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

unknowing from somewhere.. Since: Mar, 2014
#127526: Jun 22nd 2016 at 10:52:55 PM

For what I see, Trump impact will be a lost of respect in the international comunity and stupid projects of idea that no one will take seriously, that and HUGE backlash on him

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"
PotatoesRock Since: Oct, 2012
#127527: Jun 22nd 2016 at 11:08:41 PM

Oh wait, he got a lot of stuff done.
He got stuff done (and a fair number of it I think remains while passed, not being unenforced due to the SEC sitting on its ass on various items from Dodd Frank) but it cost him the support of Wall Street four years later.

Obama was also diversified from Wall Street, while Hillary from the sounds of it is far more dependent on Wall Street funds for her war chest than him, and is more attuned to the stick hurting her than it would for Obama. If she's claiming banking reforms when she's in office, my guess is that unless Hillary picks Warren or Brown or some other Anti-Banking hardliner, the Wall Street Donors are hoping most of her stuff on taking on Wall Street is lip service or she'll mostly be targeting low hanging fruit that most of them can grit their teeth and bear with.

They're scared shitless that if she picks Warren, she actually means to take a stab at the banks and securities industries. and/or Warren will force her in that direction.

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#127528: Jun 22nd 2016 at 11:39:39 PM

[up][up]Trump is immune to backlash, though. His voters love him more the more he's hated.

unknowing from somewhere.. Since: Mar, 2014
#127529: Jun 23rd 2016 at 12:03:08 AM

Because so far that is not backlash, Trump get vote because of the sitcom persona he is pulling, the tought guy who is jerk but people like that way, is like dumber version of Dr house or Charlie sheen, so far he is not face something he cant shurg off with his bully tactics

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"
TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor
#127530: Jun 23rd 2016 at 12:09:41 AM
Thumped: Wow. That was rude. Too many of this kind of thump will bring a suspension. Please keep it civil.
New Survey coming this weekend!
PotatoesRock Since: Oct, 2012
#127531: Jun 23rd 2016 at 2:09:04 AM

And? Most of those bills snipe at stuff Wall Street left wing donors are likely willing to accept as 'acceptable causalities' or are hoping don't get enforced strongly (almost a guarantee due to the Republicans causing repeat automatic spending cuts), but they don't 'fear' her administration to be anything worse (or hope it to be less stringent) than Obama.

Picking Warren to them is a sign that Hillary plans to grow a mustache and gain a posh high pitched voice, and Trust Bust Wall Street into the ground, instead of nibble at the edges regulation.

"So let 'er!" Well.

A) Once has to wonder how many of these donors are you know, actually personal friends of Her's and Bill's.

B) Even with Trump being such a flaming trainwreck, there are reasons to go with more pragmatic choices (Tim Kaine or Cory Booker), so she has the extra money coming in just in case anything strange goes on (such as Trump flames out and starts Trump TV and leaves the GOP with Ted Cruz).

C) One could argue by not pissing off/scaring Wall Street constituents/donors, she wants to stay on good terms with them in case she has any sort of economic crisis.

There's no reason for her to spurn Wall Street harder than she has to.

TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor
#127532: Jun 23rd 2016 at 3:05:29 AM

Well yeah, because Wall Street isn't some unified entity with the same goals, not some evil caricature that the morons on the far left paint it as. If the Left had its way, the global economy would've been practically destroyed overnight.

New Survey coming this weekend!
Xopher001 Since: Jul, 2012
#127533: Jun 23rd 2016 at 4:05:12 AM

@Zendervai

Someone I talked to today had a really interesting read on the current Republican party. His thought experiment was basically "how would someone perceive the Republican Party if all they could see was the policies the Republicans support or oppose." He ended up with the idea that the Republican goal is apparently to render as many people as possible dead or injured through preventable means and then block their attempts to get healthcare. While that is a...really extreme view, they kind of are getting there.

I would have thought that too at a point in time in the past, but now I'm kinda inclined to agree with this person.

edited 23rd Jun '16 4:09:31 AM by Xopher001

TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#127534: Jun 23rd 2016 at 5:35:22 AM

[up][up]Is the Hypocritical Humour intentional?

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#127535: Jun 23rd 2016 at 8:24:46 AM

Fox, if that's how you want to argue, we're going to cut you out of the conversation. Nobody in any serious position of authority in the U.S. is calling for a Marxist revolution, tearing down the bourgeois trappings of capitalism and having everyone live in communes. So if that's your picture of "left wing economics", it's just plain wrong.

We have our dingbats, but unlike in the GOP, we don't let them run the party.

edited 23rd Jun '16 8:25:12 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
VengeanceIsMine Since: Mar, 2016
#127536: Jun 23rd 2016 at 8:31:38 AM

What destroys the world's economy from twenty to twenty years with varying degrees of success is wild competition. Over things that have no value at all, like tulips. Capitalism needs more and more control each time it happens. I guess that if Karl Marx had keep his mouth shut and had not written any book about a future new economic system called "socialism" no one should scream "that's communist!" every time that the governments of the world had to get up to put a leash on the wild dogs of the world's economy and save them of their own madness.

