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

Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#133701: Aug 1st 2016 at 1:18:18 AM

So 538 have their latest update to their electoral prediction and while their poll-plus method has Clinton winning (just) their polls-only and election-today predictions have a dead even split in the electoral college.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Deadbeatloser22 from Disappeared by Space Magic (Great Old One) Relationship Status: Tsundere'ing
#133702: Aug 1st 2016 at 1:24:22 AM

Oh good. Then this kicks in.

"Yup. That tasted purple."
thatguythere47 Since: Jul, 2010
#133703: Aug 1st 2016 at 3:35:24 AM

I think someone here has said it before but it bears repeating: Clinton and Trump are so incredibly lucky to be facing off against each other because literally anyone else would be able to walk right over them.

Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?
Kayeka (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#133704: Aug 1st 2016 at 4:21:07 AM

[up]Guess that means the current US political scene suffers a bit from talent deficiency?

Perian Since: Jun, 2016
#133705: Aug 1st 2016 at 4:30:42 AM

It would take a lot. Literally every single elected official in the country was voted in using the current voting methods, so it will take something unimaginable for them to say "You know what? The method that got me into office isn't really that great. Let's change it." Besides, most voters don't really understand alternative voting methods anyway.

I meant the practical procedure, not the political implications. At any rate, I think the biggest challenge is to convince the public that the voting system needs to be changed (politicians will probably follow anyway if they can gain politically from promising electoral change).The current election cycle, in which more than half of the presidential votes will probably be anti-votes, might be a good example to demonstrate the problems of FPTP to the general public. Also, there's nothing complex about ranked choice, it's used in several other countries and everyone has probably already used rankings somewhere in their life. It's already in use in some places in the US anyway.

Open Letter to the Media from one of Clinton's supporters.

Let's take the current front-page of the New York Times. Trump stories:

  • Trump Dispute With Muslim Family Emerges as Flash Point
  • Top Trump Aide Previously Wielded Influence in Ukraine
  • Trump Appears Confused on Issue of Russia in Ukraine
  • Donald Trump Ducks Tax Disclosure
  • How the ‘Stupid Party’ Created Donald Trump
Clinton stories:
  • Clinton Made Me Cry
  • Clinton Hunts an Elusive Prey: White Male Voters
  • Kaine Recalled for Commitment to African-Americans

Now, who gets the most negative press coverage? In particular, the graph showed in the article was cherry-picked - the study in question actually has this to say:

However, the tone of his coverage varied markedly over the course of the primary season. During the period when the Republican nomination was still being contested, Trump’s coverage was positive on balance. News statements about Trump during this period were 53 percent positive to 47 percent negative—nearly as positive as Sanders’. But after Cruz and Kasich dropped from the race in early May, Trump’s coverage nosedived. Over the final five weeks of the primary season, 61 percent of news statements about Trump were negative and only 39 percent were positive—a level of negativity exceeded only by Clinton’s coverage during 2015.
In particular, the 'positive' press coverage of Trump were reports of his unexpected early wins in the primaries. And I don't mean to say that Trump is unfairly treated by the media - it's only fair that a candidate like him should be reported on more negatively - but people like the author of the article you cited seem to be advocating for the press to sugar-coat every aspect of Clinton's candidacy and be silent about her problems, just because Trump is her opponent.

edited 1st Aug '16 4:37:03 AM by Perian

MarqFJA The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer from Deserts of the Middle East (Before Recorded History) Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
#133706: Aug 1st 2016 at 4:49:40 AM

Trump's strategy has always been: when attacked, counterattack with overwhelming force.
... This gives me a crazy idea: Trick him into clashing with the Church of Happyology, and see how his strategy fairs against their infamous policy for how to respond to attackers.

edited 1st Aug '16 4:50:28 AM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
TerminusEst from the Land of Winter and Stars Since: Feb, 2010
#133707: Aug 1st 2016 at 4:53:47 AM

[up]

The churches would be burnt.

Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele
Eschaton Since: Jul, 2010
#133708: Aug 1st 2016 at 5:25:49 AM

[up][up]It wouldn't happen. He loves money. They love money.

They have so much in common.

Julep Since: Jul, 2010
#133709: Aug 1st 2016 at 6:30:06 AM

Now, who gets the most negative press coverage?

Irrelevant. Trump does not care about the way the press covers him. He enjoys mediatic feuds that allow his name to be written everywhere. He runs on No Such Thing as Bad Publicity.

If the press criticizes him, he will say that traditional medias are biased. If the press mocks him, he will loudly claim that he doesn't care because he is rich and famous. If the press lauds him, he will say that they finally came to their senses regarding his genius.

edited 1st Aug '16 6:31:54 AM by Julep

tclittle Professional Forum Ninja from Somewhere Down in Texas Since: Apr, 2010
Professional Forum Ninja
#133710: Aug 1st 2016 at 6:40:04 AM

I'm wondering if Trump will say anything about having his likeness used in a game.

"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."
SciFiSlasher from Absolutely none of your business. Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
#133711: Aug 1st 2016 at 6:59:54 AM

Probably. They'll also just ignore the fact that the RNC did the same thing by bringing in that one lady to blame Clinton for her son's death.

Not just her; it was all those parents whose children had been murdered by people who happened to be immigrants. But of course, Republicans will just scream, "But that's different! They were killed by immigrants!"

"Somehow the hated have to walk a tightrope, while those who hate do not."
TotemicHero No longer a forum herald from the next level Since: Dec, 2009
No longer a forum herald
#133712: Aug 1st 2016 at 7:10:25 AM

[up][up] Ahem.

Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)
Ogodei Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers from The front lines Since: Jan, 2011
Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers
#133713: Aug 1st 2016 at 7:21:16 AM

I do love how the Trump phenomenon is thoroughly smashing the myth of the GOP as the sane, "serious," wonk-party. The discourse about stuff like entitlement reform being a necessary bitter pill is now gone from the mainstream because the Democrats are finally getting that it's bad policy and the Republicans no longer give a shit about policy.

AngelusNox Warder of the damned from The guard of the gates of oblivion Since: Dec, 2014 Relationship Status: Married to the job
Warder of the damned
#133715: Aug 1st 2016 at 7:25:51 AM

Did someone say church burning?

Inter arma enim silent leges
storyyeller More like giant cherries from Appleloosa Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: RelationshipOutOfBoundsException: 1
More like giant cherries
#133716: Aug 1st 2016 at 7:30:40 AM

Does this count as an Enemy Civil War?

Seems more like Even Evil Has Standards. Assuming you think Snowden is evil of course.

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play
LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#133717: Aug 1st 2016 at 7:31:55 AM

Which is a bit hypocritical of him, really.

Oh really when?
Julep Since: Jul, 2010
#133718: Aug 1st 2016 at 7:32:16 AM

Sounds like one site should get renamed Wikipricks at that point.

AngelusNox Warder of the damned from The guard of the gates of oblivion Since: Dec, 2014 Relationship Status: Married to the job
Warder of the damned
#133719: Aug 1st 2016 at 7:39:11 AM

If Wikileaks wanted to keep the facade of being a "neutral" organization they'd have released something about the RNC.

But no, they are politically driven to favor one party over the other, which is glaring because they love to act like "we're totally a neutral party guys!", it isn't a secret that Assange would like to see the US burn to the ground and I think he sees Trump as the right man for that job.

Inter arma enim silent leges
TerminusEst from the Land of Winter and Stars Since: Feb, 2010
#133720: Aug 1st 2016 at 7:41:17 AM

Bill Maher suggests an alternative Clinton campaign.

Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele
TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#133721: Aug 1st 2016 at 7:49:48 AM

It's the same kind of error that makes people think a household is a good analogy for a country. If you are a CEO and you manage to pay your workers a bunch less than your competitors, your company prospers, and your profits rise, because the earnings of your workforce are not any meaningful percentage of your customer base no matter how large your corporation.

If all companies keep wages down, that torpedoes sales, and heads directly into economic death-spiral country, but realizing that is very difficult for a manager, because "low wages hurt the economy" run directly against their lived experience, and realizing something which is good for you in isolation is bad for the country is difficult and unpleasant

On top of this, it's much easier to lay blame at the feet of those damn, dirty poor people and their laziness than to acknowledge that your business practices might be the reason the economy's in the shitter. The former allows for extensive othering and hatemongering, which have always been popular principles in society.

I think someone here has said it before but it bears repeating: Clinton and Trump are so incredibly lucky to be facing off against each other because literally anyone else would be able to walk right over them.

Why do people keep repeating this? The 2008 primary disproves the notion that "anyone else would walk all over Clinton". In 2008, she won more of the popular vote than our president Barack Obama. Obama only won the nomination due to superdelegates.

Despite the constant efforts to scandalize and discredit her throughout her career, Clinton has always been a political powerhouse.

edited 1st Aug '16 7:50:14 AM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#133722: Aug 1st 2016 at 7:52:30 AM

I too am curious why even so many not-Republicans seem so fixated on the "Under normal circumstances Hilary could never win" thing. What do so many people seem to need to believe that?

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#133723: Aug 1st 2016 at 7:57:48 AM

Because it plays into the "Hillary is a corrupt career politician bought and paid for by special interests, and everyone knows it" narrative. They can tell themselves that the only reason she has any chance at all is because she's up against a racist pathological liar with zero government experience and no filter between his brain and his mouth.

If she was up against a "real" candidate, then she'd be getting crushed in the polls — or so they tell themselves.

edited 1st Aug '16 7:58:25 AM by NativeJovian

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#133724: Aug 1st 2016 at 8:00:00 AM

Obama in 2008 won the pledged delegates as well. It's the popular vote he lost in the primary.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Julep Since: Jul, 2010
#133725: Aug 1st 2016 at 8:04:01 AM

I honestly think that politics are being tremendously dumbed down now that internet is growing exponentially. No one cares about actual arguments, analyses and programs made by the candidates, we have so much data available that what matters most are short articles (and especially their titles) and tweets, because those get stuck in the head. Trevor Noah actually made a piece about Trump's lack of vocabulary and the way he uses it to give simplistic, easy to remember messages.

As for Hillary, "Wall Street puppet" is much easier to understand than her actual link with billionnaires. "Crooked Hillary" is better than actually going through the leaked emails to see what she actually said in it (hint: little if any about American military operations, a lot of smalltalk, as in anyone's emails).

Trump is successful because he was the first one to understand (I don't know if it was voluntary) that politics worked this way now. Hillary just isn't as good as catchphrases than either Bernie or him, so she looks like "the least charismatic" of the bunch.

If you take the recent DNC, there were at least three significant speeches - Michelle Obama, Barack Obama, Khizr Khan. For the latter two, I assume most people only saw the "best" parts, the quotable parts. Only Michelle's speech kinda avoided it because the way it is built makes it a bit harder to quote it - or at least, when it was done, it included longer parts of the speech, which helped giving the context.

Meanwhile, Trump's speeches can almost be summed up with a bunch of funny faces and monosyllabic words..

edited 1st Aug '16 8:04:28 AM by Julep


Total posts: 417,856
Top