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
#129826: Jul 12th 2016 at 1:57:22 PM

[up] By any sane metrics for predicting election outcomes, this cycle is one that the democrats should have in the bag even with the third parties getting a boost from the majors. Believe it or not, that Mommouth poll was a major outlier, even with the Greens and the Libertarians, Clinton is still up by 10 on average. Nader was a disaster, true, and it's his own damn fault. He had no prospect of winning, and should have directed his supporters in swing states to vote for Gore.

edited 12th Jul '16 1:59:03 PM by CaptainCapsase

FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#129828: Jul 12th 2016 at 2:01:55 PM

[up][up]That is what I'm saying about Stein. And we dont know one way or another if its an outlier poll until polls after it confirm or deny. Enough has happened between now and the previous poll that it could actually be a thing. Either way though, its Hil's vote that gets eaten not Trump's.

Julep Since: Jul, 2010
#129829: Jul 12th 2016 at 2:08:52 PM

I see that you are awfully confident in Trump's defeat. It's good, and I hope you are not mistaken; Because I can think of another disaster that was far behind a few months before the vote.

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#129830: Jul 12th 2016 at 2:11:47 PM

[up][up] Stein's stated objective in this race is to get (IIRC) 15% of the vote to get the Green Party Federal funding, and that's something I intend to hold her to as a condition for supporting the Greens; if she manages to reach that benchmark and doesn't tell voters in states contested by the major candidates to stand down and vote for Clinton (call for supporters to vote for Clinton in dangerous states), I'm not voting for the Greens. If they do the right thing when faced with a repeat of Nader though, that's something that would earn my support.

[up] There was much greater uncertainty regarding Brexit, much closer polling margins, and a much more effective campaign for leaving. Trump's campaign thus far is a disaster in terms of his infrastructure, and unless that shakes up his chances of a win are virtually zero (under that assumption, it's about 20%). If it stops being a disaster and starts looking competitive, I would cease to support a third party candidate if they did not drop out of the race or at least ask their voters to go for Clinton in contested states.

edited 12th Jul '16 2:28:35 PM by CaptainCapsase

ILoveDogs Since: May, 2010
#129831: Jul 12th 2016 at 2:36:16 PM

Apparently, Elizabeth Warren has been invited to speak on the first night of the Democratic National Convention-not on the last night, which is when running mates usually make their speeches.

Welp. All aboard the Kaine Train, everyone.

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#129832: Jul 12th 2016 at 2:37:44 PM

I don't want them to get federal funding. Look, the Greens have some nice ideas but politically they're utter blockheads. Instead of using this increased funding to try and win local and state races they're probably going to repeatedly try for a presidential victory which is just going to lead to Republican victories.

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#129833: Jul 12th 2016 at 2:40:01 PM

[up] Perhaps your right, but the character of a third party is much more malleable than that of a party like the democrats or Republicans. They're also quite a bit more approachable, in that it's not particularly difficult to get a conversation with the would be party brass.

edited 12th Jul '16 2:43:19 PM by CaptainCapsase

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#129834: Jul 12th 2016 at 2:46:06 PM

Third parties tend also to lack political intelligence. No, the White House is a very tall barrier. Try to work Congress and state level systems first before going for the too high prizes.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#129835: Jul 12th 2016 at 2:46:09 PM

I don't really care about approachability to be honest. A lot of people thought Bush would be a nice guy to sit down and have a beer with. Look how that turned out.

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#129836: Jul 12th 2016 at 2:48:24 PM

[up] Approachable in the sense that it's much easier for their would be constituents to influence them than it is for sitting federal officials; you don't have to be a full time lobbyist backed by a major corporation or spend two hours a day on the phone for a year to get a 5 minute conversation.

edited 12th Jul '16 2:50:44 PM by CaptainCapsase

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#129837: Jul 12th 2016 at 2:51:01 PM

In that sense I still think being too approachable isn't always a good thing. We just had a discussion about how the Green party leaders have tried to purge a lot of the pseudoscience from the party. If they're being unduly influenced by their constituents those ideas would come back.

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#129838: Jul 12th 2016 at 2:51:44 PM

@I Love Dogs, we all knew Warren was a long shot. Two women on the ticket might be seen as too risky, and Warren is in a state with a Republican governor.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Lennik (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#129839: Jul 12th 2016 at 2:54:43 PM

Every time someone says "I'm tired of being threatened into voting for the lesser evil, so I'm not doing it this time," I have to roll my eyes. I understand feelings are hurt, but there is a mathematical reality to votes in elections, and Trump has a united conservative base behind him. This is not about feelings. This is very simple cause and effect. Liberals don't vote, Trump wins. It's really that simple.

