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

JackOLantern1337 Shameful Display from The Most Miserable Province in the Russian Empir Since: Aug, 2014 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
Shameful Display
#135251: Aug 14th 2016 at 11:08:00 AM

Technically it's correct. However the burden of proof is on him to prove it's false. And given everything he's said I highly doubt he'll be able to prove in a court of law that he is not a racist.

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#135252: Aug 14th 2016 at 11:10:19 AM

Well, the UK has fairly stringent libel laws, with burden of evidence on the publishers, and that doesn't stop their press from being batshit insane, especially the tabloids.

Democrats...right-wing? Center-right? After the most progressive platform in the country's history?
lol, okay, son.

But, daddy, by what standards would you call this platform the most progressive? What about the New Deal, daddy? 90% taxes on corporations, with deductions based on investment in R&D and in training Americans? The Wealth Tax Act with 79% on incomes over $5 million? The Public Works Administration? What about the GI Bill, daddy?

edited 14th Aug '16 11:10:51 AM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
pwiegle Cape Malleum Majorem from Nowhere Special Since: Sep, 2015 Relationship Status: Singularity
Cape Malleum Majorem
#135253: Aug 14th 2016 at 11:14:44 AM

"The right to be heard does not automatically confer the right to be taken seriously." — Hubert H. Humphrey

Unfortunately, some people simply never learned to think for themselves and distinguish bullshit when they hear it, so they'll believe anything.

edited 14th Aug '16 11:16:45 AM by pwiegle

This Space Intentionally Left Blank.
TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#135254: Aug 14th 2016 at 11:17:20 AM

[up]The US public education system is kinda designed that way, though, so it's not really their fault.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
pwiegle Cape Malleum Majorem from Nowhere Special Since: Sep, 2015 Relationship Status: Singularity
Cape Malleum Majorem
#135255: Aug 14th 2016 at 11:20:53 AM

[up] I can't argue with that. The public school system doesn't teach kids how to think, just how to memorize and recite data. And parochial schools are even worse.

This Space Intentionally Left Blank.
Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#135256: Aug 14th 2016 at 11:52:25 AM

Why not just tell me what you disagree with Stein on? All I've heard about her is that she lends at least some support to anti-vaccine and anti-GMO conspiracy theories, and I disagree strongly with both positions, which are not "left" or associated with any particular point on the political spectrum - they're just fringe nuttiness.

How about the fact Stein is a total idiot and charlatan? Someone who panders to an audience that is mostly affluent and can afford this sniffing at "both sides are the same" as they don't have to contend with the real world consequences of GMO foodstores going away because they'll still have all the organic kale they can eat while people in the third world starve? How about the fact she's a total shill for Putin and Assad, has defended them on more than one occasion and actively had dinner with the fomrer while defending his policies, while swearing to make an IT-guy turned criminal a part of her administration? How about the fact she knows fuck-all about what's going on in the world, like when she praised Brexit, realized leftists didn't like it, and quickly changed her views? Or when she was so morally bankrupt as to delete a praise of Eli Wiesel after his death?

How about the fact that she panders to the anti-GMO crowd who block lifesaving foodstuffs from reaching the market? How about the idea she promotes no real policy and only platitude? Like her lies about the bank bailouts with student debt. Like her going on about universal healthcare. Show me her positions and tell me how she gets them done. Show me how they're even feasible in reality. Show me how they're not magical-thinking of someone who is pandering to disaffected leftists who don't want that horrible reality to get in the way of their ideals.

I am so sick and tired of this complaining about how horrible the Democrats are by people ignoring the genuinely leftward push the party has undergone and the genuine triumphs they have made. The idea Obama just abandoned the Public Option and could totally have gotten it if he pushed hard for it pinky swear has no basis in fact or reality and reduces the pressures and difficulties and simple realities of the Presidency and passing legislation to the complexity of a Green Lantern ring where anything is possible if you will it to be. It doesn't work like that.

And please stop telling me how the Democrats would be center-right in other countries because that tells me you probably don't know much about other geo-politics outside of Scandinavia or, charitably, a hyper-idealized version of Europe.

edited 14th Aug '16 11:54:03 AM by Lightysnake

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#135257: Aug 14th 2016 at 12:04:03 PM

So looking at the polling aggregates, Trump seems to be rallying a bit in the national averages. He's still facing a decisive loss without a spanner being thrown into the electoral process by his brown shirts, but he's bottomed out for the time being in the polls, and looks to be losing by perhaps 5-7%.

TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#135258: Aug 14th 2016 at 12:04:34 PM

[up][up]Yeah, there's nothing charitable about your attitude, pal. Take it down a notch, will ya?

[up]That's laughable! Le Pen lost to Chirac 20-80!

edited 14th Aug '16 12:05:58 PM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#135259: Aug 14th 2016 at 12:07:24 PM

The simple fact is that running with an R next to his name means Trump is going to get a nice chunk of states.

There's simply no political climate for a 1964/1972/1984 blowout these days.

