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

ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#133726: Aug 1st 2016 at 8:08:53 AM

So in other Khizr Khan related news, Sen. Jeff Sessions defended Trump against Khan's comments, as well as his ideas regarding a Muslim immigration ban.

He also pushed back against accusations that Trump’s proposal to ban Muslims from entering the country is bigoted.

"Millions of Americans are in favor of that policy,” the senator said.

Well, Mr. Sessions, millions of Americans also favor stricter gun control laws, but I don't see you in a hurry to adopt them.

But the real asshole comment came from Roger Stone, who posited that Mr. Khan is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and is just seeking to destabilize the US.

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#133727: Aug 1st 2016 at 8:09:30 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?

Consolation, perhaps? At a time when the GOP candidate is such a terrible human being, it might be a comforting narrative to say that, "Well, at least the Democrats got screwed every bit as hard as we did this year!" even if it's the furthest thing from the truth.

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
Perian Since: Jun, 2016
#133728: Aug 1st 2016 at 8:22:59 AM

On the subject of any other Republican winning against Clinton, it's because:

  • 54% of Clinton voters say they are going to vote for her because her opponent is Trump.
  • Her approval rate is nearly as low as Trump's, and historically low for any presidential nominee.
  • She regularly lost with a large margin to other Republicans such as Kasich and Rubio during primary polling.
  • Even Donald Trump somehow manages to get close to her in recent polls.

Also, primary voters are a very small part of the US population.

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.
Of course - and negative media coverage seems to have helped him rather than hurt him, but surely you can't claim that Clinton gets worse press coverage than him.

edited 1st Aug '16 8:27:52 AM by Perian

ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#133729: Aug 1st 2016 at 8:28:35 AM

In more positive news, some USPS reform legislation finally made it out of committee that's aimed at drastically-reducing the red ink that stems from previous legislation requiring massive prefunding of retirement benefits.

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#133730: Aug 1st 2016 at 9:03:21 AM

EDIT: More on Stein and the anti-vaxxers.

the graph showed in the article was cherry-picked

Says the guy trying to use the New York Times, a single paper, in order to prove that Trump gets worse coverage.

54% of Clinton voters say they are going to vote for her because her opponent is Trump.

And you know that they'd vote for a different Republican on the basis of...?

Her approval rate is nearly as low as Trump's, and historically low for any presidential nominee.

Her approval rating is low, but nowhere near as low as Trump's.

Of course - and negative media coverage seems to have helped him rather than hurt him, but surely you can't claim that Clinton gets worse press coverage than him.

Sure we can. The press regularly let things slide with Trump that they'd never let slide with Clinton. Example given—there was a New York Times article that discussed Trump's admitted habit (as in, admitted in one of his books) of lying during business deals. They called it "being creative with the truth." Other papers described it the same way. Can you imagine if Clinton had said something similar? There'd have been headline after headline about how she admits to being a liar.

Every time Clinton makes even a minor misstep, the papers crucify her, something you yourself admitted to being in favour of in your previous post. Trump's minor missteps, conversely, are ignored. The papers either wait for the next big misstep from him, or try to find something positive to say about him so that they won't be accused of liberal bias, an accusation they've been running scared from since at least the 1990s. The end net result is that minor mistakes from Clinton end up being given the same weight as the major policy blunders and anti-democratic rhetoric coming from Trump.

edited 1st Aug '16 9:08:52 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar

ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#133731: Aug 1st 2016 at 9:14:26 AM

[up]

Thing is, I've seen the same study (though damned if I can find it) saying that 56% of prospective Clinton voters are doing so to deny Trump the Presidency, and 52% of Trump's prospective voters are doing so to deny Clinton it. I can't recall there ever being a larger Lesser of Two Evils election than this one, save for the memetic "Vote for the Lizard, not the Wizard!" campaign between scandal-ridden Edwin Edwards and former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke in Louisiana.

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#133732: Aug 1st 2016 at 9:16:26 AM

Which reminds me, wasn't David Duke feeling inspired be Trump to run for the Senate? Is that still going on, if so?

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#133733: Aug 1st 2016 at 9:16:42 AM

That sort of stuff does make me worry about 2020. Clinton really needs to work hard to accomplish stuff or she'll probably be a one term president.