That's right, boys. Mondo cool.
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#129840: Jul 12th 2016 at 2:55:22 PM

Trump does not have an united base behind him, but an uncomfortable amount of it neverthless.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
ILoveDogs Since: May, 2010
#129841: Jul 12th 2016 at 2:57:43 PM

[up][up][up] Massachusetts actually has a runoff in the case of a retirement like that. It wasn't as long a shot as you're saying.

Galadriel Since: Feb, 2015
#129842: Jul 12th 2016 at 3:03:19 PM

Well, Bernie managed to get a $15 minimum wage and abolishing the death penalty into the Democratic platform. Even though Congress has power over those things, so they're unlikely to happen, it's something to have a committment.

He was clearly going to endorse Hillary eventually, given the alternative. It's good that he managed to move the Democratic Party a bit leftward in the process.

I still don't like Hillary - she's far too hawkish and too beholden to major doners, and too much in favour of the security state - but she's better than Trump by a long ways. And a hundred years after getting the vote, it's about time there was a woman president.

If I was American, I'd be voting for her, but with major reservations and the uncomfortable feeling that I'd bear moral responsibility for the next war the US started.

(As a Canadian, I want a ranked ballot so that I can never be badgered about strategic voting again. I could vote NDP first, Green second, Liberal third - or, depending on the riding, Marxist first, Green second, NDP third, Liberal fourth - and never again have to hear someone say disingenuously "a vote for the NDP is a vote for the Conservatives". That statement doesn't even make now, given the riding system, because there have been plenty of ridings where the NDP are stronger than the Liberals, but Libs say it anyway. NDP are Canada's social democrats, by the way.)

edited 12th Jul '16 3:11:50 PM by Galadriel

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#129843: Jul 12th 2016 at 3:07:49 PM

Voting for someone doesn't somehow magically make you responsible for their decisions or actions. And you're also just assuming that she'd start another war.

And this might be a semantic note, but I always hate statements like "it's about time we had a black/female,non-Christian" president or whatever. It's about time the barriers that kept non-Christian, non-white males, from having a chance at the position (or any other position of power) but a person's demographic should (almost) never be a deciding factor in whether you think someone is qualified for a position.

It often seems to me that people don't make the distinction, and I think it's an important one.

edited 12th Jul '16 3:09:36 PM by LSBK

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#129844: Jul 12th 2016 at 3:08:21 PM

[up][up][up]The two women issue might be behind it. That and maybe Clinton thinks that Sanders and Warren (plus fear of Trump) don't need to be on the ticket to rally the base. Therefore, a more moderate running mate is more useful to grab moderates/Republicans who can't stomach Trump.

edited 12th Jul '16 3:08:43 PM by Rationalinsanity

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#129845: Jul 12th 2016 at 3:08:45 PM

How likely is it, really, that Clinton would actively seek to start a war? Everyone calls her hawkish with the same connotation as "slavering warmonger", but would she really seek to start a conflict that wasn't already there?

edited 12th Jul '16 3:09:35 PM by sgamer82

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#129846: Jul 12th 2016 at 3:12:06 PM

She might take a harder line on Iran, but if Tehran goes back on its deal than the US is basically required to take punitive measures.

And people forget that Bill's interventions were to prop up failing states (Somalia) or to stop genocide (ex-Yugoslavia). There's nothing in the Clinton admin that compares to Iraq.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#129847: Jul 12th 2016 at 3:12:49 PM

[up][up]I've wondered that too. It seems like people expect her to declare war on the first nation that looks at us funny. Is this just people being mad about Iraq? I've never gotten that feeling from her. She'd probably be sooner to declare war than Bernie or Obama but I don't think she'd do it without good reason.

edited 12th Jul '16 3:13:05 PM by Kostya

Galadriel Since: Feb, 2015
#129848: Jul 12th 2016 at 3:13:26 PM

In my view, yes, you're responsible for the actions of the party or person you vote for. That's what democracy means. If you voted for a party, you helped put them in power, and their actions are on you.

And just to be clear, I wouldn't vote for a woman candidate who I utterly disagreed with, or who I considered unable to do the job competently (e.g. Palin). I just find some consolation in the fact that if Hillary wins, the next female presidential candidate won't need to go through all this "is the US ready for a female president?" nonsense and will be, to a greater degree, evaluated on her own merits (though of course continually compared with Hillary, just as any subsequent black presidential candidates will be compared with Obama).

edited 12th Jul '16 3:20:53 PM by Galadriel

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#129849: Jul 12th 2016 at 3:14:40 PM

By that same logic not voting for Clinton means that anything Trump does is your fault. If he decides to intern all the Muslims in the country then it's on us for not putting Clinton in the White House.

edited 12th Jul '16 3:15:16 PM by Kostya

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#129850: Jul 12th 2016 at 3:15:08 PM

[up][up]By those standards then almost everyone who has ever voted is responsible for something horrible. That's just way to unreasonable a burden to place on yourself and everyone else.

edited 12th Jul '16 3:15:35 PM by LSBK


Total posts: 417,856
Top