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#135260: Aug 14th 2016 at 12:09:17 PM

[up] I tend to disagree; there's a very strong anti-establishment sentiment, particularly among the GOP's base. Clinton is also a very uniquely unpopular candidate, and no matter the reason the impact that has had on the race is quite apparent.

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#135261: Aug 14th 2016 at 12:12:39 PM

I've said before and will say again that I think the election has reached the point where the candidates' actual views are secondary to the point of being irrelevant.

We're at the point where votes are determined by the party line. By the stupidity and bigotry spewed by one of the candidates. By a history of scandals, real and imagined. By complementary statements towards people hostile to us. Things that are only barely, if at all, tied to their plans for actual policy once in office.

edited 14th Aug '16 12:14:44 PM by sgamer82

Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#135262: Aug 14th 2016 at 12:14:18 PM

Clinton is also very popular with her own party, and her being 'uniquely unpopular' has much more to do with external attacks than the Trump factor.

What is the 'establishment' to Republicans? You've seen how guys like Cruz and Mike Lee paint them: the patently false accusation they roll over and give Obama what he wants the ones who succumb to political correctness, etc etc.

Anyone who is just kneejerk anti-establishment and, say, those who jump ship from Bernie to Trump are people I don't think ever really cared about the substantive issues.

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#135263: Aug 14th 2016 at 12:15:10 PM

[up][up] That's the case in all elections held ever among a sufficiently sizable electorate. Elections are won and lost on personality first and on party second, not on issues.

[up] I'd argue the reverse would've been much more possible; beyond the hardcore racists, the vast maority of Trump's supporters are undoubtedly fairly normal people desperately looking for someone to blame for their plights in life. Those kinds of voters are very impressionable, and right now there's a lot more of them on the right than the left thanks to the sheer incompetence of the GOP. Whatever cause you credit Clinton's unpopularity to, it doesn't matter; a great many people dislike her strongly. Independents in particular, and while many of those people dislike Trump even more, that kind of attitude yields only the bare minimum of civic engagement (which is still pretty inadequate in a modern society) from that base, namely going to the polls and voting.

edited 14th Aug '16 12:20:16 PM by CaptainCapsase

Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#135264: Aug 14th 2016 at 12:25:37 PM

Trump's success is owed partially to anti-establishment types. Nearly all arguments I've heard in favor of Trump comes from a position that Hillary is even worse, and she's worse because she's part of the Democratic Establishment. To be fair though, the people making this claim aren't super-happy with Trump, they merely think that any Republican (even the worst one) is better than any Democrat (even the best one).

This is actually something that's worried me about the current political culture: it's not a contest between the positive attributes of candidates, but between who has the least negative traits. It's grounded entirely in negativity.

Leviticus 19:34
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#135265: Aug 14th 2016 at 12:30:28 PM

[up] That's one reason I've tried to focus on things like the fact Clinton is, and to me always has been, the most competent person running.

TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#135266: Aug 14th 2016 at 1:11:07 PM

By the way, any chance someone will take down the Electoral College system?

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#135267: Aug 14th 2016 at 1:15:27 PM

[up] Not until it's working against the interests of the powerful.

TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#135268: Aug 14th 2016 at 1:15:59 PM

Is it working in anyone's interests right now?

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#135269: Aug 14th 2016 at 1:17:35 PM

[up][up] Capsase, do you believe that we're living in a "post-democratic" era?

edited 14th Aug '16 1:17:49 PM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#135270: Aug 14th 2016 at 1:20:58 PM

[up] I feel that we never really were living in a proper democracy; what we call democracy is in practice merely a more refined form of oligarchic rule (aka we're a republic, not a democracy). Which isn't necessarily a bad thing; for a number of reasons, a direct democracy is not currently viable, but I can't imagine our political institutions would be willing to cede the amount of power they have if a day came where it was viable, and even now, I'd argue that our system is more undemocratic than it has to be.

edited 14th Aug '16 1:24:40 PM by CaptainCapsase

Galadriel Since: Feb, 2015
#135271: Aug 14th 2016 at 1:34:05 PM

Obama had a House majority, 60 Democrats in the Senate, and very high approval ratings for his first two years. He had ample opportunity to pass a public option.

As for international comparisons: in my country, Canada, the mainstream Democrats would be considered centre-right. (Sanders' support for free college would put him on the left wing of our social democratic party, though.)

The political orientation of the US is different on a whole host of fronts. During the Great Recession, our Conservative Party was passing stimulus spending while the Republicans were trying to shut down the US government. Our current government (the centrist Liberal Party) has admitted 25,000 Syrian refugees, while Obama is admitting 10,000 into a country ten times our size. Our current government has committed to legalizing marijuana. Our social welfare system is highly imperfect, but it includes a year of maternity leave at half-pay. Know how much maternity leave the US has? Zero. I was stunned to find that out. There are American women giving birth and having to go back to work the next week because they can't afford anything else. Our police are imperfect, but they don't look and act like a paramilitary force like some US police departments. Our incarceration rate (and that of every other developed country) is far lower than America's. And all that is before looking at the public health care systems that every developed country except America has.