Perian Since: Jun, 2016
#133734: Aug 1st 2016 at 9:31:23 AM

Says the guy trying to use the New York Times, a single paper, in order to prove that Trump gets worse coverage.
If people quote graphs from a scientific study, they should at least not misrepresent it, which the author undoubtedly did.
And you know that they'd vote for a different Republican on the basis of...?
The other evidence I cited? At any rate, that more than half of Clinton votes would be an anti-vote is a strong indication of her unpopularity.
Her approval rating is low, but nowhere near as low as Trump's.
Recently it is - of course, her popularity ratings might have raised a bit again after the Democratic Convention.
Sure we can. [...] Every time Clinton makes even a minor misstep, the papers crucify her, something you yourself admitted to being in favour of in your previous post.
Firstly, you're strawmanning me (which I admittedly might also have been guilty of myself with regards to the author of the article you cited). As for the content of your post: I'm not an English native speaker, but I've never heard of "being creative with the truth" as a positive thing. And I honestly don't know what you're talking about: the media has been all over him about his recent insult and his hypothesized ties with Russia, and has been calling him a fascist ever since he announced his candidacy (and for the record, I didn't say that this is unwarranted).

edited 1st Aug '16 9:48:06 AM by Perian

megarockman from The Sixth Borough (Experienced Trainee)
#133735: Aug 1st 2016 at 9:31:29 AM

[up][up][up]Duke is indeed running for US Senator from Louisiana. He is running as a Republican, though I feel I should mention that Louisiana's "jungle primary" system means at least eight other Republicans will also be on the ballot, plus seven Democrats, two Libertarians, and six Independents (at last count of declared candidates according to Wiki).

edited 1st Aug '16 9:36:15 AM by megarockman

The damned queen and the relentless knight.
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#133736: Aug 1st 2016 at 9:52:38 AM

If people quote graphs from a scientific study, they should at least not misrepresent it, which the author undoubtedly did.

And if people want to refute the author's point, they should try using actual evidence, and not today's headlines in a single paper.

Firstly, you're strawmanning me.

The hell I am. You said, in response to the article I'd posted, that you didn't want the papers to "sugarcoat" anything Clinton does. Unfortunately, the article doesn't advocate for "sugarcoating" her positions. It asks that the papers either a) stop automatically assuming the worst possible motivations of her, and ascribing ill intent to every statement of hers that they can or b) treat Trump the same way. It's a plea for fairness—a plea that you rejected in favour of the papers continuing to operate as they are now. Ergo, you are/were in favour of the papers continuing to paint Clinton in as bad a light as possible, regardless of accuracy.

PS—Before you tell me that the above isn't what you meant, that's fine and I'm willing to drop this line of discussion, but it is what you said.

As for the content of your post: I'm not an English native speaker, but I've never heard of "being creative of the truth" as a positive thing

Being "creative with the truth" suggests there is truth in the statement, and that the speaker is exaggerating, but not outright lying. In reporting that way they're giving Trump a courtesy they rarely if ever give Clinton.

And I honestly don't know what you're talking about: the media has been all over him about his recent insult and his hypothesized ties with Russia, and has been calling him a fascist ever since he announced his candidacy

No they haven't. The fascism thing is comparatively recent, and most papers are not calling him that. Do you actually look around the Internet at all the headlines? Or do you just read the New York Times and Washington Post and assume that every paper in the USA is following their lead? There are thousands of papers in America, and most of them are still trying to treat Trump like a normal candidate, rather than the anti-democratic nut that he is.

edited 1st Aug '16 9:53:54 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar

chartoc Since: Apr, 2010
#133737: Aug 1st 2016 at 9:53:30 AM

http://www.vfw.org/News-and-Events/Articles/2016-Articles/VFW-Supports-Gold-Star-Families/

So Trump manage to get the biggest veteran group mad at him. Considering that military voters consist of 30 million, that could have an effect on the election. Also can someone please explain to me how 46% of voters voting for Bernie is consider rigging? I just can't warp my head around this.

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#133738: Aug 1st 2016 at 9:54:42 AM

[up]The Unicorn Brigade don't want to admit that they lost, so rather than examining the failures within their own campaign, they're insisting the other side cheated.

