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

Euodiachloris Since: Oct, 2010
#128701: Jul 3rd 2016 at 5:16:39 PM

[up][up]The last British monarch who sincerely tried absolute monarchy as a thing... got his head legally chopped off. His son kind-of tried. And, got constantly (and constitutionally) bitch-slapped by both Houses of Parliament. Mind you, they were kind versus what the Press got up to (they really didn't like him very much). <_<

Checks and balances.

edited 3rd Jul '16 5:26:58 PM by Euodiachloris

FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#128702: Jul 3rd 2016 at 5:40:00 PM

Even traditionally, monarchies were never really absolute in their power. The ones who were are quite notable of course, but it wasn't par for the course (except perhaps officially), and such absolute power decreased the larger and more prosperous the nation was.

Small principalities on the other hand, it was far more common, but economics and urbanization forced most of those to merge with the advent of industrialization.

GameGuruGG Vampire Hunter from Castlevania (Before Recorded History)
Vampire Hunter
#128703: Jul 3rd 2016 at 5:48:47 PM

@Rationalinsanity: A Republican Congress with a Trump Presidency wouldn't be doing anything that they otherwise wouldn't already be willing to do with say, Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio as President. The difference between Trump and other Republican candidates for President is that Trump replaces the dogwhistle with a bullhorn.

edited 3rd Jul '16 5:50:52 PM by GameGuruGG

Wizard Needs Food Badly
Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#128704: Jul 3rd 2016 at 6:14:41 PM

@Euodiachloris - My point is that the article is arguing to those shelves "hey, maybe y'all have taken your point a bit too far and shouldn't diss the Revolution as much as you do". (And it's written by a liberal for liberals.) It's also not talking just about the landed gentry.

I don't really care about convincing you but I think it has some good points.

Also, when talking about the image of the founders as "gentry" it's worth considering that when the signers of the Declaration of Independence pledged their "lives, fortunes and sacred honor", it cost a number of them real hardship and suffering. (Sorry for the right-wingnut link but it was the least troublesome I could find on short notice Link replaced by Snopes link which sorts out the ones that are true with ones that are mythical.)

edited 3rd Jul '16 6:23:54 PM by Elle

Euodiachloris Since: Oct, 2010
#128705: Jul 3rd 2016 at 6:16:48 PM

Proportionally, however: most gained.

When dealing with groups of people, you look to the mean. And, yeah: do keep an eye on the upper and lower quartiles because they can tell you things. But, still: the mean.

Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#128706: Jul 3rd 2016 at 6:30:25 PM

We're kinda also talking about the legacy of the Founding Fathers in particular though, and being July 4th, whether their legacy is one to be celebrating.

Was it problem free? No.

Was it at least some good in their lifetime and greater good years down the road? Yes.

Ogodei Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers from The front lines Since: Jan, 2011
Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers
#128707: Jul 3rd 2016 at 6:51:47 PM

Absolutism was only limited by technology and infrastructure. Highly distributed power systems like fuedalism prevailed because the Roman highways deteriorated and the king of France had no way of directly administering outlying provinces, but as soon as the kings had the power, they tried to consolidate. The ones who failed (namely Charles II and the Glorious Revolution) were where the seeds of democracy were planted, because distributed power became normalized as an ideal rather than a reality. Those who succeeded in consolidating, like Louis XIV, set the tone for dictator-kings in Europe.

Euodiachloris Since: Oct, 2010
#128708: Jul 3rd 2016 at 7:08:16 PM

[up]Yup.

"Feudalism" wasn't a single... thing. And, it wasn't as absolute as many today see it as having been. When most people think of "feudalism", what they're actually picturing is Absolute Monarchy, the various flavours of which evolved around the time of the Enlightenment.

Bargaining, factional and regional horse-trading between power blocs was a big thing in any medieval system. And, although weighted against those at the bottom... the unspoken reality was: piss them off too much, and everybody suffered. So, they did have rights and a form of representation. It was cruddy, but it was there (and the Catholic Church was a major part of it, funnily enough). When the very early signs of industrialisation started to arrive on the scene... that's when those rights started to get seriously eroded (and, the onset of the Reformation only added to the confusion). And, this was not, initially, at the hands of kings; it was more at the level of the local lords, barons and other landholders getting greedy and interpreting the old rules in this relatively new situation to their own favour in many small ways. None of it coordinated.

Russians also only started really converting their serf system into the horrendous beast it became... when technology allowed those in power to communicate and move more easily between areas. They were actively trying to restrict a huge part of the population from doing so as a control thing (and to keep cheap labour cheap). Something they could only get away with, ironically, because, although it got easier to travel, it remained freaking expensive over their long distances... and, the incredibly challenging terrain.

edited 3rd Jul '16 7:25:09 PM by Euodiachloris

FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#128709: Jul 3rd 2016 at 7:33:58 PM

Republics have become that way too though...when given the power, they try and abuse it. Just see how things are going with demagougery right now.