The Democrats tolerate, and in some cases support, policies that would be considered intolerable here. I understand that creating progressive social programs is a much more difficult task than maintaining them once they're in place, but the Clintons didn't just not pass them, they dismantled the US social welfare system in the '90s. The US political spectrum is much further right than ours, and a lot of mainstream Democrats could fit comfortably into the moderate wing of Canada's Conservative Party.

edited 14th Aug '16 1:35:51 PM by Galadriel

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
#135272: Aug 14th 2016 at 1:49:15 PM

Obama had a house full of Dems unwilling to back a public option. He didn't cut the healthcare down for Republicans, he gutted it down for Democrats who wouldn't have supported it otherwise. The US isn't like Canada or the UK where you can force the elected representatives to vote along party lines.

Yes the Dems currently are to the center right of many other countries, but that's due to the overtone window in the US, there are many Dems who would count as left wing in Europe or Canada if they were allowed to push their full ideals instead of having to limit themselves for the big tent.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#135273: Aug 14th 2016 at 1:50:15 PM

[up]What are majority whips for?

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#135274: Aug 14th 2016 at 1:56:31 PM

Obama had a House majority, 60 Democrats in the Senate, and very high approval ratings for his first two years. He had ample opportunity to pass a public option.

No he didn't. He had a 60 seat majority for a very short time because it took a long time to seat Al Franken. And who was vote 60? Joe Lieberman, an independent who openly supported Obama's opponent in the election, who flat out said he would never support a public option and if they didn't remove it, healthcare reform was dead. They had a full 60 seat majority for...how long in Legislative session before Ted Kennedy died, exactly? Along with a number of red-state Democrats who were uncomfortable with the public option? How long were Democrats trying to pass healthcare reform before Obama actually managed it? And please don't repeat the myth that the ACA is the Republian 90s plan.

As for international comparisons: in my country, Canada, the mainstream Democrats would be considered centre-right. (Sanders' support for free college would put him on the left wing of our social democratic party, though.)

Canada is not the vast majority of the world.

The Democrats tolerate, and in some cases support, policies that would be considered intolerable here. I understand that creating progressive social programs is a much more difficult task than maintaining them once they're in place, but the Clintons didn't just not pass them, they dismantled the US social welfare system in the '90s. The US political spectrum is much further right than ours, and a lot of mainstream Democrats could fit comfortably into the moderate wing of Canada's Conservative Party.

Please look up the politics involved when Kasich introduced the welfare reform bill. The Clintons did not sit there, rubbing their hands together and mwahahaha-ing about destroying welfare; the house and Senate passed the bill in large amounts. Clinton's view of it was it was a'sack of shit' containing gems of a decent welfare reform bill and hoped that a Democratic congress could undo the worse aspects of it after election when welfare reform was a hotbed issue. Wrong? Yes. The sole fault of the Clintons? Like hell. And again, this is supposing Hillary is Bill in the 90s when she's not. And you'd have to ignore the fact that the American Overton Window had shifted to the right because of the Reagan administration which did far more to dismantle social programs, and introduce the whole "welfare=bad" message that infected the US political system.

So I'm, again, tired of hearing about how most Democrats are just right-wingers in these leftist utopias.

edited 14th Aug '16 1:59:10 PM by Lightysnake

TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor
#135275: Aug 14th 2016 at 1:56:53 PM

Oh, so you're Canadian. No wonder you seem misinformed on the nuances of politics in America, case in point:

Obama had a House majority, 60 Democrats in the Senate, and very high approval ratings for his first two years. He had ample opportunity to pass a public option. As for international comparisons: in my country, Canada, the mainstream Democrats would be considered centre-right. (Sanders' support for free college would put him on the left wing of our social democratic party, though.)

Every sentence in this paragraph is straight up false. The Democrats only had a supermajority in the Senate, at best for a few months. And the other times they had to deal with Joe Lieberman, who was basically threatening to derail the entire bill in his crusade, and because he was an Independent, he could barely be touched, unless he was either voted out in a general or primary. The ACA passed by the skin of its teeth (one vote IIRC) and it took some ridiculous negotiation to get some of the Blue Dogs on board with casting a vote for it (and this cost them their careers, if not in 2010, definitely in 2014). Most economists believed that the stimulus package needed to be $1 trillion at bare minimum but because Democrats weren't united in "progressive" ideals, yet, he was only able to get 700 billion+ out of Congress.

Obama only had high approval ratings in the first 100 days after his inauguration, and after that, once the Republican/Fox News/Talk Radio machine ramped up with their dog whistles, and obstructionism, his approval rating went on a steady decline, only briefly shooting up (barely, at that) with passes of certain legislations (i.e ACA, Dodd-Frank, Stimulus).

New Survey coming this weekend!

Total posts: 417,856
Top