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

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#136426: Aug 25th 2016 at 6:24:16 PM

I... because it mentions Breitbart is the reason its going to backfire on her? That is such piss poor reasoning. It's kind of hard to criticize or refute a thing if you don't mention the source. Or previously place of employment, in this case. It's not going to backfire on her just because she mentioned the magazine's name. If saying the name of internet news site or source or place of previous employment was enough to backfire on people then we wouldn't have any politicians left.

And given who she's trying to appeal to, I very much doubt anyone that likes her speech is likely to like Breitbart. Hell, this might be a good thing if more people go see it and see what trash it is.

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#136427: Aug 25th 2016 at 6:32:45 PM

[up] Even people who despise Clinton are likely to listen to this speech.

FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#136428: Aug 25th 2016 at 6:32:57 PM

Actually I think its a good thing. I've known far too many people who out of sheer ignorance think Breitbart (and Daily Caller, mistaking it for the sensationalist but harmless Daily Beast) are legit news sources. Outing them as partisans is good.

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#136429: Aug 25th 2016 at 6:35:02 PM

The speech is bad because it points out that Breitbart is a racist "news" source? On what planet is this bad?

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#136430: Aug 25th 2016 at 6:36:49 PM

[up] That's not the issue, it's that it potentially gives them publicity they wouldn't have gotten otherwise.

LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#136431: Aug 25th 2016 at 6:39:11 PM

By outing them as alt right propaganda?

Oh really when?
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#136432: Aug 25th 2016 at 6:42:25 PM

Publicity that they don't already have from having their editor running Trump's campaign? Sure.

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#136433: Aug 25th 2016 at 6:44:32 PM

What exactly is the alt right? You've all been saying it for awhile and I feel like I missed something.

TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor
#136434: Aug 25th 2016 at 6:45:24 PM

Most normal average American won't know the terms "Alt-Right" OR "Breitbart" before Clinton mentioned them and tying together their conspiracy theories, racism, AND Trump. No doubt Google is gonna get a spike in their search parameters for the terms and most will be disgusted and turned off.

That speech is brilliant on so many levels.

New Survey coming this weekend!
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#136435: Aug 25th 2016 at 6:46:56 PM

[up][up]Hardcore Internet right made up of white nationalists (excuse me "racial realists"), MRAs, conspiracy theorists, and some of the worst elements of the atheist movement. Run out of places like Breitbart, Disdain For Plebs, anything associated with Alex Jones, etc.

edited 25th Aug '16 6:47:05 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#136436: Aug 25th 2016 at 6:50:07 PM

What you appear to be saying, Capsase, is that merely mentioning a bad thing is bad in itself. Except how the fuck can you call out anything or anyone, or build your ground in opposition to them, if you're not naming them? Bad publicity is, in fact, bad, especially in the area of politics. Calling out Breitbart or any other right wing news source as being bullshit, and pointing out what that bullshit is, is in fact something that needs to be done by anyone who opposes them. The people who oppose her probably aren't going to have their minds changed by this, especially if they dislike her. They may, however, turn away from Trump if they see this is what his campaign manager is part of. This isn't going to backfire on Clinton just because she named them.

You're kind of making a mountain out of a molehill in this case.

edited 25th Aug '16 6:50:54 PM by AceofSpades

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#136437: Aug 25th 2016 at 6:58:27 PM

I think we're just seeing further evidence of the general bias against Clinton. Any statement she makes has to be scrutinized for evidence of some sort of screw-up on her part.

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#136438: Aug 25th 2016 at 7:00:34 PM

I'm not saying that it will. Just that it might. The underlying conditions that's fueling this movement aren't going away.

flameboy21th The would-be novelist from California Since: Jan, 2013 Relationship Status: I <3 love!
The would-be novelist
#136439: Aug 25th 2016 at 7:00:48 PM

If she wants to win she simply has to tell people to vote Trump.

Non Indicative Username
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#136440: Aug 25th 2016 at 7:04:58 PM

The underlying conditions fueling that movement aren't going to make her naming a news source backfire. And, quite frankly, I don't think it's going to grow that much bigger because it's already a small part of the population. It's becoming increasingly difficult to win solely on the white vote, let alone the white angry male vote. And there's just not enough of the other demographics that actually like him for him to win at this point.

