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

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#123326: May 23rd 2016 at 1:20:15 PM

[up][up][up]Sanders has been in Congress/the Senate for 25 years. He's been in politics even longer. No, he's not a member of a party, but that doesn't make him less a part of the establishment.

Sitting outside one of the two major parties doesn't stop you from being a part of the establishment. Nor does it, for that matter, prevent you from being a political insider, something which he definitely is in his home state of Vermont.

edited 23rd May '16 1:21:50 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

desdendelle Hooded Crow from Land of Milk and Honey (Sergeant) Relationship Status: Hiding
Hooded Crow
#123327: May 23rd 2016 at 1:20:28 PM

@Capsase: Not contradictory — he can be a Dem outsider while still being a part of the general political establishment (as an Independent).

On empty crossroads, seek the eclipse -- for when Sol and Lua align, the lost shall find their way home.
Keybreak (Long Runner)
#123328: May 23rd 2016 at 1:21:32 PM

What do they call it? Crossover appeal?

"I hate the candidate of my party so much that I'll vote for the candidate of the other party!"

Who's got more of that.

edited 23rd May '16 1:21:39 PM by Keybreak

You gotta believe me when I scare you away, all that I wish for is that you would stay
ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#123329: May 23rd 2016 at 1:22:45 PM

[up][up][up]

I think it helps that Sanders has long been considered a Single-Issue Wonk when it comes to economic policy - namely, economic policy that focuses on "helping the little guy" and "sticking it to the corporate class". That's a big distinction from the Republican's rhetoric of "Job creators" being the biggest thing for the US.

edited 23rd May '16 1:23:35 PM by ironballs16

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#123330: May 23rd 2016 at 1:23:03 PM

[up][up][up][up] In Vermont, he absolutely is the establishment (and has among the highest approval rates of sitting US senators), but he's absolutely not at the federal level; not in the way Clinton is.

edited 23rd May '16 1:24:49 PM by CaptainCapsase

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#123331: May 23rd 2016 at 1:24:49 PM

[up]I think distinguishing between those two things is futile. And again, 25 years of governing at the federal level. You don't get to play the outsider card at that point. Trump has a better case for being an outsider (not that he is, but he's got a better argument).

edited 23rd May '16 1:27:33 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#123332: May 23rd 2016 at 1:26:36 PM

[up] Not when he's been the odd man out on a lot of votes on bills that were close to unanimous in favor of something disastrous. That's not always been the case, and there's definitely some votes where he went against the curve in ways I don't approve of.

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#123333: May 23rd 2016 at 1:26:38 PM

The big difference between 08 and now is that Obama and Clinton are far more similar than Clinton and Sanders are., so it was easy for Hillary's supporters to fall in line. Sanders supporters are sounding more and more fanatical the more their guy falls behind, and its getting worrying. I've seen that sort of vote splitting before, it got Canada saddled with almost a decade of Conservative rule (despite said party never getting to 40% support) and those guys are liberal kittens compared to the GOP.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#123334: May 23rd 2016 at 1:29:00 PM

[up] And how much of that fantastical crap comes from what people say on the Internet versus actual opinion polling?

edited 23rd May '16 1:29:45 PM by CaptainCapsase

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#123335: May 23rd 2016 at 1:30:24 PM

A few polls have shown that as much as 1/3rd of Sanders supporters won't back Clinton. Now, I'm sure that number will drop once Sanders drops out and endorses Clinton without reservation (and he had better do that...) but its still an issue.

edited 23rd May '16 1:31:08 PM by Rationalinsanity

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Keybreak (Long Runner)
#123336: May 23rd 2016 at 1:30:52 PM

Liberal kittens. tongue So cute.

Candidates are built up by their supporters, not just the money put into them. Trump and Clinton and Sanders are all popular to somebody, so it isn't just that the negative things said about them that raise up the others.

You gotta believe me when I scare you away, all that I wish for is that you would stay
GameGuruGG Vampire Hunter from Castlevania (Before Recorded History)
Vampire Hunter
#123337: May 23rd 2016 at 1:31:31 PM

[up][up][up][up][up][up][up] I think it makes all the more sense if one begins with the idea that the Democratic Party Establishment is corrupt. It does not matter that Sanders was a long-serving Senator when he is not part of the Democratic Party Establishment since he has been an Independent for all the time he was a Senator.

edited 23rd May '16 1:32:22 PM by GameGuruGG

Wizard Needs Food Badly
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#123338: May 23rd 2016 at 1:36:12 PM

[up] That's the crux of this particular issue; Sanders is absolutely part of the political establishment of Vermont, he's sort of part of the congressional establishment, but he's not part of the establishment of the two major parties, having not been a part of either of them until his current candidacy for President.

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#123339: May 23rd 2016 at 2:54:05 PM

Even if you want to use an argument like that it's still disingenuous. Sanders has maintained very close ties to the Democratic establishment in Vermont and in Washington. They have actively discouraged candidates from running against him, and on at least one occasion, allowed Sanders to run for the Democratic nomination, and then, when he turned it down, did not put anyone else up against him. In Congress and the Senate he's regularly been treated as a Democrat, caucuses with the Democrats, and has been awarded assignments to committees in lieu of actual Democrats, because he is reliably supportive of Democratic Party causes. His voting record and Hillary Clinton's are 93% identical, and I would personally find the notion that a 7% difference makes you "an outsider" to be laughable.

