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

Cid El Cid Since: Jul, 2015 Relationship Status: Hiding
El Cid
#126726: Jun 16th 2016 at 5:42:49 PM

[up][up]Smugness aside, I don't think he's wrong.

When large groups of people who share an ideology decide that voting is not worth it for X reason, they're (usually) hurting themselves because they don't have someone to represent their interest in the government.

I believe that's what he means by political irrelevance.

If you want something, then you vote. If you vote and your guy/gal loses, then you become a better player at the game and try again with a better strategy. In the meantime, you can try to align with the person/party closest to your ideology and try to steer them in your direction by telling them that if they want your votenote , then they've got to earn it.

So even if you you didn't get Sanders or Bush or Rubio into the White House, you can still try to have several people in the Senate or as Governors who share the ideologies you wanted to see. And you can still try to get the president, whoever she is, to listen to what you want, even if you didn't vote for her. I mean, she'd still be the president of the whole country, not just team blue or team red.

However, if you don't vote, then no one will care about you because there will be no one to represent your interests. How could they if they won't know what you want?

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#126727: Jun 16th 2016 at 6:00:09 PM

[up] Nobody is suggesting it's a good thing to not vote, but some of us disagree whether or not voting third party in elections is a "waste." While it's never going to get people elected except in oddball states like Vermont, the major parties do care about losing votes to third parties, and will adjust platforms and—in response to unrest in the population, which #BlackLivesMatter is a contemporary example of—potentially policy. Progressive reforms will not happen as long as the establishment is confident in the support of such sectors of the population.

edited 16th Jun '16 6:03:17 PM by CaptainCapsase

Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#126728: Jun 16th 2016 at 6:05:07 PM

If people who were gung ho about third parties actively worked for the local and state elections or participated in their local party politics, we'd see a considerable shift there.

As it is, they tend not to.

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#126729: Jun 16th 2016 at 6:07:57 PM

[up] Generally speaking the people voting third party in presidential elections vote for major party candidates elsewhere, and rightfully so in the case of left wing third parties, since the Republicans tend to dominate by default in such situations.

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#126730: Jun 16th 2016 at 6:12:56 PM

That seems kind of backwards, though. If you want your fringe party to actually have people in office, you necessarily have to start small and work your way up. Voting for president is big and visible, but if your party doesn't have people in any of the lower offices then even on the off chance your third party candidate wins it's going to be nearly totally nullified pretty quickly. All the other offices matter just as much.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#126731: Jun 16th 2016 at 6:16:36 PM

Yeah, shooting for the top and ignoring the bottom is kind of pointless. It's like some dude who plays softball in his backyard deciding he's good enough to try out for the Yankees.

edited 16th Jun '16 6:17:36 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#126732: Jun 16th 2016 at 6:19:36 PM

[up] That analogy doesn't work within the context of American politics; after Jackson (even they, what he accomplished was more of a hostile takeover of an existing party ala what Trump imagines himself to be), new parties that rose did so primarily out of disaffected insiders within previous parties (Lincoln, Hayes, Arthur, and Harrison were originally Whigs), not as the outgrowth of small scale third parties. There's no expectation they're (the Greens and the Libertarians that is) ever going to end up replacing one of the majors so long as we retain a FPTP voting system; rather, they exclusively serve as a mechanism of grouping together protest votes under a common set of demands.

edited 16th Jun '16 6:36:34 PM by CaptainCapsase

TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#126733: Jun 16th 2016 at 6:28:25 PM

Nobody is asking for honeyed words, just a respectful and considerate attitude.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#126734: Jun 16th 2016 at 6:58:42 PM

But only working as a bloc of protest votes is fruitless, in my opinion. If they actually care about enacting the policies they believe in, they need to get people into office. Which some of them do, I remember my surprise at actually seeing Greens running for office back in 08. And people listed as Libertarians, instead of just hog tying themselves to the Republicans. Hell, while not being able to affect the presidential election if enough people built up bases at the state level they might be able to get their parties into office; after all it's been noted here that there are fptp systems with more than one party here before. It could work at the state level, and from there they could do the work to change it to something they consider more democratic.