Krieger22 Causing freakouts over sourcing since 2018 from Malaysia Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: I'm in love with my car
Causing freakouts over sourcing since 2018
#133739: Aug 1st 2016 at 10:02:37 AM

A couple of days ago I was thinking that nobody would ever dare to insult a Gold Star Mother for anything she did in the public sphere (this was in relation to the flap where you could play as the Taliban in Medal of Honor (2010), the removal of that and the game's subsequent banning from Post Exchanges).

And then Trump and his base did just that.

EDIT: On right wing YouTube personalities, the lies they peddle and who's funding them:

edited 1st Aug '16 10:04:28 AM by Krieger22

I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot
chartoc Since: Apr, 2010
#133740: Aug 1st 2016 at 10:04:07 AM

[up][up] Got it. Considering he was an independent for most of his career only change to run as Democrat in 2015 this is not surprising.

edited 1st Aug '16 10:04:38 AM by chartoc

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#133741: Aug 1st 2016 at 10:08:44 AM

I'm still baffled by why they continue to perpetuate that myth after Sanders admitted she won the primary fair and square.

Shawnsummer7 Since: Jan, 2016 Relationship Status: Yes, I'm alone, but I'm alone and free
#133742: Aug 1st 2016 at 10:13:09 AM

[up] Yeah. They keep saying Clinton "stole" the nomination or something yet they ignore the fact that she won the popular vote. But no, clearly they know what's "best for them." Seriously, I bet that kind of condescending attitude among some Sanders supporters played a part in why he lost.

megarockman from The Sixth Borough (Experienced Trainee)
#133743: Aug 1st 2016 at 10:14:01 AM

[up]The apparent working theory on that here is that these die-hards fell in love with an idealized Sanders rather than the man himself.

The damned queen and the relentless knight.
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#133744: Aug 1st 2016 at 10:15:33 AM

[up]That's clearly what happened but to think the guy is some messianic figure and then brush off his endorsement takes some pretty huge cognitive dissonance.

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#133745: Aug 1st 2016 at 10:35:36 AM

The Houston Chronicle, typically a pro-Republican paper, has endorsed Clinton because they say Trump is a "threat to the Republic."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/01/politics/houston-chronicle-hillary-clinton-endorsement/index.html

And a Jeb Bush advisor has left the GOP over Trump, and says she'll vote for Clinton if her state (Florida) is close.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/01/politics/sally-bradshaw-jeb-bush-donald-trump-florida/index.html

edited 1st Aug '16 10:36:46 AM by Rationalinsanity

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#133746: Aug 1st 2016 at 10:37:27 AM

John McCain calls out Trump over his bashing of the Khan family:

"The Republican Party I know and love is the party of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Ronald Reagan.

"I wear a bracelet bearing the name of a fallen hero, Matthew Stanley, which his mother, Lynn, gave me in 2007, at a town hall meeting in Wolfeboro, New Hampshire. His memory and the memory of our great leaders deserve better from me.

"In recent days, Donald Trump disparaged a fallen soldier's parents. He has suggested that the likes of their son should not be allowed in the United States — to say nothing of entering its service. I cannot emphasize enough how deeply I disagree with Mr. Trump's statement. I hope Americans understand that the remarks do not represent the views of our Republican Party, its officers, or candidates.

"Make no mistake: I do not valorize our military out of some unfamiliar instinct. I grew up in a military family, and have my own record of service, and have stayed closely engaged with our armed forces throughout my public career. In the American system, the military has value only inasmuch as it protects and defends the liberties of the people.

"My father was a career naval officer, as was his father. For hundreds of years, every generation of Mc Cains has served the United States in uniform.

"My sons serve today, and I'm proud of them. My youngest served in the war that claimed Captain Khan's life as well as in Afghanistan. I want them to be proud of me. I want to do the right thing by them and their comrades.

"Humayun Khan did exactly that — and he did it for all the right reasons. This accomplished young man was not driven to service as a United States Army officer because he was compelled to by any material need. He was inspired as a young man by his reading of Thomas Jefferson — and he wanted to give back to the country that had taken him and his parents in as immigrants when he was only two years old.

"Captain Khan's death in Iraq, on June 8th, 2004, was a shining example of the valor and bravery inculcated into our military. When a suicide bomber accelerated his vehicle toward a facility with hundreds of American soldiers, Captain Khan ordered his subordinates away from the danger. "Then he ran toward it.

