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

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#131101: Jul 19th 2016 at 8:41:58 PM

It does make me wonder what the anti-Hillary faction on the left will do in four years. Would they still be against her assuming no major wars start and she actually makes a good faith attempt to fulfill many of these promises?

Hodor2 Since: Jan, 2015
#131102: Jul 19th 2016 at 8:44:44 PM

@Silasw- Partly I'll respond by saying "what Ambar said". It's not cool to compare a sentiment that stems from an actual genocide in which millions of people were killed and centuries of culture eradicated to an imaginary one that only exists in the minds of revanchists.

Also though, in my post I was combining the ideas of marrying other Jews with maintaining culture, in part because that "Silent Holocaust" definition seemed to encompass both opposing intermarriage and wanting continuation of religious/cultural practices, and I don't think anyone does/should have a problem with the latter. Also, because while there's differences within Judaism as to this attitude, I'm personally open to people converting into the religion/children in mixed marriages belonging to the religion.

As with Handle's post, I'm going to raise an eyebrow at your use of the term "blood purity". Why are these comparisons always about equating Jews to Nazis?

And now, hopefully back to our regularly scheduled topic.

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#131103: Jul 19th 2016 at 8:44:55 PM

[up][up]Those who've simply been mislead will get over it. The Unicorn Brigade will not, but they never do.

As with Handle's post, I'm going to raise an eyebrow at your use of the term "blood purity". Why are these comparisons always about equating Jews to Nazis?

Because it's a convenient attempt at shutting down the debate, I expect. Particularly given the potential shock value of equating Jew and Nazi.

It's not cool to compare a sentiment that stems from an actual genocide in which millions of people were killed and centuries of culture eradicated to an imaginary one that only exists in the minds of revanchists.

I'll second this. I've met First Nations people in Canada who would contend that marrying their own is the only way to preserve their culture—and given the centuries of oppression we've dealt to them, including numerous attempts at forcing them to assimilate into the greater white culture, it's a perfectly reasonable argument to be made.

When someone is trying to eradicate you as a people, continuing to exist as a people, culturally, and yes, ethnically, becomes an act of resistance against that.

edited 19th Jul '16 8:50:11 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

ILoveDogs Since: May, 2010
#131104: Jul 19th 2016 at 8:47:58 PM

edited 19th Jul '16 8:53:13 PM by ILoveDogs

pwiegle Cape Malleum Majorem from Nowhere Special Since: Sep, 2015 Relationship Status: Singularity
Cape Malleum Majorem
#131105: Jul 19th 2016 at 8:51:00 PM

I guess my impression of Hillary is colored (or perhaps tainted) by her husband's tenure as President. I recall all kinds of questionable stuff going on back then: renting out the Lincoln Bedroom as if it was a Motel 6, handing out presidential pardons like door prizes, etc. Granted, Hillary isn't Bill Clinton, but you got two for the price of one last time, so it kind of follows that the same thing is likely to happen again...

Still, I'm absolutely not voting for Trump, nor will I waste my vote by staying home or voting for a third-party candidate, so it seems I have no other choice.

This Space Intentionally Left Blank.
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#131106: Jul 19th 2016 at 8:52:11 PM

[up]How much of it was actually questionable, and how much of that is you remembering Gingrich's talking points?

pwiegle Cape Malleum Majorem from Nowhere Special Since: Sep, 2015 Relationship Status: Singularity
Cape Malleum Majorem
#131107: Jul 19th 2016 at 8:54:05 PM

I made a point to ignore anything that came out of Gingrich's mouth.

