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
#124701: Jun 5th 2016 at 1:54:37 PM

[up] I tend to agree, but it's not just the way the Clintons have been fundraising this particular cycle that makes me skeptical of their commitment to campaign finance reform. They are a big part of the reason the problem's gotten so bad in the present, having pioneered the dominant fundraising strategies of modern American political campaigns.

edited 5th Jun '16 1:56:03 PM by CaptainCapsase

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#124702: Jun 5th 2016 at 1:54:54 PM

@Septimus: Sanders going for a superdelegate vote when he's lost the popular vote and the delegate count is indeed hypocritical, because his entire tilt against the superdelegates windmill was based on the fact that they were contrary to the will of the people. Now he's saying that he wants to be nominated by said undemocratic process even though the pledged delegates and the popular vote are against him.

If Sanders had taken a majority of the delegates, he'd have a reason to court superdelegates. If he'd lost the majority of delegates but still won the popular vote, he'd have a case. As it stands, though, he's got no argument (unless you want to say that "because there were irregularitiesnote , the whole process is void, and because the process is void, I should be nominated regardless" counts as an argument).

So yeah, Sanders is a fucking hypocrite and he has finally managed to lose my support - that's quite an accomplishment, given how hard of a boot I want slammed into business as usual.

@Ambar/Kostya/Capsase: Keep in mind that the New Deal happened, in large part, with the consent of big business - as an alternative to, y'know, factory occupations and violent revolution.

edited 5th Jun '16 1:57:56 PM by Ramidel

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#124703: Jun 5th 2016 at 1:56:14 PM

I don't think campaign financinh works like bribery anyway. More like a kickback - you're rewarding a candidate who agrees with you, not trying to convince a candidate of your position.

"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
#124704: Jun 5th 2016 at 1:56:56 PM

[up] It's not significantly different from bribery, as far as the psychology of it goes.

[up][up] That's another good point; the new deal was very much the product of the economic elite, a last ditch effort to avoid a violent revolution.

edited 5th Jun '16 1:59:11 PM by CaptainCapsase

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#124705: Jun 5th 2016 at 1:58:18 PM

Just got linked to this article. Best quote from it: "If you mention the Bernie Bros online, fifty people fitting the profile pop up with abusive comments informing you that they don’t exist."

vandro Shop Owner from The little shop that wasn't Since: Jul, 2009
Shop Owner
#124706: Jun 5th 2016 at 2:01:17 PM

I am glad I am hispanic, so I don't exist.

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#124707: Jun 5th 2016 at 2:02:16 PM

[up][up][up]Precisely. Democrats are more likely to work for the people when they're scared of us.

Given that, I expect Hillary to attempt to carry out at least some of the leftist reforms that Bernie made her commit to. Bernie may have lost, but I think he clearly had enough support to tell the Democratic Party that hey, the progressives still exist and they're not happy.

edited 5th Jun '16 2:03:12 PM by Ramidel

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#124708: Jun 5th 2016 at 2:03:10 PM

The Glass-Steagal thing was invented as a campaign lie in 2008?

"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
#124710: Jun 5th 2016 at 2:08:13 PM

@Ambar: You know, I think we disagree on a fundamental level here; you think a militant left is a bad thing, and that if we all sit down and let politicians do their job, they'll eventually get us what they want. I couldn't disagree more. A militant population ready to rise up in violent revolt is oftentimes the only thing capable of extracting meaningful reform from the political and economic elites; the New Deal is in fact the perfect example of that coming to pass. A violent revolution is something to be avoided if possible, but it's also necessary to put the fear of one into the elite in order for meaningful change to happen.

edited 5th Jun '16 2:10:48 PM by CaptainCapsase

smokeycut Since: Mar, 2013
#124711: Jun 5th 2016 at 2:10:17 PM

Or, hear me out here, or we could not threaten to rise up and hurt people just because we're not getting what we want. Violent revolution should never be something you want. Especially considering how any violent revolution in our country would end with the revolutionaries winding up dead on the floor within a day.

When you say "militant population", the first thing that comes to mind are those racist rednecks who the cops took down not too long ago.

edited 5th Jun '16 2:11:28 PM by smokeycut

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#124712: Jun 5th 2016 at 2:13:00 PM

[up] I'd count #blacklivesmatter and the various people who were rioting in the wake of the Ferguson shooting as a "militant population" as well, and definitely a left leaning example of militancy, and look what it's gotten them; criminal justice reform has rocketed up to the top of the democratic party's platform.

edited 5th Jun '16 2:15:00 PM by CaptainCapsase

smokeycut Since: Mar, 2013
#124713: Jun 5th 2016 at 2:14:49 PM

Protesting and being attacked by racist police is not the same as violently revolting because Bernie Sanders lost an election fair and square.

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#124714: Jun 5th 2016 at 2:15:18 PM

[up] That's not what I'm suggesting, not even close; what I'm saying is that protests and even riots are not something to condemn if you believe in the progressive cause. Both of which are indicators of population's militancy. Violent revolutions are what happen when the political elite refuse to make concessions to the population.

edited 5th Jun '16 2:18:54 PM by CaptainCapsase

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#124715: Jun 5th 2016 at 2:16:00 PM

That Glass-Steagal thing sounds very unbelievable to me. Is there evidence?

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#124716: Jun 5th 2016 at 2:18:42 PM

@Septimus

Here's Alan Binder from Princeton (who was quote in the article) on how Glass-Steagal would have prevented nothing.

Here's one of the fact checkers (again linked in the article) debunking Sanders' claim that Glass-Steagal's repeal caused the financial crisis. There's links to a bunch of other fact checkers who reach the same conclusion in the article. In fact, here's another one.

