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

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
#123651: May 27th 2016 at 3:18:39 AM

[up]X3 Latin America as a whole might not be but he was asked about Venezuela, Argentina and Brazil, all of which are South American alongside being Latim American. So blame Sanders for responding to a question about South America and calling it Latin America. tongue

Though I admit I did ignore that Sanders doesn't seem to give a shit about the rest of North America either.

[up][up] Wouldn't the money be better used for anti-Trump ads then giving in to demands? Also when you're offering up that kind of money you kinda are the big money you've railed against TYT.

edited 27th May '16 3:19:51 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
Eschaton Since: Jul, 2010
#123652: May 27th 2016 at 4:16:59 AM

Since it's being donated to charity, it doesn't quite fit the mold of "big money" that they rail against, not to mention that news organizations generally try to make money off airing debates (via ads and ratings and whatnot).

That said, I wouldn't trust any charity Trump selects farther than I could throw it. [down] For the same reasons.

edited 27th May '16 4:21:54 AM by Eschaton

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
#123653: May 27th 2016 at 4:18:34 AM

Donated to charity? I assumed that Trump was after the money personally, in fact considering him I'm going to assume that he still is even if he claims that it's for charity. He'd probably demand that the donation went though him so that he could use it as a tax write of or something.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Ogodei Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers from The front lines Since: Jan, 2011
Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers
#123654: May 27th 2016 at 5:28:43 AM

From what I heard, FDR's attempt at court packing, though unsuccessful, did at least "convince" the court to back down from their most conservative positions. They knew they had enough goodwill at the moment to be safe from court packing, but that it wouldn't last if they gutted more of the New Deal like they were planning.

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#123655: May 27th 2016 at 5:39:19 AM

@Silas: As far as That interview goes, I got the impression Sanders was trying to stay on the topic of the United States as opposed to getting dragged into a conversation about say Venezuela, which would then be used as a point of comparison (as opposed to Europe) to discredit his proposed policies.

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#123656: May 27th 2016 at 6:10:46 AM

Also when you're offering up that kind of money you kinda are the big money you've railed against TYT.
Nonsense! TYT are the only ones who will tell it to you straight! Everyone else is lying to you to push their own agenda, but TYT stands for nothing but Truth, Justice, and Freedom (which just so happens to translate exactly to his personal political views)! The fact that this is the exact same thing that everyone pushing an agenda says is meaningless, because unlike all those jerks, TYT is right! /s

I got the impression Sanders was trying to stay on the topic of the United States as opposed to getting dragged into a conversation about say Venezuela, which would then be used as a point of comparison (as opposed to Europe) to discredit his proposed policies.
Other countries aren't off topic when talking to a presidential candidate. Foreign policy a thing, and Sanders is terrible at it.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#123657: May 27th 2016 at 6:15:48 AM

[up] Actually I'd say he's excellent at it. Several experts would in fact generally agree with his non-interventionist, neomercantalist policy under the caveat that we're assuming the United States' position as a hyperpower is untenable going into the future, and that the 21st century will inevitably be mutlipolar or dominated by China. Whether or not that's actually going to be the case is the big point of contention, and obviously most politicians aren't the type to take that "defeatist" attitude.

edited 27th May '16 6:16:34 AM by CaptainCapsase

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#123658: May 27th 2016 at 6:21:29 AM

You can find "several experts" to agree to anything. Sanders has the same overly simplistic "the problem is globalization stealing our jobs, we need to legislate globalization away!" position as Trump, except without Trump's racist hatred of immigrants piled on top.

Meanwhile, Clinton has actual foreign policy experience and is generally respected on the international stage, as opposed to Sanders being a relative unknown and Trump managing to scare the shit out of and/or piss off basically the entire planet.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#123659: May 27th 2016 at 6:26:58 AM

[up] How about the historical precedent of the United Kingdom's decline as a superpower versus that of the Soviet Union; the UK didn't make a significant effort to cling to its Empire in the wake of the second world war, and the result was a comfortable position in the new geopolitical balance of power. The Soviet Union (and for an even earlier example, the Spanish Empire) did and the result was a spectacular collapse.

edited 27th May '16 6:30:13 AM by CaptainCapsase

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#123660: May 27th 2016 at 6:47:19 AM

What the hell does that have to do with Sanders blowing off foreign policy questions by implying that the POTUS doesn't need to know things about other countries?

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#123661: May 27th 2016 at 6:49:03 AM

[up] It doesn't, but I was kinda trying to organically change the topic to the geopolitical future of the United States.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#123662: May 27th 2016 at 6:49:44 AM

Britain's decline was an economic one leading to the vacating of their physical empire. The Soviet Union tried to run a militaristic empire on the back of a failed economic system.

The United States doesn't rely on tanks and bombs to enforce its superpower status, although it has them. Its weapon is the dollar, and its dominance is enforced by the use of the dollar as a global reserve currency. If we abandon that role (though it's not clear how we could do so even if we wanted to, other than by intentionally defaulting on bond payments), we'd throw the world into a rudderless economic chaos that could well result in war or in the emergence of another economic power that would not be guaranteed to be as stable or as friendly to our interests.