None of this is to suggest, by the way, that Sanders himself is corrupt. I don't think he is. But then again, I don't think being part of "The Establishment" makes you inherently corrupt or evil. I got my "the system is broken, burn it down" phase out of me in high school (when I was an honest-to-god Communist of all things). Being part of an established party or working with said established party is the only way to actually get things done. But for Sanders or his supporters to spin him as some sort of outsider to the Democratic or Washington establishment is disingenuous at best. He's absolutely a part of the system, in Vermont, in Washington, and to a large degree, within the Democratic Party.

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#123340: May 23rd 2016 at 2:59:58 PM

[up] When that 7% includes things like the vote for Iraq, and when you're comparing Bernie Sanders to Hillary Clinton, I'd say it's a big difference. There are very distinct political cliques in Washington, and while Sanders is definitely an insider in a certain sense, he's not part of the party brass, Clinton absolutely is.

edited 23rd May '16 3:04:11 PM by CaptainCapsase

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#123341: May 23rd 2016 at 3:03:56 PM

[up]And when it includes things like opposing gun control—including allowing people to sue when regulations are violated—I would say it's not.

Sanders and Clinton have both voted for things I like. They have both voted against things I like. Neither is perfect. But this notion that there's some vast difference between them politically is nonsense. They're both pretty damn far to the left as American politics goes. And they're both a firm part of the political establishment. Which is okay.

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#123342: May 23rd 2016 at 3:06:00 PM

[up] Rural states in general, including Vermont, have much fewer issues with their relatively lax gun control; as with many other issues, that's one place where policy desperately needs to be decided on a state to state basis. That the states themselves get to decide rather than the federal government is something that really can't be worked around without radically changing the structure of our government, effectively making it a unitary state.

edited 23rd May '16 3:12:03 PM by CaptainCapsase

pwiegle Cape Malleum Majorem from Nowhere Special Since: Sep, 2015 Relationship Status: Singularity
Cape Malleum Majorem
#123343: May 23rd 2016 at 3:08:15 PM

At the time this morning's newspaper went to print, Hillary needed only 90 more delegates to win the Democratic nomination, and there were 789 pledged delegates and 150 superdelegates up for grabs. Sorry, Bernie & Bros, I think I hear the proverbial fat lady warming up her singing voice...

This Space Intentionally Left Blank.
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#123344: May 23rd 2016 at 3:09:55 PM

[up] No need to gloat, pretty much everyone knows Sanders' campaign is finished before the month even started.

edited 23rd May '16 3:12:37 PM by CaptainCapsase

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#123345: May 23rd 2016 at 3:13:39 PM

@Captain Capsase

Sanders voted to make it illegal for people to sue gun manufacturers when said manufacturers break the rules, resulting in deaths. He ignored this despite a series of police investigations that demonstrated serious streaks of corruption in said industry and a total lack of concern on the part of their employers.

We're not talking about telling people what guns they can or cannot buy. We're talking about letting people sue when regulations get ignored and somebody dies as a result of it. Which seems pretty legit. But since Sanders is pretty beholden to the guns-rights crowd in Vermont he voted against it. Which means that entire avenue of approach got more or less thrown out the window.

That is not a state's rights thing.

pwiegle Cape Malleum Majorem from Nowhere Special Since: Sep, 2015 Relationship Status: Singularity
Cape Malleum Majorem
#123346: May 23rd 2016 at 3:18:58 PM

I wasn't gloating. But if everybody agrees that Bernie's campaign is washed up, then why are you still talking about it like it's a thing?

Just wondering, don't bite my head off over it...

edited 23rd May '16 3:20:30 PM by pwiegle

This Space Intentionally Left Blank.
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#123347: May 23rd 2016 at 3:20:05 PM

[up] His campaign is finished, but the general movement around it necessarily isn't; there's already a bunch of candidates for congressional positions parroting his positions. Moreover, his mere presence in the race at this point still warrants discussion.

[up][up] It's also not as black and white as you portray it; in theory it was intended to prevent the family of someone killed in a shooting death from sueing the manufacturer/seller of the weapon unless there was evidence that they knowingly allowed the weapon to fall into the hands of someone considered likely to misuse it, or if the death was caused by a defect in the firearm.

edited 23rd May '16 3:24:34 PM by CaptainCapsase

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#123348: May 23rd 2016 at 3:55:52 PM

The operative words there being "in theory". In practise it's made it that much harder to deal with a very real problem within the gun industry. And if guys like Sanders are going to harp on Clinton for the results of every vote she's ever made, I reserve the right to criticize Sanders for this one, particularly given how bleedingly obvious the results were going to be.

EDIT: Just saw one of the posts above. As this conversation goes on the definition of "party outsider" is getting more and more specific in order to accommodate Sanders.

edited 23rd May '16 3:57:17 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#123349: May 23rd 2016 at 3:57:32 PM

Sauce for the goose. If Sanders wants to criticize Clinton's past legislative judgment, he must accept that his own will be called into question.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#123350: May 23rd 2016 at 3:57:40 PM

[up][up] We're once again at an impasse, so I don't think there's really any point in discussing this further.

[up] True, but I'd argue there's a qualitative and in some cases quantitative difference in the magnitude of the legislative mistakes they've made.

Edit: I'd argue that, as with many things, "establishment" is a relative concept in politics; Sanders is an insider relative to someone like Ben Carson, who had no prior involvement with government beyond that of an average citizen of his demographic. Relative to Donald Trump, who has at times been one of the people pulling the strings of politicians, he's still more of an insider, but both of them are far less involved in the political establishment of their parties than say the Koch Brothers or Hillary Clinton respectively.

edited 23rd May '16 4:02:38 PM by CaptainCapsase


Total posts: 417,856
Top