@Captain Capsase

I have no problem with a militant left. I have a problem with whining. And right around January of this year the Sanders campaign began a rapid descent into whining. Whining about how the system is rigged against them. Whining about how unfair the voting is. Whining about how if they don't win it's proof of innate systemic corruption—while ignoring when their campaign takes advantage of said innate systemic corruption, be it in caucuses or other formats. Rather than continuing to try and sell their message, the Sanders campaign has degenerated into entitled complaining about how they deserve to win the election, and that if that isn't the result they get, then everything must be rigged. It's a damn shame, because early last year I actually liked Sanders. I thought he was a breath of fresh air. Now I think he's little different from Trump—not politically, obviously, but in the childish way he reacts to losing.

The Sanders campaign has painted a narrative wherein anything less than victory on their part is evidence of corruption. Wherein criticism of Sanders from those minority groups he has not successfully reached out to is proof they "just don't get it". Wherein chanting "speak English" at a Latino woman is acceptable, progressive behaviour because she's a Clinton supporter. Wherein Jeff Weaver can go on air and tell people that Barbara Boxer wasn't actually scared in Nevada because she didn't look sufficiently worried for his tastes. Wherein superdelegates are tools of a crooked establishment right up until Sanders needs them. This is not militant leftist protest. This is entitled, and I have to say it again, this is whining.

I'm a member of the Canadian hard-left. My party has never won a federal election. Somehow, I resist the urge to act the way that some of Sanders' most prominent supporters have.

edited 5th Jun '16 2:23:28 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#124717: Jun 5th 2016 at 2:19:50 PM

@ Capsase: Are you a fan of the Alternate History Reds!?

edited 5th Jun '16 2:20:02 PM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On
LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#124718: Jun 5th 2016 at 2:20:35 PM

[up][up]When did the "Speak English" thing happen?

edited 5th Jun '16 2:20:52 PM by LSBK

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#124719: Jun 5th 2016 at 2:20:46 PM

"right up until"?

"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
#124720: Jun 5th 2016 at 2:25:56 PM

@Ambar: I don't particularly like the sore loser attitude either, but it's definitely gotten some results; a losing candidate has never in the history of the primaries gotten to appoint anyone to the party's platform committee, and several states are working on legislature to force superdelegates to vote with their state's pledged delegates in future elections.

@Greenmantle: Never heard of it, though I don't buy the notion that an actual violent revolution would be anything other than a People's Republic of Tyranny or a Full-Circle Revolution. Possibly both.

edited 5th Jun '16 2:27:54 PM by CaptainCapsase

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#124721: Jun 5th 2016 at 2:27:00 PM

[up][up][up]Here you go. According to Huerta it happened in February; she's been attacked by Sanders surrogates ever since.

[up][up]I'm assuming you're responding to my superdelegates comment? He kept saying they were corrupt and bad. Then his campaign strategy pivoted to "winning the superdelegates regardless of the popular vote or pledged delegates".

[up]And look who he's decided to appoint. I mean Cornel West? Because that really demonstrates Sanders' dedication to getting things done.

See if Sanders were doing something productive, channeling the whining towards something more useful, I wouldn't be half as irritated with him as I am.

edited 5th Jun '16 2:29:04 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#124722: Jun 5th 2016 at 2:30:56 PM

Yes, 'twas about superdelegates. If memory serves he was complaining about their existence even while appealing to them, hence the question.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Hodor2 Since: Jan, 2015
#124723: Jun 5th 2016 at 2:31:22 PM

For it's worth, there's some despite over the "English only" claim- It's from Snopes- they say it is false and there doesn't seem to be an recorded evidence of it happening, although Huerta says it did- it's kind of a "he said; she said" thing.

I think it's a terrible and stupid idea that politicians can/should be responsive to the people based on a fear of violence. It's long been a popular argument by right wing Tea Party types and I'm surprised to hear it from a Sanders supporter (although I probably shouldn't be).

This is a democracy/democratic republic, so at least in theory "we" are the politicians, and political change happens through individuals running for office and people campaigning for them in conjunction with those people and candidates supporting specific policy issues.

Despite the stereotype, people who go into politics are almost always well intentioned, and so it seems like a terrible way of indicating preferences to make them feel like the people they purport to serve hate and want to kill them. And if they aren't well-intentioned, do you really think threats of violence make them any more receptive?

edited 5th Jun '16 2:38:15 PM by Hodor2

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#124724: Jun 5th 2016 at 2:31:27 PM

[up][up][up] Whatever you may think of him, West is an actual, honest to God socialist, and pretty much the only one I can think of (other than Sanders himself) whose a registered democrat, which as I understand, is a requirement for being on the platform committee.

edited 5th Jun '16 2:33:25 PM by CaptainCapsase

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#124725: Jun 5th 2016 at 2:36:32 PM

[up][up]Since Huerta doesn't exactly have a reason to lie, my best bet is that some morons said it, and that the refusal of everyone else to shut them up made it seem a bigger deal to her than it was. Of course, the Sanders campaign rather than saying "a couple of people said something dumb, sorry about that" instead doubled down, complete with surrogate Rosario Dawson deciding to tell Huerta that her statements made her a tool of the establishment.

[up]He also called Obama "the first niggerized president". And accused him of being afraid of real black people. And of being culturally white. And of causing infant mortality among African-Americans to rise. Etc, etc. No doubt his inclusion on the committee will results in lots of rational, reasoned debate about the direction of the Democratic Party.

edited 5th Jun '16 2:38:24 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar


Total posts: 417,856
Top