Seriously, protest votes alone can't accomplish very much. Getting people into the smaller offices can, however, greatly affect the future. It's one of those long game things that hot blooded and younger people don't necessarily have the patience for, though.

Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#126735: Jun 16th 2016 at 7:02:13 PM

I know this morning's filibuster was mentioned earlier, but I don't know if it was mentioned that it's over and the Republicans have agreed to hold a vote on new gun control measures. An article concerning the filibuster had this summary of its role in the Senate:

And the filibuster works, and has always worked in one way or another. Because the easiest thing to do on Capitol Hill is to slow the Senate down. The institutional bias is to counter the will of the president and retard the haste of the House. And if the Senate cannot always put up a red light indefinitely, it can certainly default to a flashing yellow and go green only grudgingly.

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#126736: Jun 16th 2016 at 7:06:03 PM

[up][up] Protest votes are pretty much the only legal avenue people have of actually influencing policy at a non-local; major parties can and will add popular third party policies to their platforms if they are losing enough votes to them. Political institutions are, at their hearts, dominated if not outright controlled by the interests of elites, with political parties representing the interests of different sector of the ruling class. (military and low-tech industry= GOP, high-tech industry and service= democrats)

Only in cases where the ruling class feels threatened, either by a militant population or by the prospect of a voting bloc abandoning their party are compromises possible which do not overwhelmingly favor the interests of the ruling class; the best example of this being the New Deal.

edited 16th Jun '16 7:07:01 PM by CaptainCapsase

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#126737: Jun 16th 2016 at 7:08:39 PM

[up] That almost never happens outside times of massive social or economic unrest. Which makes it understandable why those groups might perversely attempt to incite unrest in order to force changes in policy. However, when they do it excessively, they discredit both themselves and the causes they are working for.

The Handle: I give what respect is due. Should I pat them on the head and say, "Good boy, you're participating!"?

edited 16th Jun '16 7:10:53 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#126738: Jun 16th 2016 at 7:11:19 PM

[up] Naturally the latter scenario is preferable to the former, but looking at history of democracies, particularly in the US, whenever policymaking diverges from the interests of the ruling class, it's because of the fear of one of the two coming to pass.

In the contemporary world, you need look no further than #BlackLivesMatter. The American police system mistreating minorities isn't a new phenomena, but until we saw a resurgence of racial violence and riots, the democrats had no serious interest in addressing the concerns of those minorities, as there was no real chance of them defecting to the GOP for the foreseeable future.

edited 16th Jun '16 7:19:36 PM by CaptainCapsase

TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#126739: Jun 16th 2016 at 7:15:53 PM

[up][up]I like how your response to a request to stop condescending is to condescend harder. You're setting an example of mature and civil behaviour for all of us. This is certainly the best attitude to show when trying to get others to listen to you.

Captain Cap, tell us more about how the New Deal happened.

edited 16th Jun '16 7:19:50 PM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#126740: Jun 16th 2016 at 7:27:13 PM

[up] The New Deal and the overall progressive movement was born primarily out of fear of socialism among the ruling class of America; the great depression, being the worst economic downturn in world history, resulted in widespread radicalization of the population, particularly among leftist strongholds like labor unions. With the collapse of Tsarist Russia in recent memory and attempts at suppressing the labor movement by force failing, the New Deal came about as an act of desperation on the part of the ruling class of America; without it, there almost certainly would've been a violent revolution, quite possibly a successful one, though given the nature of America it's entirely possible, perhaps even likely it would've been fascists who ended up in power rather than communists, either as a result of the establishment turning to fascism to appease the military, or through a counter-revolutionary coup. Neither scenario would've ended particularly well for the states in all likelihood, given how catastrophically attempts to implement socialism through violent revolution failed, and how unpleasant of an ideology fascism is to its very core.

edited 16th Jun '16 7:31:19 PM by CaptainCapsase

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#126741: Jun 16th 2016 at 7:32:15 PM

Cap, you're not even talking about the same thing I'm talking about. I'm talking about members of third parties who try to shoot straight for the top, and the people who are voting for them. I'm saying they're not being strategic enough about it.

