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

Medinoc from France (Before Recorded History)
#134376: Aug 6th 2016 at 1:42:12 AM

On Assange's rape charges, didn't Sweden start negotiating extradition to the US within days of the accusation? That just screams "The rape charge is an excuse to get the international arrest warrant the espionage charge couldn't get".

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."
Izeinsummer Since: Jun, 2013
#134377: Aug 6th 2016 at 2:21:16 AM

No. Sweden can't legally, and wont, extradite people charged with political crimes, which has been explicitly established to include espionage. Not to mention that asking a Swedish prosecutor to behave in that way would lead to you getting arrested on the spot. They've stood their ground on this before.

If you're going to posit a conspiracy, it'd have to be the the two women being a CIA honey pot trap from the start, and.. uhm. Yhea, tad paranoid. Assange is paranoid, because well, people are out to get him, but that doesn't mean this instance of his paranoia is justified.

Near as I can tell, Assange got famous fighting the power, let it go to his head, was a complete douche to a couple of fangirls, and got burned because Sweden is really quite impressively hardcore when it comes to prosecuting people being dicks. The only thing different between this case and the run of the mill sex crime is that normally the perp does not end up in what is effectively house arrest in the Ecuadorian embassy.

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#134378: Aug 6th 2016 at 2:24:43 AM

I also suspect that Assange has a vendetta on Hillary Clinton because if memory serves, she was Secretary of State during the time all this drama played out. Meaning that he'll blame her for all his problems during that time.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
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
#134379: Aug 6th 2016 at 2:42:25 AM

I don't get why people are pretending Sanders lied about being Jewish, he didn't, he is Jewish and has Jewish heritage, he may also be an atheist but the two aren't mutually exclusive.

No the email isn't bigoted itself, but it's the same kind of thing if there was a candidate rumoured to be bisexual and had never confirmed it due to having a wife. With the suggestion being that someone should strait up ask "have you ever had sex with another man" so as to get a yes and cost that candidate credibility with the evangelical crowd.

It's not bigotry so much as a plan to use the bigotry of voters to cost an opponent votes. Which now I type it out sounds pretty bigoted.

edited 6th Aug '16 2:42:55 AM by Silasw

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
DrDougsh Since: Jan, 2001
#134380: Aug 6th 2016 at 4:21:17 AM

By the sound of it, it's pretty clearly an attempt to appeal to voter bigotry. Every major candidate in this election has had to affirm their faith at one point or another. In a non-bigoted world, the question of faith would never come up at all.

Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#134381: Aug 6th 2016 at 4:25:08 AM

[up]

In a non-bigoted world, the question of faith would never come up at all.

It doesn't come up in Elections in most developed parts of the world — in some parts, actually even mentioning faith will get the candidate strange looks at best. The US is an outlier in this regard.

edited 6th Aug '16 4:26:36 AM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On
Memers Since: Aug, 2013
#134382: Aug 6th 2016 at 4:27:08 AM

Sadly you could worship Satan and be a cannibal and you would still be more popular than an Atheist in many areas of the US, especially to the religious right and left.

ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#134383: Aug 6th 2016 at 5:09:51 AM

Silas summarized it best - the email's intent was clearly trying to get information that, in the eyes of the Baptist voters in Kentucky and West Virginia, would disqualify Sanders from the post... namely, being non-religious. The staffer who wrote it (DNC CFO Brad Marshall) has apologized for it, though said apology reeks of "I'm sorry I got caught" rather than "I'm sorry I said it at all".

“I deeply regret that my insensitive, emotional emails would cause embarrassment to the DNC, the Chairwoman, and all of the staffers who worked hard to make the primary a fair and open process. The comments expressed do not reflect my beliefs nor do they reflect the beliefs of the DNC and its employees. I apologize to those I offended.”

However, the underlying point is that the DNC officials were playing favorites, while the American public (rightly or wrongly - yes, yes, "private organization", but you've only got 2 to choose from for President, realistically speaking) had the expectation that the DNC would remain neutral and let voters decide.

As for the "Hillary may have shipped weapons to ISIS" thing, I should never have cited the Observer, as they were the ones alleging that it involved her former company - my thought is more along the lines of how the US was arming rebels in Libya and Syria prior to ISIS' rise, and I could more than easily see materiel getting into ISIS hands (as evidenced by this story of a plumber's truck winding up in ISIS possession, decals and all) as a result of that "seemed like a good idea at the time" idea.

edited 6th Aug '16 6:21:51 AM by ironballs16

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
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
#134384: Aug 6th 2016 at 5:20:52 AM

[up]You do realize that that case had more to do with the vagaries of the second hand car market, right?

I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot
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
#134385: Aug 6th 2016 at 6:17:01 AM

Weapons go walkabout, they get captured, stolen or sold on the black market, it's simply a thing that happens, even with the best weapon security in the world.

The US is generally good about who it gives arms to, I don't think there have been any issues out of Libya (also I think that the French did a lot of the arming there) and with Syria it's generally been anti-ISIS/anti-Assad groups having weapons go walkabout between them. Remember in Afghanistan the only group the US gave weapons to that was a mistake was Pakistani intelligence. They're the ones who armed the Taliban (well what would become the Taliban) not the US, once the US learned who was being armed they worked with the British to arm non-Taliban groups and such good routs stayed semi-loyal.

edited 6th Aug '16 6:18:13 AM by Silasw

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#134386: Aug 6th 2016 at 6:18:52 AM

[up]

Fair enough, but we were having the debate over possibly arming Syrian rebels in 2013 and it wouldn't be the first time we've done so covertly. However, the State department would have jack-all to do with the covert arming, so point proven either way, I suppose.

edited 6th Aug '16 6:23:18 AM by ironballs16

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
flameboy21th The would-be novelist from California Since: Jan, 2013 Relationship Status: I <3 love!
The would-be novelist
#134388: Aug 6th 2016 at 7:01:43 AM

Says someone who wants to be Putin's fuckboy.