Even thinking this "might" blow up on her is still making a mountain of a molehill. More like an anthill, really.

Hodor2 Since: Jan, 2015
#136441: Aug 25th 2016 at 7:08:02 PM

@Capsase- You're coming at the issue from the perspective that Trumpism/racism is caused by economic issues- my assumption is that you blame this on Democrats, right? I also get the feeling that as a corollary, you tend to think that Democrats/liberals point to racism as a way of taking the conversation away from economics and aren't actually sincerely opposed to racism, right?

I think it's at somewhat true that economic factors contribute to Trumpism/racism but the problem is a person whose racism is in some way linked to economic problems is still racist. And That's Terrible. And if their economic condition is bettered, then they'll just be an economically comfortable racist. Because their racism is based on the idea that they deserve to be doing well economically (and non-white people don't). If they actually were doing well economically, I don't see how that would stop their racism. Might actually increase it.

Edit- I mean you do have a point that to the extent that economic factors make Trumpism/racism worse, then it will continue as long as those economic factors persist.

Edit 2- One other thing. RE Clinton's speech herself. I give props to her/whoever wrote it for mentioning that detail noted on Slate and elsewhere that Trump's comments seemingly directed toward African Americans were actually given to white audiences and were intended to persuade some white voters that he wasn't racist and/or stoke racism against African Americans.

edited 25th Aug '16 7:17:50 PM by Hodor2

vandro Shop Owner from The little shop that wasn't Since: Jul, 2009
Shop Owner
#136442: Aug 25th 2016 at 7:17:39 PM

I'm rather interested in the exchange here. Racism as response to economic realities vs Racism as uniquely (or mostly) personal defect. I have to be honest, I'd rather hope for the former. but I have no way of jumping wholeheartedly into either camp. And it makes me sad.

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#136443: Aug 25th 2016 at 7:21:59 PM

Racism is not solely dependent on economic factors. Bigotry has never been solely dependent on economic factors.

Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#136444: Aug 25th 2016 at 7:24:48 PM

I think Cap is implying he thinks that the media paying serious attention to Trump gives him credence he wouldn't otherwise have and by implication the same might hold for highlighting Brietblag however-you-spell-it? In kind of an 'equal time to a flat-earther' thing?

Or maybe just that it will drive traffic there and give them pageviews and therefore advertising money.

edited 25th Aug '16 7:26:44 PM by Elle

AlleyOop Since: Oct, 2010
#136445: Aug 25th 2016 at 7:33:30 PM

Breitbart already made headlines back during the Shirley Sherrod incident, and from the way the media portrayed it, it seemed to be more like the National Review style of rightwing punditry. She's not necessarily giving it any more publicity than it's already had. If anything she's just setting the record straight for people who don't spend a lot of time on Internet forums.

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#136446: Aug 25th 2016 at 7:50:09 PM

Hell, Alex Jones, one of the crazies she mentioned and whom Trump was interviewed by? Already runs a multimillion dollar media empire, based off his websites, his You Tube channel, a (truly dreadful) line of DVDs, and frequent appearances on television and radio channels both fringe and mainstream.

He has millions of fellow conspiracy nuts who already follow him. She can't make him anymore (in)famous than he already is.

edited 25th Aug '16 7:50:57 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#136447: Aug 25th 2016 at 7:57:38 PM

I think most of us here are in a sphere that's better informed than average about the topic. I had no idea who they were until recently and because of this thread.

Balmung Since: Oct, 2011
#136448: Aug 25th 2016 at 8:06:48 PM

@LSBK: The Southern Poverty Law Center has a helpful article describing what the Alt-Right is and giving a briefish history thereof: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/alternative-right

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#136449: Aug 25th 2016 at 8:22:45 PM

The one thing I will say for the alt-right is that they get hilariously strange in ways that regular conservatives do not. Case in point.

vandro Shop Owner from The little shop that wasn't Since: Jul, 2009
Shop Owner
#136450: Aug 25th 2016 at 8:34:10 PM

My favorite post of his is the one defending the alt-right, for how much it riled the conservatives news sites to actually confront and condemn them. Second favorite is the only time he was right.


Total posts: 417,856
Top