This Space Intentionally Left Blank.
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#131108: Jul 19th 2016 at 8:59:08 PM

[up]Sure, but that doesn't mean that a lot of the media criticism wasn't parroting him, or other right wing sources of information.

kkhohoho (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#131109: Jul 19th 2016 at 9:00:44 PM

So after being properly informed of the whole Hilary debacle, I've decided that Hilary is not a crook. (Sorry, couldn't resist.tongue) However, that doesn't mean I feel any better about her. While she may not have done anything illegal or been convicted of anything, the fact is that she still outright lied about the emails and the usage of them. It's nothing compared to what Trump has done, and what Clinton is lying about may not even have been that big of a deal, but the point is that she still lied. If we can't trust her when it comes to her telling us about something as simple as using an email account, than how can we trust her when it comes to something that's actually important? I'm not saying she'll be a dirty rotten lier and a scoundrel as President, but I'd feel a bit comfortable about her if she had been honest and straightforward about the whole thing in the first place.

edited 19th Jul '16 9:20:16 PM by kkhohoho

flameboy21th The would-be novelist from California Since: Jan, 2013 Relationship Status: I <3 love!
The would-be novelist
#131110: Jul 19th 2016 at 9:01:56 PM

Politicians lie. Clinton just sucks at hiding it.

Non Indicative Username
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#131112: Jul 19th 2016 at 9:03:40 PM

I'm not saying she'll be a dirty rotten lyre

Lyre? She's a Greek musical instrument?

If we can't trust her when it comes to her telling us about something as simple as using an email account, than how can we trust her when it comes to something that's actually important?

Clinton has spent thirty years of her life as the target of a Republican witch-hunt. They've targeted her looks, her marriage, her sexuality, her friends. They've accused her of having Vince Foster (and others) murdered. They've accused her of helping her husband rape women. Pick your insane accusation, it has been leveled at her. It's been noted by many that in the aftermath of this, Clinton has the political equivalent of PTSD. Her first instinct whenever a Republican backed story like this starts circulating is to try and shut it down in the hopes of not having to deal with it.Which is, I think, understandable.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#131113: Jul 19th 2016 at 9:07:40 PM

In 2000 the Supreme Court picked the President. Will 2016 be the year that the media picks the President, by lavishing attention on the orange "Republican" cum-stain whilst simultaneously raising their makeup-covered noses every time Clinton enters the room and pretending that there's something even remotely equivalent between the two?

Lincoln bedroom shenanigans aside, Bill the First was not a terrible president. Whether you believe in the magical power of the office to influence the economy or not, the truth is that he left things in a pretty good state, which George the Second decided to toss in the shitter while he went golfing. Many of the administration's failings can be traced to attempting to compromise with Congressional Republicans, who were sharpening their daggers of obstructionism in prescient preparation for the Obama era.

edited 19th Jul '16 9:11:32 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
JackOLantern1337 Shameful Display from The Most Miserable Province in the Russian Empir Since: Aug, 2014 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
Shameful Display
#131114: Jul 19th 2016 at 9:20:25 PM

The Republican Party is a shitshow: It will soon come back stronger than ever. The Wheel of politics spins ever onwards

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
Hodor2 Since: Jan, 2015
#131115: Jul 19th 2016 at 10:00:25 PM

@Ambar- Thanks for the support. I was kind of thinking of First Nations (Native Americans) as well because I had recently seen an episode of United Shades Of America where the host visited Barrow, Alaska, and spoke with several people trying to preserve language and cultural practices (including whale hunting).

Perhaps because Judaism is both a religion and a culture, I think the intermarriage issue is correlated with religious observance but somewhat separate. Like the more orthodox Jews are, the less intermarriage there is, but a lot of highly secularized Jews (like myself) probably place a certain amount of importance on maintaining traditions and marrying co-religionists, but aren't separating ourselves from society/engaging in dodgy treatment of women.

Whether rightly or wrongly though, the "stigma" against intermarriage is not based on a belief in superiority/hostility toward non-religionists, nor is it (depending on observance) connected to separation from society. Which is very different than white supremacists/separatists.

Also was tangentially thinking of the white-supremacist/ (as they present themselves) anti-immigration group V-Dare, who advertised at the RNC (starting to get back on topic).

@Handle- Appreciate your response from last page. Not a fan of MEMRI either. Because of their huge bias, I wouldn't really trust anything they post and I certainly wouldn't assume "bad actors" to be representative.

