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

TheWanderer Student of Story from Somewhere in New England (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
Student of Story
#124301: Jun 1st 2016 at 11:46:09 AM

For all the horror that a President Trump brings, his ideals are going to redefine the Republican party just by winning the Republican nomination

Maybe, maybe not. Goldwater eventually inspired something very similar to what you fear, but it also took a lot of extenuating circumstances, as well as a then unlikely alliance that went well beyond Goldwater's original base and against some of his ideas.On the other hand, there have been plenty of political fads since then too: Perot, Buchanan, Forbes, Nader, Dean, etc, and that's just counting presidential races. Only time will tell if Trump becomes one of those fads.

That said, the DNC absolutely should absolutely be preparing for the worst and should never have abandoned the 50 state plan they had going on after Kerry's defeat in 2004 until Obama's victory in 2008. From the point of view of progressives, yeah, Blue Dog democrats were a pain in the ass to deal with and never seemed to be entirely on the same page, but it gets your foot in the door. Show competency, start improving people's lives after they've repeatedly seen failure and misery from Republican governing, and you start making change in the culture and growing for the future. The current strategy of refusing to truly work for the state and congressional position of about half the states in the union, and barely working to develop new talent in the other half, is a plan for stagnation and a future lack of leadership. Your strategy just cannot be "Lets hope the other side keeps turning people off when they overplay their hand."

| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#124302: Jun 1st 2016 at 11:53:00 AM

@Ambar: I want "intervention" done as little as possible because the reality is it is never done in the best interest of the beneficiary in mind, nor is it generally aimed at enriching the general populace; all wars across all eras have been decisions made by the elite, for the elite. It has oftentimes been necessary in the course of history for the sake of survival, but in the modern day that simply isn't the case, and we she seem to be better than our ancestors, not repeat their atrocities again and again.

edited 1st Jun '16 11:59:30 AM by CaptainCapsase

ILoveDogs Since: May, 2010
#124303: Jun 1st 2016 at 11:54:33 AM

According to this article, it might be easier to unite the Democrats than it was in 2008.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#124304: Jun 1st 2016 at 11:55:01 AM

[up][up] So? The U.S. is allowed to have national interests that supersede its interest in being nice to other nations. Now, if we do that too much, we'll cause problems for ourselves, but the world isn't a field of green grass, butterflies, and rainbows that we single-handedly set alight with our blundering.

edited 1st Jun '16 11:55:10 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
CrimsonZephyr Would that it were so simple. from Massachusetts Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
Would that it were so simple.
#124305: Jun 1st 2016 at 11:56:48 AM

Honestly, I think it's more a sense that Democrats have been licked so badly in the South and Midwest, and the views of the people there are so alien to the liberal baseline that really offering much of a challenge is just a losing proposition and somewhat worthless. Why bother if the people down there are just going to vote in the same cretinous Republican douchebag year after year?

edited 1st Jun '16 11:57:36 AM by CrimsonZephyr

"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#124306: Jun 1st 2016 at 12:00:47 PM

Because sometimes they don't.

edited 1st Jun '16 12:07:25 PM by SeptimusHeap

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#124307: Jun 1st 2016 at 12:02:26 PM

[up][up][up] No, but in most cases it's much better off without us; you are buying into a clever modification of the "white man's burden"; it's for their own good, they say, as they mow down the defenseless enemy by the thousands because a local election didn't go as planned.

It's in the same boat as 19h century Imperialism; it's undeniably unavoidable in some cases, but it's not something to be proud of, and it should be kept to a minimum.

edited 1st Jun '16 12:06:09 PM by CaptainCapsase

CrimsonZephyr Would that it were so simple. from Massachusetts Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
Would that it were so simple.
#124308: Jun 1st 2016 at 12:02:45 PM

[up][up]Err, your formatting's off.

edited 1st Jun '16 12:03:06 PM by CrimsonZephyr

"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
TheWanderer Student of Story from Somewhere in New England (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
Student of Story
#124309: Jun 1st 2016 at 12:03:40 PM

People who worked at Trump U flat out admit it was a scam in released court documents, as do documents used by the people who ran it

Documents released Tuesday night, which Donald Trump fought to keep secret, show how recruiters were instructed to upsell potential "students" to a $35,000 mentorship, whether they could afford it or not.

