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

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#123851: May 28th 2016 at 8:09:12 PM

[up][up] Why is it exactly you feel such extreme loyalty to the democratic party? Do you really think they're that much better than the Republicans outside of race issues?*

* (and I'd argue the DNC would love nothing more than to maintain the status quo of race issues where voting for their opposition or straying from the party line is too terrifying for minorities to even consider; political parties engage in the very same sort of ruthless realpolitik calculus that nation states and corporations do.)

edited 28th May '16 8:11:46 PM by CaptainCapsase

GameGuruGG Vampire Hunter from Castlevania (Before Recorded History)
Vampire Hunter
#123852: May 28th 2016 at 8:09:49 PM

Nader wasn't that popular even in 2000 where he got 2.74% of the vote. Conversely, one could say Sanders is actually smarter than Nader in that rather than run as an Independent, he joined the Democratic Party to run on his particular political platform. The same could be said of Trump in comparison to, say Ross Perot, who was a rich guy who ran as an Independent. This election is where the would-be Independent candidates actually got smart and just joined one of the two major parties to run on their particular political platforms.

Wizard Needs Food Badly
ILoveDogs Since: May, 2010
#123853: May 28th 2016 at 8:13:03 PM

[up][up] Well, until the United States suddenly adopts socialism or communism or anarchism, it's the best we've got, and I will fight the Republican Party with passion and fervor.

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#123854: May 28th 2016 at 8:14:17 PM

[up] Which, I'd argue is exactly how the DNC likes things to be; when their opposition is "literally Hitler", as long as they can keep them from actually winning, they can do pretty much whatever they want and have the loyalty of the population. It's the exact same sort of fear-mongering that the GOP uses to mobilize their base, just directed internally rather than at an external boogeyman.

edited 28th May '16 8:15:07 PM by CaptainCapsase

ILoveDogs Since: May, 2010
#123855: May 28th 2016 at 8:16:02 PM

I'm fine with that. Doing the whole "well, really both sides are bad" thing ignores that one is vastly, vastly less bad than the other. Regardless one's thoughts on corporate ties and capitalism and centrism, the point is that we've got to do what we've got to do to even get to where we can make real changes.

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#123856: May 28th 2016 at 8:17:12 PM

[up] When both sides are bad, and they actively stifle attempts to dislodge them, that's when you call for a revolution. Ideally a velvet revolution (political revolution), since violent revolutions tend to be rather big on the whole Revolve thing.

edited 28th May '16 8:18:09 PM by CaptainCapsase

ILoveDogs Since: May, 2010
#123857: May 28th 2016 at 8:19:20 PM

We were never going to get revolution by putting some old crank from Vermont in the White House and letting it sort itself out. We get it through decades and decades of pushes and changes in the status quo. We're already on our way to a velvet revolution!

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#123858: May 28th 2016 at 8:20:41 PM

[up] An old Crank from Vermont who ended up appointing 4 supreme court justices or one who was elected alongside a wave of progressive democrats* in a mass movement absolutely could enact major change. Unfortunately, things just didn't align this cycle.

* Preferably the latter since the executive branch is really not supposed to get that kind of power, but it's a far more realistic scenario for how Sanders' agenda could happen in our current political situation.

edited 28th May '16 8:22:00 PM by CaptainCapsase

JackOLantern1337 Shameful Display from The Most Miserable Province in the Russian Empir Since: Aug, 2014 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
Shameful Display
#123859: May 28th 2016 at 8:21:57 PM

I must be the only one here who isn't routing for some kind of socialist/communist/anarchist revolution.

Millennial political views This was before the whole Bernie Sanders phenomenon so things might have changed. While Millennia's might prefer socialism, only 16 percent know what socialism actually is. Likewise we like free markets, just so long as you don't call it capitalism.

edited 28th May '16 8:25:26 PM by JackOLantern1337

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#123860: May 28th 2016 at 8:23:19 PM

[up] @Ambar, @Fighteer @CrimsomZephyr, and so on definitely are firm supporters of capitalism from what I've heard of them. Which is their right; only time will tell who is on the "right" and who is on the "wrong" side of history.

Also note that I'd very much prefer to have a velvet revolution, which would probably be a fairly gradual process.

edited 28th May '16 8:26:04 PM by CaptainCapsase

ILoveDogs Since: May, 2010
#123861: May 28th 2016 at 8:25:40 PM

I've got no idea where I stand on capitalism. Well, that's not entirely true-I do hate all its ills, but I feel like it's too deeply entrenched in our society to get rid of.

JackOLantern1337 Shameful Display from The Most Miserable Province in the Russian Empir Since: Aug, 2014 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
Shameful Display
#123862: May 28th 2016 at 8:25:46 PM

[up] Indeed.