Non Indicative Username
Antiteilchen In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good. Since: Sep, 2013
In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good.
#134389: Aug 6th 2016 at 7:07:58 AM

Because the public cares about it. It informs them, generally, of how they will view some things (unless they are shown to passionately take a different tack), so that they can filter out who they know they will disagree with. Only after that filter do people make efforts to know their leaders.

Sad, but true.

So you'd be okay with outing someone as gay because the voters are homophobes and care about it?

If someone claimed to have mixed heritage but you find evidence that they're not, would calling them out on that be discriminatory?
False equivalence. The equivalence would be someone of mixed heritage claiming to be "pure". Then calling them out on it to appeal to racist voters.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#134390: Aug 6th 2016 at 7:15:31 AM

In other words, context matters. If you are bringing up the issue of a person's religious beliefs during an election cycle, you are doing so either to promote them or denigrate them. Given the cultural stigma placed on religious faith (or lack thereof) in this country, all such actions are inherently laced with intent to appeal to religion-based prejudices.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
GameGuruGG Vampire Hunter from Castlevania (Before Recorded History)
Vampire Hunter
#134391: Aug 6th 2016 at 7:35:25 AM

And to be fair, the category of Unaffiliated, which encompasses atheism, agnosticism, secular humanism, deism, and spiritual but not religious, constitute the largest known group of people in the United States outside of Christians with a percentage of 22.8%. There are less Catholics in the United States than there are people who are Unaffiliated with any known religion.

Wizard Needs Food Badly
FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#134392: Aug 6th 2016 at 8:03:33 AM

[up][up][up]Not saying its okay. Was just explaining something that happens.

EDIT-

Can we move on from religious discussion please? It has its own thread.

edited 6th Aug '16 8:04:53 AM by FFShinra

storyyeller More like giant cherries from Appleloosa Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: RelationshipOutOfBoundsException: 1
More like giant cherries
#134393: Aug 6th 2016 at 8:28:32 AM

Which is a bit hypocritical of him, really.

Did Snowden ever release credit card details and social security numbers for random people? I seem to recall him working carefully with news organizations to redact the leaks. So it's not hypocritical at all.

As far as the whole "talking about asking someone to ask Sanders about religion" thing, I still don't get why it is such a big deal. And besides, it's not like Republicans wouldn't have done the same thing in the general election anyway. Part of the point of primaries is to vet candidates to make sure they can stand up in the general election.

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play
RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#134394: Aug 6th 2016 at 8:40:52 AM

Religious prejudice is a bit different from other prejudices, though, because your religion actually can (and, in fact, is supposed to) affect your behavior.

One of the more infamous examples is Christians who don't want to do anything to stop climate change, because they're convinced the apocalypse prophesied in the Book of Revelation will occur before climate change gets too bad, rendering the whole issue moot.

ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#134395: Aug 6th 2016 at 8:42:20 AM

[up][up]

The reason it's controversial is that, along with other emails showing an explicit bias towards Clinton by the DNC, the intent wasn't "We need to take that into account" - it was "We can use this to ding Sanders' chances of winning over voters here", which is a world of difference when it's coming from the party network that is (ostensibly) supposed to be supporting the candidates running in their Primary, not seeking to covertly undermine them.

edited 6th Aug '16 8:43:51 AM by ironballs16

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#134396: Aug 6th 2016 at 8:49:54 AM

As questionable as it was I think continuing to harp on this issue is a waste of time. If there was any actual wrongdoing by Hillary then it probably would have been released by now. DWS has resigned her position and Sanders doesn't seem to be holding it against Clinton. Frankly I think there are more important things to worry about like debunking these faux scandals and trying to convince people to back Clinton.

storyyeller More like giant cherries from Appleloosa Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: RelationshipOutOfBoundsException: 1
More like giant cherries
#134397: Aug 6th 2016 at 8:58:31 AM

Also, it's hard for me to feel mad about people at the DNC supporting Clinton when Sanders wasn't even a Democrat a year ago and spent most of his campaign attacking the DNC. Besides, the RNC was much more aggressively anti-Trump and look where that got them.

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#134398: Aug 6th 2016 at 9:01:19 AM

It might be that I'm Canadian and thus used to it, but powerful party elites favoring a candidate gets a resounding meh from me.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#134399: Aug 6th 2016 at 9:03:35 AM

[up][up][up]

I kind of see it as being hand-in-hand with getting people to vote for Clinton, as rooting out the elements that blatantly played favorites would sap credence from Trump's claims (and you know he'll make them if he loses) of fraud in the general election.

[up][up]

I think the difference is the overt animosity that the RNC held for Trump while the DNC undermined Sanders in a surreptitious way - basically the political equivalent of At Least I Admit It.

edited 6th Aug '16 9:06:40 AM by ironballs16

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
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
#134400: Aug 6th 2016 at 9:06:15 AM

Since when exactly did any of the DNC staff accused of bias run the electoral college?

I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot

Total posts: 417,856
Top