"The risk isn't spending $35K — it's entering into the world of REAL ESTATE without specialized knowledge, guidance, and trained professionals in the field holding your hands," a "playbook" for salespeople told representatives of Trump University to say. "WE are the safe decision. Fear is preventing you from investing in yourself."

Even for-profit colleges offer college degrees and expect students to do something to earn them. Trump University had nothing to do with higher education — it was a series of get-rich-quick investment seminars with two goals. One was to identify prospects with the money to spend on Trump's seminars. The other was to get them to spend as much of it as possible.

The first seminar was free. The second, which was three days long, cost $1,500. The crown jewel was the year-long partnership with an adviser hand-picked by Donald Trump, an experience that cost $35,000. Even after they paid tens of thousands of dollars, students would be pushed to buy even more products.

The new trove of documents shows how they went about those sales, with hard-sell tactics that played on people's hopes for a better future. Recruiters were trained in the art of the high-pressure scam and were told to toy with their prospects' emotions and urge them to run up their credit cards.

Then Trump University didn't deliver on its promises. "To my knowledge, not a single consumer who paid for a Trump University seminar program went on to successfully invest in real estate based upon the techniques that were taught," Ronald Schnackenberg, a former sales manager for Trump University, said in a deposition unsealed on Tuesday.

Jason Nicholas, a former sales executive whose testimony was also unsealed, was even more blunt: "The Trump University instructors and mentors were a joke. … It was a facade, a total lie."

| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#124310: Jun 1st 2016 at 12:04:46 PM

Not a formatting issue. The forum just doesn't work with apostrophe-containing links.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
TotemicHero No longer a forum herald from the next level Since: Dec, 2009
No longer a forum herald
#124311: Jun 1st 2016 at 12:05:58 PM

I suggest using TinyURL or such to get around it.

Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)
CrimsonZephyr Would that it were so simple. from Massachusetts Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
Would that it were so simple.
#124312: Jun 1st 2016 at 12:10:36 PM

[up][up]Okay. And yes, you have a point.

How many people bought into Trump U? That's a lot of money to spend on nothing.

"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#124313: Jun 1st 2016 at 12:10:59 PM

I should add however, that I am not a pacifist; just extremely skeptical of any claim that an armed invasion of another sovereign nation is being done in the best interest of anyone other than the Politicial class.

As far as the situation in Syria goes, we are only going to make matters worse by sending troops, and the "bombing" campaign would be better described as a clever way around our rules against Politicial assassinations. I will give Obama credit for bothering to adhere to the rule of the law in that regard rather than just flat out ignoring it as is the norm.

edited 1st Jun '16 12:14:03 PM by CaptainCapsase

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#124314: Jun 1st 2016 at 12:13:04 PM

As far as the situation in Syria goes, we are only going to make matters worse by sending troops, and the "bombing" campaign would be better described as a clever way around our rules against Politicial assassinations.

Does this analysis consider the death toll and consequences of not sending troops and not bombing? Omission bias is a fallacy after all.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
ILoveDogs Since: May, 2010
#124315: Jun 1st 2016 at 12:13:23 PM

The question about Trump U is how much it'll hurt him in the election.