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#123863: May 28th 2016 at 8:27:56 PM

[up][up] The Ancien Régime-which I'm using here to describe the economic system that preceded capitalism-was entrenched in society for thousands of years. It took less than a century to dislodge it, which liberated the bourgeois from oppression by the aristocratic class. Personally, I think, at our present juncture in time, capitalism, for all its flaws, is still the only workable system, but I believe that's going to change over the course of the 21st century due to automation, artificial intelligence, and the explosion of information processing technology.

edited 28th May '16 8:29:55 PM by CaptainCapsase

ILoveDogs Since: May, 2010
#123864: May 28th 2016 at 8:29:40 PM

And a bunch of people got their heads cut off. It's not like I wouldn't like to see more socialist elements, it's just that we can't make a systemic change so suddenly.

smokeycut Since: Mar, 2013
#123865: May 28th 2016 at 8:29:58 PM

Capitalism isn't bad, so long as there are actually regulations. I'm in favor of making our country more like Britain or France or Canada, but not going into full on Socialism.

ILoveDogs Since: May, 2010
#123866: May 28th 2016 at 8:31:54 PM

But keep in mind that there's a lot of issues in Britain and France, too, regarding capitalism.

Demonic_Braeburn Yankee Doodle Dandy from Defective California Since: Jan, 2016
Yankee Doodle Dandy
#123867: May 28th 2016 at 8:32:00 PM

The Libertarian Party is currently holding there convention:

Here are the candidates:

Gary Johnson (Former Governor of New Mexico)

Austin Petersen (Founder of the "The Libertarian Republic" magazine)

John Mc Affee (Creator of the Mc Affee antivirus program)

Darryl Perry (Co-founder and co-chair of the New Hampshire Liberty Party)

Marc Allan Feldman (Anesthesiologist at the Cleveland Clinic)

edited 28th May '16 8:32:27 PM by Demonic_Braeburn

Any group who acts like morons ironically will eventually find itself swamped by morons who think themselves to be in good company.
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#123868: May 28th 2016 at 8:32:08 PM

[up][up][up] Going into the future though? When we start automating a large portion of jobs, information technology improves to the point where a (horizontally or vertically, whichever you prefer) planned economy or market socialism is actually feasible, and the cost of producing any particular product begins to approach zero?

edited 28th May '16 8:36:22 PM by CaptainCapsase

flameboy21th The would-be novelist from California Since: Jan, 2013 Relationship Status: I <3 love!
The would-be novelist
#123869: May 28th 2016 at 8:37:34 PM

That would be a very far future. Assuming minimum wage and oil price increases, plus realty and advertising, there will be costs.

edited 28th May '16 8:39:18 PM by flameboy21th

Non Indicative Username
JackOLantern1337 Shameful Display from The Most Miserable Province in the Russian Empir Since: Aug, 2014 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
Shameful Display
#123870: May 28th 2016 at 8:41:49 PM

We really need to establish some limits for AI. If we become dependent on the machines we become vulnerable, ether to them being turned off, or them turning against us.

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#123871: May 28th 2016 at 8:42:53 PM

[up][up] We're already at the point where the cost of giving someone a tolerable life is extremely low; I'd say within a century, we're going to be at the point where it costs basically nothing to give somebody a comfortable lifestyle.

[up] The AI rebellion scenario is really not remotely realistic; unless it were specifically designed as such, AI would not have a mind or qualia (probably), nor is there any reason it needs to be a person. If AI destroys us, it'll be because someone told it to make as many paperclips as possible, in accordance with which the AI converts the entire mass of the Earth, biosphere and all, into paperclips.

edited 28th May '16 8:45:00 PM by CaptainCapsase

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#123872: May 28th 2016 at 8:43:47 PM

@Silasw

Hate is far, far too strong a word. When you say you hate somebody, it generally implies, at least to me, that you want that person to be hit by a bus so that you can then dance on their grave. I do not feel that way about Sanders. I dislike him. I think he's a deeply problematic candidate who has tapped into some very ugly resentments among supposedly progressive voters. I think that, whether it's his fault or not, he's stirred up a very rabid fanbase that continues sending women, African-Americans, and LGBT people who disagree with them death threats for refusing to admit that Sanders, and only Sanders is their lord and saviour. And that needs to stop.

As to why it's personal for me, it's pretty simple—I hate it when things are unfair as much as the next guy. But what I hate more than anything else is someone claiming things are unfair when in fact things are rigged in their favour. Sanders has gotten a free pass from a media that's far too busy digging up every negative story they could say about Clinton. Can you imagine if it was Clinton who had voted to have nuclear waste shipped to a Latino community in Texas? Ignoring whether it was actually dangerous, can you imagine what the press would have said about her? What Sanders would have said about her? About how it was evidence of her being a corporate shill who did not care about non-white folks? Can you imagine what they'd have said about her if she had his stance on gun control? Hell, can you imagine what they'd say about her if she shouted like he does, had an accent like he does, had her hair like he does? Sanders being a straight, white man has gotten him a lot of passes that aren't given to other Democrats, be it Obama or Clinton, and yet if you listen to him, if you listen to his supporters, if you listen to people like TYT, or Secular Talk, or for a depressingly long time, people on MSNBC (that's more or less done now, thankfully), he's the poor mistreated underdog.