JackOLantern1337 Shameful Display from The Most Miserable Province in the Russian Empir Since: Aug, 2014 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
Shameful Display
#128710: Jul 3rd 2016 at 8:05:40 PM

@specific denial: I was referring to the claim that not all his sources were "Marxist-feminist claptraps from the 70s. It was a joke.

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor
#128711: Jul 3rd 2016 at 8:09:21 PM

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/bernie-sanders-democratic-platform-225070?cmpid=sf

At this point, the Dems just need to tell him to fuck off, explicitly. He LOST. The loser doesn't get to dictate the winner's platform.

New Survey coming this weekend!
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#128712: Jul 3rd 2016 at 8:22:40 PM

Why does Sanders think he is entitled to shove protectionist horseshit into the platform? He already got plenty of good ideas in there, he should be thankful he got that far.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
smokeycut Since: Mar, 2013
#128713: Jul 3rd 2016 at 8:51:06 PM

Basically, to sum up the link, Sanders is saying that the Democratic party needs to agree to oppose the TPP or else he'll cause problems.

God damn it, Sanders...

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#128714: Jul 3rd 2016 at 9:12:49 PM

The Dems are ultimately a free trade party, and while TPP has its issues there is no way they will just reject it outright.

Sanders lost, he doesn't get to recreate the party in his image. Hell, he couldn't do that if he had won.

edited 3rd Jul '16 9:44:20 PM by Rationalinsanity

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor
#128715: Jul 3rd 2016 at 9:39:53 PM

Someone, publicly, going off and giving Sanders a "Reason You Suck" Speech would give me nirvana.

New Survey coming this weekend!
Memers Since: Aug, 2013
#128716: Jul 3rd 2016 at 9:46:12 PM

Seeing how the TPP needs to go and not opposing it would be a U Turn by Hillary... Go go Bernie!

I would vote for Trump over that thing.

flameboy21th The would-be novelist from California Since: Jan, 2013 Relationship Status: I <3 love!
The would-be novelist
#128717: Jul 3rd 2016 at 9:52:47 PM

It's just an old man rambling, just let him talk.

Non Indicative Username
LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#128718: Jul 3rd 2016 at 9:58:41 PM

[up][up]That is baffling to me. I mean, I can understand being a single-issue wonk, but I will never get being a single piece of legislation wank, unless that piece legislation was for something like reopening internment camps or the re-institution of slavery or something ridiculous like that.

Memers Since: Aug, 2013
#128719: Jul 3rd 2016 at 10:09:31 PM
Thumped: for switching the discussion from the topic to a person. Doesn't take many of this kind of thump to bring a suspension. Stay on the topic, not the people in the discussion.
LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#128720: Jul 3rd 2016 at 10:12:12 PM

I know people here have gone over why it being the end of the internet is hyperbole in the extreme, but I'm not one of those people, so I'll let someone else with more insight handle that. But frankly, thinking that saving the internet is worth a Trump presidency strikes me very much as, and I hate this term, first-world problems.

edited 3rd Jul '16 10:14:50 PM by LSBK

TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor
#128721: Jul 3rd 2016 at 10:13:38 PM

Memers, are you a straight white male? Because that's the only way I can believe you think you can just vote for Trump willy nilly.

New Survey coming this weekend!
flameboy21th The would-be novelist from California Since: Jan, 2013 Relationship Status: I <3 love!
The would-be novelist
#128722: Jul 3rd 2016 at 10:15:56 PM

Straight cisgender middle class white Protestant male.

Non Indicative Username
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#128723: Jul 3rd 2016 at 10:17:09 PM

Yeah, I'm thinking that the idea that any one piece of legislation can destroy the internet (which in this case means letting companies pay for premium bandwidth or something I think) is kind of overstating the issue. Frankly, if you think Trump is somehow better than the TTP, which I don't think he's actually against, then your priorities are terribly skewed and you should re-examine your values. Trump isn't really against the TTP, he's just using it so he can talk tough and sound like he's for the American worker while espousing tons of other economic and foreign policy that quite frankly would be disastrous for everyone.

[up][up]Can we not go down that road, please? I'd like this thread to remain civil.

edited 3rd Jul '16 10:17:46 PM by AceofSpades

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#128724: Jul 3rd 2016 at 10:18:52 PM

Even at its very worst (which is entirely hyperbolic), TPP would be better than a Trump presidency. You can undo a bad trade deal, if it really did result in corporations suing governments over laws or in the internet being threatened, then either governments would repeal it or protests/opposition parties winning elections would result in its repeal.

A Trump presidency (which might not stop TPP anyway, a good chunk of the GOP is still pro-free trade) would do irreversible damage in a variety of areas. The Supreme Court alone (next president gets to replace Scalia, probably Ginsberg and maybe Bayer at least) is reason to fight Trump like hell.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#128725: Jul 3rd 2016 at 10:21:07 PM

[up][up]Tactical is hardly the only one to make posts like that. Not that I'm agreeing either way.


Total posts: 417,856
Top