Hodor2 Since: Jan, 2015
#124316: Jun 1st 2016 at 12:15:18 PM

Edit- Self-thumping. Probably shouldn't have made my original post in the first place.

edited 1st Jun '16 12:19:45 PM by Hodor2

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#124317: Jun 1st 2016 at 12:15:54 PM

[up][up][up] If we send troops to Syria, we either help ISIS and other jihadist groups by further destabilizing the region or Al-Assad by relieving the pressure on his regime. The latter isn't in in "our" interests (thus not an option) since he's aligned with Russia. The only winning move is not to play (directly). Working through regional powers (all of whom have a common enemy in Isis besides the Saudis) to estsblish a new balance of lied in he region, as Sanders suggested in fact, is the only viable option that might give us at least semi-long term peace in he middle-east.

edited 1st Jun '16 12:25:06 PM by CaptainCapsase

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#124318: Jun 1st 2016 at 12:35:53 PM

And in the meantime, screw all the people who are getting massacred by a genocidal regime. Because it's not "in your interest" to help them.

Earlier on you talked about airstrikes being a substitute for targeted assassination as though that were a bad thing. If you guys blow up any of ISIS' leading figures, I for one, am not going to shed any tears over it.

The so-called Islamic State has already completely destabilized the region. They're already engaged in campaigns of ethnic and religious cleansing. Could things get worse? In theory I suppose, but until something worse actually manages to rear its ugly head, this is the nightmare scenario for the region.

I'm not going to pretend Assad is anything other than a monster, but the sheer insanity of the ISIS leadership has managed the feat of making him the lesser of two evils. And that's not getting into their operations in Iraq where, as crooked and ineffective as that government is, they're a whole lot better than ISIS.

I'm all for criticizing American foreign policy, especially when it comes to intervention. The Iraq War was a disaster. Pick-your-Cold-War intervention was a disaster. But ISIS needs to go, and if the USA can help it go, more power to you.

LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#124319: Jun 1st 2016 at 1:04:40 PM

We'd only be destabilizing if we packed up and left once we were done killing ISIS.

Foreign intervention and occupation is about the only hope of stability Syria has right now. Be it from us and the rest of NATO or a Russian puppet.

Oh really when?
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#124320: Jun 1st 2016 at 1:18:51 PM

[up] The Politicial mechanisms of a democracy simply don't allow for a protracted offensive war to be fought, so we would indeed pull out rather quickly compared the decades long occupation that would be required to make a stable Syria. This is exacberated particularly because the MIC is one of the biggest lobbies in Washington, and it's in their best interest to facilitate a Forever War against communism, terrorism, and leftist governments. The best hope comes partially from NATO, that much is true, but the role of the US would best be that of support; it is in the interest of Turkey, Iran, and Israel to stop ISIS. Take advantage of that convergence of interests, and seek to Win Without Fighting. If properly manipulated, there is at least some hope that a stable balance of power can be achieved in the region.

[up][up] Do yourself a favor and take a course or two centered on modern geopolitics; you'll realize quickly enough that even the most seemingly noble actions on the part of one country are part of a greater and wholly selfish agenda. Were it in the geopolitical interests of the US, we would be backing ISIS without a second thought for the people they're butchering, though there's be a concerted effort to downplay their atrocities as was done with the many genocidal regimes the US supported in he past. I am against intervention when it can be avoided precisely because, except under very precise circumstances where interests align with the common good, it does far more harm than good. Stopping ISIS ourselves benefits Al-Assad, and for better or worse, that's not an option because of geopolitical reasons unless we intend to also depose the Syrian government at the same time, repeating the mistakes of Iraq when a wary weary public inevitably votes the party which initiated the intervention out of office after a decade of guerilla warfare, and the cycle begins anew.

If we want a long term solution in Syria, middle eastern nations need to be the ones dealing with it; because it immediately effects them, and because several of them are non-democratic (the Saudis on our side, Iran nonaligned, though neither would make for a particularly reliable ally) they will not lose the will to keep an occupation going as long as necessary, provided the US is footing the bill.

edited 1st Jun '16 1:57:42 PM by CaptainCapsase

Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#124321: Jun 1st 2016 at 2:09:22 PM

[up]

The Politicial mechanisms of a democracy simply don't allow for a protracted offensive war to be fought, so we would indeed pull out rather quickly compared the decades long occupation that would be required to make a stable Syria.