All politicians have skeletons in their closets. Sometimes those skeletons are legion in number. Sanders, like any other politician has them. Be it the stuff he said about rape in the 70s, his pushing of alternate medicine (including restricting access to painkillers; one of his surrogates told a disabled person who was in pain to "just do yoga"), his checkered history with gun control, his tone-deafness on race, there are plenty of skeletons to choose from. Yet outside of forums like this one, and a couple of blog sites, you won't hear those things discussed. We'll obsess over Clinton's emails. We'll accuse her of being a bought and paid for corporate puppet. In some cases we'll even revive twenty year old "scandals" and repeat them as reality. But when it's Sanders? Let's just talk about how big his last rally was and how many people he attracted to it. We'll hold Clinton responsible for things her husband did, but ignore how Sanders' wife ran Burlington College. Etc, etc, etc.

Put more succinctly, there is someone who has been treated unfairly by the media this election cycle, and it ain't Bernie Sanders. Now I don't necessarily begrudge the man getting some good press, but by God I do begrudge people using that good press as "evidence" of what a great candidate he'd be in the general, or as "proof" that he's so much more to the left than Clinton (93% identical voting records, people). Whether it's the idiots who keep posting about him on my Facebook feed—often accompanied with frighteningly racist or sexist BS about Clinton and those who back her—or the idiots who won't stop talking about him on TYT et al—often accompanied again by frighteningly racist or sexist stuff about Clinton and her supporters, I'm dead sick of it. And I find it sad that, even in forums like this one, their basic premises that she is corrupt, a shill, a political hack, while he is ideologically pure, void of special interest ties, the One True Progressive, seems to be, to one degree or another, accepted. That's not a specific comment on any one poster by the way, just a general attitude I've noticed both lurking and commenting. I went back through the forum and counted at one point the number of positive things said or posted about Sanders vs the number of positive things said or posted about Clinton. I eventually lost count it was so one sided.

I don't want to convince people Sanders is the anti-Christ. I'd take him over Trump any day. I am trying to point out that there are genuine problems with him as a candidate, and get a discussion going about that. At this I seem to be having some success and I'm very glad about that. Because his flaws should be discussed and they should be out in the open, and if we're going to talk about whether he or Clinton is better we should be talking about their actual merits, and not the narrative he's worked so hard to construct.

@Captain Capsase

I was a Marxist until Grade 10 or 11. I got over it. I'm still a card-carrying member of the NDP, the farthest left of Canada's major political parties. I've voted for guys who make Sanders look positively conservative. Two federal elections ago I backed this guy for Prime Minister.

Thing is, I don't see what you seem to see when you look at Sanders. You may see a revolution, but I see a deeply entitled man who doesn't understand that there are divides in the world that go beyond class. I see a man whose supporters like telling African-Americans, Hispanics, women, and the disabled what is best for them, while doing very little to help. I see a guy who was one of the most ineffective legislators in Congress, who refused to compromise in order to get things done, and in consequence, got nothing done. I see a man who denounces flaws in others that he possesses in abundance himself, and who has taken full advantage of—and I'm loathe to use these words—his white male privilege to try and take the nomination of a party he's done little to help, despite consistently demanding their help in return.

I have no problems with far-left, anti-capitalist candidates. I happily cast my vote for Jack Layton. But Bernie Sanders is no Jack Layton.

edited 28th May '16 8:45:25 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

flameboy21th The would-be novelist from California Since: Jan, 2013 Relationship Status: I <3 love!
The would-be novelist
#123873: May 28th 2016 at 8:45:31 PM

Does Jack Layton have a PhD?

Non Indicative Username
GameGuruGG Vampire Hunter from Castlevania (Before Recorded History)
Vampire Hunter
#123874: May 28th 2016 at 8:46:19 PM

I personally think capitalism works when it is allowed to work and not hampered by oligarchies keeping new competitors out of the market.

Wizard Needs Food Badly
JackOLantern1337 Shameful Display from The Most Miserable Province in the Russian Empir Since: Aug, 2014 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
Shameful Display
#123875: May 28th 2016 at 8:47:16 PM

Capitalism is a very Sith like system at the end of the day. Without a referee to keep things fair, once somebody wins the game, they try their best to rig the game so nobody can unseat them the way they unseated their predecessors.

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.

Total posts: 417,856
Top