In other words, we gain so much advantage from our dominant economic status that throwing it away for the sake of some sort of economic nationalism would be the apex of stupidity, to be talked about in the history books of the future as the greatest mistake ever made by the U.S. political system.

In any event, it's out of our control to an extent: other nations buy our currency because it's perceived as the most stable in the world. If that changes in the future, it'll be caused by our own refusal to deal with our issues, not because we have too many trade deals.

edited 27th May '16 6:51:33 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#123663: May 27th 2016 at 6:55:31 AM

[up] Let's not delude ourselves; the economic dominance of the US comes from its monopoly on military power, not the other way around, which is a state of affairs that was largely a result of the US being the last man standing out of the Great Powers after World War II. Now, I will grant you that a big part of why the United States has been so successful because it further refined the system of soft power that allowed the UK to maintain such a massive global empire, but at a fundamental level, its no different from any other empire in history. In the long term, many trade deals (Not NAFTA, but definitely TPP and others like it) could potentially be disastrous since they force the United States into conflict with the most likely candidate for its replacement as a global hyperpower, namely China.

edited 27th May '16 6:57:52 AM by CaptainCapsase

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#123664: May 27th 2016 at 6:57:52 AM

[up] False. Military dominance may have been what allowed the United States to achieve a friendly international diplomatic environment in the Western world, by shielding it from the aggression of the Communist powers, but that is no longer the case. We could withdraw all our tanks and planes and still be the dominant economic power in the world.

China is in no position to become a superpower; if you believe so, you've been sniffing the conspiracy sites' glue a bit too much. It is in a precarious economic, social, and environmental position that is hugely dependent on the U.S. and other powers to buy its exports. It could grow into a superpower eventually, but doing so will be the work of decades and will require changes that will make it no longer so hostile to our interests.

Like I said, our economic power is ours to spend or squander as we choose. If we elect Trump, we'll call it the day when America's greatness ended. If we elect Sanders, it won't be so bad here in America, but his economic isolationism would have catastrophic consequences for the world at large.

edited 27th May '16 7:01:05 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#123665: May 27th 2016 at 7:00:17 AM

[up] As usual, I'm talking about the long term; ie the course of the 21st century, and over the course of the 21st century, China absolutely does have the potential to supplant the US as a global hyperpower, provided it is able to overcome certain domestic issues.

edited 27th May '16 7:00:50 AM by CaptainCapsase

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#123666: May 27th 2016 at 7:02:39 AM

Again, so what? Are you suggesting that we deal with China's inevitable rise by preemptively abandoning our global position? That doesn't seem very wise.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#123667: May 27th 2016 at 7:04:39 AM

[up] I'm suggesting that the United States begin reducing its overseas involvement, and avoiding trade deals that put it into conflict with rising powers, be it China, India, or others. Totally ending overseas involvement is neither necessary nor wise, but the US absolutely has to start picking and choosing its battles, both economically and militarily. If you try to be strong everywhere, you end up a Master of None, that's one of the oldest maxims of military strategy.

edited 27th May '16 7:07:02 AM by CaptainCapsase

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#123668: May 27th 2016 at 7:07:49 AM

That sounds like surrendering before the opponent even takes the field. I can't even begin to understand why one would think that's a good idea.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#123669: May 27th 2016 at 7:15:22 AM

[up] Because the signs of American overextension are already beginning to show in the recent string of disasters in the middle east, and China's power plays in the South China Sea?

Going back to a previous point you made, the United States could not maintain its dominant economic status without its dominant military; as potent as soft power is, a geopolitical actor must always be capable of backing that up with hard power. If the United States loses its status as the dominant military power, its dominant economic position will follow shortly afterwards, as rival powers will move in using hard power to capitalize on areas of the world where America is weak.

edited 27th May '16 7:20:02 AM by CaptainCapsase

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#123670: May 27th 2016 at 7:18:04 AM

RE: Sanders and isolationism

I think my mom put it best when I told her about that "I'm gonna be running in Vermont" quote—she replied "then stay in Vermont, Bernie." I've got to agree.

Thing is even if you take a fairly extreme, no intervention in the larger world position like Captain Caspase is, Sanders' position there is still bad. The Latin American states are your next door and across the road neighbours. They're not a million miles away and what happens to them effects you. You'll certainly never see a Canadian politician pretending we can just ignore the USA.

RE: Debates

Nice to see Cenk continuing to be an ass. For those of you trying to claim that this wouldn't hurt Clinton, allow me to suggest the following—given how rabidly partisan TYT is—complete with some of its contributors like Dore advocating Sanders or no one—do you really think they'd push for this if they didn't think it would hurt her?

It also doesn't matter if Sanders manages to hurt Trump. He could obliterate Trump, and it still wouldn't stop him from hurting the Democrats. Guys like Cenk and Jimmy Dore will look at Sanders doing well and proclaim "See, we were right, it should be him or nobody" and will keep on pushing for President Trump and the revolution.