Like in Japan and Germany?

I am against intervention when it can be avoided precisely because, except under very precise circumstances where interests align with the common good

Such as Kuwait and the First Gulf War?

Keep Rolling On
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#124322: Jun 1st 2016 at 2:23:45 PM

[up] Japan and Germany worked because the US spent decades investing into them, and they already had the intellectual and skilled labor base for advanced economies.

[up] The Balkans might be a better example. Seriously, look at what's usually going on in subsaharan Africa at any given time podt war history; the United States, like all past and all contemporary states, does not act out of compassion. It doesn't act out of malice either, but it's far easier to harm people by not caring about them than it is to help them.

edited 1st Jun '16 2:37:36 PM by CaptainCapsase

CrimsonZephyr Would that it were so simple. from Massachusetts Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
Would that it were so simple.
#124323: Jun 1st 2016 at 2:42:55 PM

American geopolitical strategy in general is critically hampered by the expectation that we will be able to set up a Western-style democracy atop the ruins of the old world. Look at Libya — we helped them kill Gaddafi, and now, the country's torn apart because there's simply no political consensus anywhere on who's really in charge, and a fair number of them are Islamists. No democracy there. Look at Egypt. Our boy Mubarak's been gone a long time, but they've had two separate military juntas, and their sole attempt at democracy led to an Islamist victory. At best, a People's Republic of Tyranny, and the exhausted country just basically cried uncle when al-Sisi came to power, so no democracy there. We tried to fund democratic anti-Assad rebels in Syria, but that amounts to like three people, ISIS took a third of the country, and Assad has Russian support, so no democracy there. America needs to accept that, politically, the Middle East is completely alien in its thinking, and their first inclination after having their societies ripped apart by civil war isn't to make a US-friendly government.

Honestly, it's probably better if we just admit defeat and move on. We won't accomplish anything there, and probably, neither will any of the regional powers.

"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#124324: Jun 1st 2016 at 2:49:02 PM

The US can and does do good across the world, we just never hear about it because of the rule of it bleeds it leads. Libya was not a hard issue to solve if we had shown nearly as much focus and care as we had in the war part of the conflict. By fleeing quickly without even behind the scenes support ensured that none of the bureaucrats running the interrim administration were going to be able to create a stable government. The US is way too much in a hurry, in short. France ousted AQIM out of Mali years ago, but they are still there trying to get the Malian military and government up to speed and to make sure their "side" of the ceasefire agreement is holding their end of the bargain, lest the Tuareg revolt again, allowing for the same power vacuum as in 2012.

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#124325: Jun 1st 2016 at 2:50:14 PM

@Captain Caspase

You know the level of condescension in that post is really breathtaking. "Take a course or two?" Really? I'm in the middle of my masters right now. Doing a thesis on Britain's campaign against Turkey in WWI. With a prof whose entire field of study is the Middle East, and with whom I've taken numerous courses. I also wrote a paper in fourth year analyzing media reactions to 9/11 and Osama bin Laden, and won a small prize for it. Wrote another one last year looking at the fallout from both American and Soviet imperialism in the Middle East during the Cold War. You may not like my opinion, but don't suggest I haven't done my reading.

As to your notion that it is geopolitically unacceptable to help Assad by stopping ISIS...I guess somebody forgot to tell Obama that? Seriously, listen to yourself. You're advocating that countries only act within their own interests, saying it's not in the Americans interests to help Assad, advocating intervention will only help Assad...and yet here we are with an intervention. Which, yeah, is probably being done because of interests America has in the region. To which I say, so what? This isn't a case where the US is toppling a stable regime and allowing something worse to arise from it. It's an intervention against a group that's nasty even by the standards of the region, that nobody in the region wants to be successful, and that is creating more chaos. The usual blowback isn't really a concern here.

edited 1st Jun '16 2:53:55 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar


Total posts: 417,856
Top