"The suicide bomber, striking prematurely, claimed the life of Captain Khan — and Captain Khan, through his selfless action and sacrifice, saved the lives of hundreds of his brothers and sisters. "Scripture tells us that 'Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.'

"Captain Humayun Khan of the United States Army showed in his final moments that he was filled and motivated by this love. His name will live forever in American memory, as an example of true American greatness.

"In the end, I am morally bound to speak only to the things that command my allegiance, and to which I have dedicated my life's work: the Republican Party, and more importantly, the United States of America. I will not refrain from doing my utmost by those lights simply because it may benefit others with whom I disagree.

"I claim no moral superiority over Donald Trump. I have a long and well-known public and private record for which I will have to answer at the Final Judgment, and I repose my hope in the promise of mercy and the moderation of age. I challenge the nominee to set the example for what our country can and should represent.

"Arizona is watching. It is time for Donald Trump to set the example for our country and the future of the Republican Party. While our Party has bestowed upon him the nomination, it is not accompanied by unfettered license to defame those who are the best among us.

"Lastly, I'd like to say to Mr. and Mrs. Khan: thank you for immigrating to America. We're a better country because of you. And you are certainly right; your son was the best of America, and the memory of his sacrifice will make us a better nation — and he will never be forgotten."

edited 1st Aug '16 10:38:42 AM by Parable

Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Kayeka (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#133748: Aug 1st 2016 at 10:47:40 AM

That's clearly what happened but to think the guy is some messianic figure and then brush off his endorsement takes some pretty huge cognitive dissonance.
Wouldn't be the first time, really.

edited 1st Aug '16 10:51:01 AM by Kayeka

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#133749: Aug 1st 2016 at 11:00:43 AM

@Kostya: Honestly, I can't imagine Clinton being a 2 term President under any plausible circumstances. There's almost inevitably going to be a recession in the next President's term, and it's probably going to be bad since there's no way any meaningful reforms are going through congress in its current state. In all likelihood they'll spend the entirety of her presidency attempting to impeach her and blocking any and all legislature from passing. To add to that, whether or not it has anything to do with it, the TPP is going to be blamed for the economic woes of the country which will in turn be blamed on the democrats; Despite Clinton's stated opposition to the deal, it's very likely it'll end up being passed by Obama during the lame duck session of congress, so as to sidestep the issue of Clinton having to go back on her word. given practically the entirety of corporate America is lobbying for this, it's more or less a question of when not if the deal gets passed.

edited 1st Aug '16 11:02:36 AM by CaptainCapsase

Perian Since: Jun, 2016
#133750: Aug 1st 2016 at 11:02:38 AM

And if people want to refute the author's point, they should try using actual evidence, and not today's headlines in a single paper.
I actually pointed out how the author misrepresented the study he quoted (the positive stories were caused by his unexpected early wins in the primaries, and his negative press coverage was larger than Clinton's at the end of them). These NYT headlines were just a suggestion in a discussion that is mostly based on impressions, but I must admit that it's a weak argument.

It's a plea for fairness—a plea that you rejected in favour of the papers continuing to operate as they are now.
From my point of view the media are pretty fair to Clinton, so being more positive would mean sugar-coating, that's why I was annoyed with the article. But anyway, I agree that we should drop this line of discussion.

Being "creative with the truth" suggests there is truth in the statement, and that the speaker is exaggerating, but not outright lying. In reporting that way they're giving Trump a courtesy they rarely if ever give Clinton.
As far as I've seen the phrase used, it has a strong negative connotation, but anyway, as you yourself said, we shouldn't focus too much on individual headlines as it doesn't contribute much to the discussion.

No they haven't. The fascism thing is comparatively recent, and most papers are not calling him that. Do you actually look around the Internet at all the headlines? Or do you just read the New York Times and Washington Post and assume that every paper in the USA is following their lead? There are thousands of papers in America, and most of them are still trying to treat Trump like a normal candidate, rather than the anti-democratic nut that he is.
I'm not sure what you mean, things like FOX News and Murdoch tabloids? Obviously they're anti-Clinton, they would probably call Reagan the devil if he came back from the dead and ran as a Democrat. But I was under the assumption that you were referring to news sources such as CNN, MSNBC, New York Times etc.?


Total posts: 417,856
Top