If this debate happens I'm pulling for Trump. Because the best possible result is that Trump annihilates Sanders and forces some of his fanboys to realize he can't actually beat Trump in the general.

megarockman from The Sixth Borough (Experienced Trainee)
#123671: May 27th 2016 at 7:19:21 AM

Would there be thought that Trump might try to sandbag such a debate by lobbing softballs?

The damned queen and the relentless knight.
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#123672: May 27th 2016 at 7:21:42 AM

[up][up] That's not my position; in fact, it's vital in the long term, if the United States is indeed doomed to be eclipsed by another power, that the US align itself with that power, and that involves participation in its military conflicts as an ally. Conversely, in a multi-polar world, we see a return to the geopolitics of the "Great Game", where maintaining a balance of power is absolutely critical, which will entail playing rival powers against each other, even as they attempt to do the same.

Imperialism isn't pleasant, but it's often necessary, but the current extent of American involvement overseas is unsustainable, in my opinion.

edited 27th May '16 7:25:05 AM by CaptainCapsase

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#123673: May 27th 2016 at 7:25:00 AM

Umm, no. We've been having military misadventures in the Middle-East for decades; so has every other major power that's tried intervening. Truth be told, our problems stem partially from having too much military influence: we've been selling weapons to all sides to play them against each other for our own benefit since the mid-20th century.

You seem to have this idea that if we can't win every war we wage by ourselves, conquer every nation that wrongs us, and dominate every ocean in the world, that means we're in "decline" as a superpower. News flash: no nation has ever been able to do that.

What having a strong global military presence has allowed us to do is create a favorable environment for our economic presence. Nations that feel that the United States will protect their sovereignty are more willing to trade. Very well, but now that we're all trading happily, the need for that military protection fades.

The geopolitical environment of today looks like one in which wars of global territorial conquest between major nations are all but obsolete. They have been for the past fifty years at least. Modern wars are fought against terrorists and political insurgents; trillion dollar planes, armadas of tanks, and flotillas of warships are useless in such environments.

A world in which the geopolitical situation has decayed enough that we'd ever need to use those weapons is one that there is little point speculating about, since the preconditions for it involve such catastrophe that we'd all be more concerned about eating, or breathing the air, than about what's going on in the North China Sea.

Edit: I'm not even sure why we care, really — if we fall down and China takes our spot, that's the natural consequences of our choices and the march of history. Our children will grow accustomed to their new global leaders, and life will move on. There's no divine mandate making America axiomatically the pinnacle of civilization, to which all genuflect for ever and ever.

edited 27th May '16 7:31:06 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#123674: May 27th 2016 at 7:28:42 AM

The China alarmism thing gets really old.

China's rapid growth is a result of doing 60 years worth of economic catch up in 10 years. Their system was backwards and stunted, and when they made the effort to modernize, they put up huge numbers in economic growth because their numbers were artificially low to begin with. They cannot keep those numbers up, because once they catch up with the rest of the world, the low-hanging fruit is gone and they have no way to sustain that level of growth. There's evidence to suggest that this has already happened and China's current growth is a bubble (which, unless their government does something to curb it, will eventually burst — which will be bad for everyone, but really, really bad for China).

Nor are they in the running for superpower status. They have no force projection. They're a strong regional power because (like Russia) they're the biggest, baddest country in their immediate neighborhood and they're willing to throw their weight around. What they (like Russia) lacks is force projection. They can't reach around the globe like the US can. America can put a significant amount of military power basically anywhere in the world on relatively short notice. We have a system of logistics resources (from foreign bases to aircraft carrier battle groups to a fleet of cargo planes and mid-air refueling tankers) that let us get there firstest with the mostest. No one else can do that. No one else is anywhere near developing the ability to do that.

While you're not wrong in saying that the geopolitical situation could change dramatically in the 21st century, saying that we have to make major policy changes now to preemptively counter something that may happen in the distant future is more than a little silly. You can't spend all your time jumping at shadows. When evidence shows that such things are likely, rather than merely "who knows?! ANYTHING COULD HAPPEN!" paranoia, then we'll deal with them. But trying to do so now is self-defeating.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#123675: May 27th 2016 at 7:29:43 AM

[up][up] Outright territorial conquest became obsolete when the United States discovered other forms of imperialism were capable of achieving the same ends with less resistance, and while direct conflict between great powers seems unlikely, proxy wars happened all the time during the cold war, and will presumably happen even more in a multipolar world. Incidentally, proxy wars are exactly how a rival power would use hard power to displace American soft power in a world where the United States is no longer a military hyperpower. As far as why we should care, well I said it at the beginning: attempting to cling to the American Empire is a surefire way to end up collapsing spectacularly.

[up] If China is able to overcome its economic issues, the sheer demographic mismatch more or less makes it inevitable that it will eclipse the US. That's a pretty big "if", but you also have India as a potential runner up, or even Russia should it manage to pull the former constituents of the Soviet Union into its sphere of influence. The point is, there are enough credible threats to the United States status as a hyperpower in the long term that a mutlipolar future seems quite likely.

edited 27th May '16 7:45:04 AM by CaptainCapsase


Total posts: 417,856
Top