On topic though, Chris Christie and Trump have a plan to purge the civil service of Obama hires.

edited 19th Jul '16 10:03:11 PM by Hodor2

RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#131117: Jul 19th 2016 at 10:09:32 PM

While she may not have done anything illegal or been convicted of anything, the fact is that she still outright lied about the emails and the usage of them. It's nothing compared to what Trump has done, and what Clinton is lying about may not even have been that big of a deal, but the point is that she still lied. If we can't trust her when it comes to her telling us about something as simple as using an email account, than how can we trust her when it comes to something that's actually important?

Her use of a private email server wasn't illegal, but it was an embarassing screwup. Why would you admit to an embarassing screwup if you don't have to?

edited 19th Jul '16 10:09:45 PM by RavenWilder

Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#131119: Jul 19th 2016 at 10:29:41 PM

[up][up][up]Yes it was. I was hearing it in the other room and I got mad enough I had to grab headphones and loud music to restore my sanity.

Qouth Colbert: Staging a show trial without the defense present to defend herself, spooky or not spooky? (Audience: Spooky! Colbert: You're all pretty spooky.)

edited 19th Jul '16 10:29:57 PM by Elle

AlleyOop Since: Oct, 2010
#131120: Jul 19th 2016 at 10:36:55 PM

Is there a version of this article that summarizes what happened without being so slanted and full of loaded language? Like, I already expect my opinion to align with the author's, but even so I prefer my articles to just get to the point and tell me information without the use of judgmental language. Outlets like Breitbart and Daily Dot engage in this crap enough when all I care about is the news. I don't want them to tell me how to feel. /whining

edited 19th Jul '16 10:41:12 PM by AlleyOop

Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#131121: Jul 19th 2016 at 10:44:53 PM

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/19/fact-checking-second-night-2016-republican-nationa/ covers it about midway down (complete with fact checking) but to get the full effect you really need either the video or full text transcript (the later I don't think is around in a convenient form yet).

Demonic_Braeburn Yankee Doodle Dandy from Defective California Since: Jan, 2016
Yankee Doodle Dandy
#131122: Jul 19th 2016 at 10:54:01 PM

Fast approaching her final decision on a running mate, Hillary Clinton appears to be looking closely at Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA), Agricultural Secretary Tom Vilsack, and Labor Secretary Tom Perez.

edited 19th Jul '16 10:58:52 PM by Demonic_Braeburn

Any group who acts like morons ironically will eventually find itself swamped by morons who think themselves to be in good company.
Medinoc from France (Before Recorded History)
#131124: Jul 20th 2016 at 1:38:24 AM

I have seen so much jokes about Clinton saying "I am not a crook!" that now I want her to actually don a Nixon Mask (or better yet, a caricatural Hillary Clinton mask) and say it.

I'm sure she could, it wouldn't be unlike her play-barking when she called Trump (I think?) a rabid dog.

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."
Antiteilchen In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good. Since: Sep, 2013
In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good.
#131125: Jul 20th 2016 at 3:11:57 AM

Partly I'll respond by saying "what Ambar said". It's not cool to compare a sentiment that stems from an actual genocide in which millions of people were killed and centuries of culture eradicated to an imaginary one that only exists in the minds of revanchists.
Wether the threat is real or imagined is irrelevant. The logic of forcing people to marry within a certain group and forcing them to preserve a culture is what's the issue here.

As with Handle's post, I'm going to raise an eyebrow at your use of the term "blood purity". Why are these comparisons always about equating Jews to Nazis?
If it is not about blood purity, there's only one need to marry within the same group. Cultural purity. And that concept isn't any better.

and given the centuries of oppression we've dealt to them, including numerous attempts at forcing them to assimilate into the greater white culture, it's a perfectly reasonable argument to be made.
Two wrongs don't make a right.

Forcing people to be part of a certain culture and adhere to religious practices is wrong. But while you seem to agree with that, when a majority forces it on a minority, you seem to be okay with it when minority force that on members of they're own. Culture and religions don't have value of their own. If people want them, they should be able to keep it. But forcing people to keep them is just as wrongheaded as forcing them to abandon them.


Total posts: 417,856
Top