and the superdelegates won't be giving up their power any time soon (there's a reason Bernie was trying to force that confrontation, and now he's pissed because he doesn't get the fight that he wanted).

edited 22nd May '16 4:06:53 PM by Ramidel

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#123239: May 22nd 2016 at 4:04:10 PM

Less strawmanning and more substituting cynicism for actual analysis. While the conclusion isn't wrong (I don't think it's likely to see a federal anti-gerrymandering law anytime soon), it's less because "politicians are evil, therefore everything they do is bad" and more the fact that there honestly isn't much political will to make it happen. Most people don't see gerrymandering as a huge problem, so it's not worth the time and effort for politicians to tackle the issue — especially when they know they're going to get an enormous amount of pushback from other politicians whose seats rely on gerrymandering.

Of course, that's why I prefaced the whole thing with "if they're smart". Getting rid of gerrymandering nationwide is a good long-term play for the Democrats, but they have to be willing to accept the short-term costs to do it, which I'm not convinced they are.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#123240: May 22nd 2016 at 4:06:59 PM

They would need to be riding on a huge wave of popularity, a political movement with a wide grassroots base determined to get change now.

Now where might those people be...

edited 22nd May '16 4:08:09 PM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#123241: May 22nd 2016 at 4:18:10 PM

[up]If you're referring to the Herbal Tea Party I've no real interest in seeing anyone bow to their demands.

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#123242: May 22nd 2016 at 4:23:23 PM

Banning gerrymandering is something that needs to be done as soon as possible, since it's well within the realm of possibility that the GOP could cease to be an effective opposition party at some point in the near future. Ideally, that would be followed by the formation of a new opposition party to the democrat's left in a few years time, but there's always a danger in that kind of scenario that America could end up a de facto One-Party State through methods which would include heavy ily gerrymandering electoral districts.

TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#123243: May 22nd 2016 at 4:27:44 PM

"Herbal Tea Party"? You mean like anti-science hippies sort of people? Benighted Romantics?

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#123244: May 22nd 2016 at 4:33:20 PM

[up] No, he's talking about Sanders' base, because nothing scares the American bourgeois more than the prospect of socialism ceasing to be a dirty word. tongue

edited 22nd May '16 4:34:15 PM by CaptainCapsase

smokeycut Since: Mar, 2013
#123245: May 22nd 2016 at 4:35:47 PM

I really don't think Sanders' supporters are comparable to the Tea Party in the slightest. Some of them are unreasonable and quick to anger, but they're also young and have a lot to learn about politics. Meanwhile, the Tea Party is made up of people well into adulthood, who want the right to shoot people and be racist and homophobic.

TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#123246: May 22nd 2016 at 4:35:52 PM

Oh. Because, seriously, fuck homeopathy advocates. It's homicidally stupid.

edited 22nd May '16 4:36:38 PM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#123247: May 22nd 2016 at 4:43:00 PM

They would need to be riding on a huge wave of popularity, a political movement with a wide grassroots base determined to get change now.

Now where might those people be...

If you're talking about Sanders supporters, then I find your comment rather amusing, given that they've just rather conclusively proven that they don't actually have a huge wave of wide grassroots popularity. If you can't even win your party's primary, then you've got no chance in hell at winning a general election.

The thing that people forget is that yelling louder in support of your candidate doesn't make your vote count extra. If you've got a million diehard supporters that will follow you to the ends of the earth casting votes for you and the other guy's got a million and one half-assed "eh, I guess I'll vote for this guy" supporters casting votes for him, the other guy wins. Bernie's supporters may be more enthusiastic, but Clinton's are more numerous, and that's what counts on election day.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#123248: May 22nd 2016 at 4:53:04 PM

[up] Considering Sanders was an independent attempting a hostile takeover of the democrats (something which is attested to by the voting patterns of independents in applicable primaries), I'd say the fact that he was able to even be competitive demonstrates his base is quite large.

TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#123249: May 22nd 2016 at 4:58:10 PM

Mostly I meant Obama in 2008. He had a massive movement behind him. People who actually bought into his HOPE for CHANGE. He won on their backs. They were ready for anything. He told them to go home.

Retreat from Irak (2011) and Afghanistan (2014) would come much later than they expected, with a botched aftermath, as would Gitmo's closure. The Affordable Care Act, while helpful, wasn't remotely the NHS-like revolution that they were hoping for.

He built a HUGE hype, and, while he delivered on a lot of his actual promises, he could have used that hype to live up to it.

As for enthusiasts not being numerous enough, the funny thing about them is that, if you give them a megaphone and leverage, they can punch much higher than their demographic weight. Indeed, if you want Tea Party comparisons, those folks are a minority among a minority, and yet they hold enough clout to shut down the government of the United States of America if you dare to ignore them.

[up]It's not hostile, but it is disruptive.

edited 22nd May '16 4:59:27 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!
#123250: May 22nd 2016 at 5:13:41 PM

In Obama's defense, half of the government threw itself against him to the point of being almost self-destructively contrarian.

Leviticus 19:34

Total posts: 417,856
Top