What I mean is, Wall Street don't knows what's good for them.

edited 23rd Jun '16 8:32:57 AM by VengeanceIsMine

Before Watchmen: Made and filled with tropes. Next: The Wolf of Wall Street.
FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#127537: Jun 23rd 2016 at 8:34:20 AM

actually the world is far more okay with socialism (and capitalism, ironically) than the US is.

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#127538: Jun 23rd 2016 at 8:39:41 AM

Supreme Court Watch:

Supreme Court upholds affirmative action in universities, but reminds the university that it still has to stand strict scrutiny. Kennedy writes a moderate opinion in which he says that racially-oriented programs still have to pass strict scrutiny, but that whether a university should pursue the educational benefits of diversity is primarily an academic judgment that judges owe some deference to, and Kennedy is satisfied that the university has a compelling interest. He's also, more surprisingly, saying that "we should try the race-neutral version first" will just waste three more years before creating another court case.

In less happy news, Supreme Court 4-4s on Obama's immigration plan. Its legal status is in limbo nationwide but his order is struck down in the 8th Circuit, and the ICE is being ordered to disregard a Presidential order.

I get the feeling that individual ICE agents are now going to start acting on their own discretion with no real way to determine what the law is.

Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#127539: Jun 23rd 2016 at 8:56:28 AM

@ Vengeance:

Capitalism needs more and more control each time it happens.

Does that mean you think that a Dictatorship should result from Capitalism's failings, as it is people that ultimately drive capitalism?

Keep Rolling On
Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#127540: Jun 23rd 2016 at 9:39:21 AM

Capitalism has its advantages. In particular, it encourages innovation. There's a reason why companies like Disney and Microsoft came out of the US rather than elsewhere.

[up]I'd argue dictatorship is semantically incompatible with free-market capitalism, since in a totalitarian state the government controls everything. Having said that, unrestricted monopolies can take control of the state. However, at that point it's no longer a free market by definition.

edited 23rd Jun '16 9:44:36 AM by Protagonist506

Leviticus 19:34
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#127541: Jun 23rd 2016 at 9:44:34 AM

Um, not all dictators are totalitarian...

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
JackOLantern1337 Shameful Display from The Most Miserable Province in the Russian Empir Since: Aug, 2014 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
Shameful Display
#127543: Jun 23rd 2016 at 9:52:27 AM

Capitalism is doing pretty well in China and in Russia. Often it is the Capitalists who are most supportive of the regime, why rock the boat that allowed them to make so much money.

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#127544: Jun 23rd 2016 at 10:10:33 AM

@Vengence the correct term for what you're railing at is "wild speculation driving rampant inflation". Competition tends to bring prices down

I'm not completely anti-regulation (though I'm picky about what types I'm ok with) but there are limits on what you can do to regulate human stupidity and I'm not sure you can regulate irrational exuberance.

Now in the case of the sub-prime loan bubble, you can try to find the cause and legislate so that it can't happen that way again. Unfortunately you have a case where while the banks were doing stuff that was unethical, it was not, at the time, illegal (to the best of my foggy memory), and charging people with breaking laws created after the fact also violates some pretty serious ethics.

Stormtroper from Little Venice Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: I-It's not like I like you, or anything!
#127545: Jun 23rd 2016 at 10:31:22 AM

I'd argue dictatorship is semantically incompatible with free-market capitalism, since in a totalitarian state the government controls everything.

As pointed out, that argument doesn't work for non-totalitarian dictatorships, but I'll argue that by not concentrating economic power in the (party-government-)state, capitalism does a vastly better job than socialism at maintaining a democracy.

And that's how I ended up in the wardrobe. It Just Bugs Me!
Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#127546: Jun 23rd 2016 at 10:42:45 AM

[up][up][up]China isn't capitalist (or at least, very openly not the free market capitalism most capitalists claim to support)

Leviticus 19:34
Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#127547: Jun 23rd 2016 at 10:48:04 AM

If more big business people actually believed in true free-market and acted on it they wouldn't be pushing protectionist laws or asking for bailouts when things turn sour.

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#127548: Jun 23rd 2016 at 11:02:51 AM

The South American dictatorships the US backed were all free-market, and fanatically so in the cases of Pinochet and Videla. Didn't stop them from killing thousands of their citizens.

edited 23rd Jun '16 11:03:07 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar

Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#127550: Jun 23rd 2016 at 11:56:05 AM

@Stormtroper: Not all models of socialism are built around central economic planning*, nor is it necessarily incompatible with elements of capitalism like the market system. In the context of the information available when he was alive, Marx's worst idea was the notion that a violent revolution would be the only way to achieve a better system. Other people went on to assume that the revolution would happen with their lifetime rather than over a period of several hundred years at a minimum, and we all know how that ended.

* With a sufficiently well educated population with enough time and sufficient motivation, a system where economic decisions are handled democratically might be viable. That's already done to some extent on the local level in many places.


Total posts: 417,856
Top