You can yak all you want about how it takes extreme tragedy or some other event to cause people to "fear" (and quite frankly that's a shitty reason to do anything and I don't think that politicians are as motivated by that as you think they are) but there's no way that they can take advantage of said situation if someone else hasn't done the long drudge laden work to ensure there's people in place who can capitalize on the momentum. Politics isn't just being in the right place at the right time, it's the strategic work to get people into places where they can take advantage of or help to create those moments. Hell, Sanders wouldn't have even been a factor if people hadn't taken the effort to set up the third party he was a member of until he decided to run for president.

Tragedy and outrage and protest alone cannot move politics. Members of third parties that want their people in office have to dedicate themselves to a long hard slog of work to actually get there. And that was my point. You, again, went off on a tangent that didn't actually directly address my point.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#126742: Jun 16th 2016 at 7:34:09 PM

[up][up] Yep. FDR was very much a man of money and privilege, but together with the industrialists of the day, he looked at what was happening in the country and saw that there was only one way out that wouldn't result in violent revolution of one sort or another. So, out of pragmatism every bit as much as morality, he implemented reforms that would guarantee that there would not be enough people suffering abject privation to form a revolutionary movement. Those reforms were phenomenally successful, to the point where the only such movements we've had in the remainder of the century were social, not economic, centered on civil rights.

As for the current situation, the problem that these left wing groups have is that they are trying to pull the Democrats leftward, when that won't help win elections. The critical problem isn't Democrats; it's the Republican Party. Their stranglehold on local politics and their dominance in Congress must be broken, decisively, or we will never get the reforms that people want, not even if a hundred Bernie Sanders get elected.

edited 16th Jun '16 7:41:50 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#126743: Jun 16th 2016 at 7:42:32 PM

[up][up] I'd generally disagree with that sentiment; in my view unrest (which often stems from tragedy) is, regardless of what individual politicians want or feel, is the only way that institutions can be made to act against the interests of the ruling class for the good of the masses. Modern democracies have several means of expressing that unrest that fall short of outright revolution; in order of increasing militancy you have voting, protest, civil disobedience, riots, and finally open revolt. Even with the modern GOP in power, if there was a very real prospect of a (successful) leftist revolution happening, there would be significant factions within their sector of the ruling class pushing for progressive reforms out of self preservation.

[up] Considering how popular Sanders is among the American youth, people like him might very well accomplish that in the end assuming the GOP continues to utterly fail at attracting young voters in quantities able to prevent a democratic supermajority.

edited 16th Jun '16 7:54:03 PM by CaptainCapsase

Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#126744: Jun 16th 2016 at 7:51:39 PM

Well, I would love if young people started participating.

But you know what? The time to go "the system is horrible and corrupt and the Establishment is the worst." Is not after a successful, friendly Democratic President is finishing his term.

flameboy21th The would-be novelist from California Since: Jan, 2013 Relationship Status: I <3 love!
The would-be novelist
#126745: Jun 16th 2016 at 7:55:03 PM

Not as successful as he shoulld've been, but certainly no Bush.

Non Indicative Username
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#126746: Jun 16th 2016 at 7:58:56 PM

[up][up] Indeed. "Way to sell out your President's accomplishments over the past 8 years, folks."

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#126747: Jun 16th 2016 at 8:02:16 PM

A lot of the Bernie or Bust people didn't support Obama in 2012. Granted half of them weren't able to vote anyway but I think that's notable.

Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#126748: Jun 16th 2016 at 8:02:26 PM

Don't worry. We'll have a Republican Candidate...in 2020... sad

  • Mutters something about Trump ruining this election*

Leviticus 19:34
flameboy21th The would-be novelist from California Since: Jan, 2013 Relationship Status: I <3 love!
The would-be novelist
#126749: Jun 16th 2016 at 8:08:55 PM

I'm hoping to not see a Republican President until... forever.

Non Indicative Username
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#126750: Jun 16th 2016 at 8:09:28 PM

Sorry Protag. Suffice to say, I wouldn't wish Trump on any party.


Total posts: 417,856
Top