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

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#137801: Sep 9th 2016 at 8:21:36 AM

In defense or support of allies. To defeat or deter nations that you believe will be a threat to you in the future if not dealt with. To prevent humanitarian catastrophes. To remove threats to your economic interests. To establish the willingness to use force if required. The capability to go to war (even if it is not exercised) is a fundamental element of diplomacy between nations, as Sun Tzu so famously observed.

That you don't like it doesn't make it untrue.

edited 9th Sep '16 8:23:15 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
nervmeister Since: Oct, 2010
#137802: Sep 9th 2016 at 8:27:35 AM

[up]I think Handle wants to know what the payoff is for the soldiers themselves - the ones at ground-level, knee deep in the blood and guts.

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#137803: Sep 9th 2016 at 8:31:46 AM

[up][up] I take exception to some of those points. It's really not how international relationships usually work, especially in the modern era where rational decisionmaking came into vogue. Humanitarian crises are totally irrelevant to military decision aides except as a convinient causus belli, The contrast between the US response to mass killings in Rwanda (or any number of conflicts in Africa) versus Iraq make that crystal clear.

edited 9th Sep '16 8:34:11 AM by CaptainCapsase

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#137804: Sep 9th 2016 at 8:35:29 AM

[up][up]I'm not a military history professor. In layman's terms, the motivations for military service are varied and vary between times and cultures. They can be any or all of:

  • Religious fervor: "I must go kill the infidels for God."
  • Duty: "I feel the obligation to serve my country."
  • Patriotism: "My country is the best and I am its sword and shield. Hoo rah!"
  • Opportunity: "Joining the military gives me a chance to educate myself and receive benefits that I would otherwise lack."
  • Compulsion: "They conscripted me, put a spear in my hand, and told me to fight or die."
  • Jingoism: "I've gotta go kill those dirty X's over there because they are dirty and smell bad and hate our country."
  • Necessity: "My life prospects all suck, so I'll take a chance at getting shot at for the hope of something better."
  • Sacrifice: "There is a serious threat out there and somebody has to go meet it. I'll put my life on the line so that other people don't have to."
  • Revenge: "Those people killed us and took our stuff. I have to get them back for it." (Cycle of Revenge optional but likely, here.)
  • Psychosis: "I like killing people and being in the military lets me do it legally."


[up] When approached from the perspective of "military aggression is always wrong", it's certainly possible to see it that way. However, that viewpoint is subjective. Let's not commit the fallacy of assuming our opinions as truth. You may say that, in the modern world, it's no longer necessary to wield armies as a tool of economics or diplomacy, but that's patently false given that it's still being done.

[down] So what? Are we trying to be descriptive or prescriptive here? I am giving a factual answer to a question of fact.

edited 9th Sep '16 8:57:45 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#137805: Sep 9th 2016 at 8:36:49 AM

[up] Only one of those reasons is rational.

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#137806: Sep 9th 2016 at 8:39:08 AM

[up]That's kind of subjective don't you think?

nervmeister Since: Oct, 2010
#137807: Sep 9th 2016 at 8:41:50 AM

[up][up][up] So defense, government benefits, testing personal limits, and an outlet for frustration/resentment. Valid enough despite all involving severe risk.

edited 9th Sep '16 8:42:53 AM by nervmeister

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
#137808: Sep 9th 2016 at 9:00:21 AM

@Captain Capsase Somalia, Serbia and Libya were major military interventions for the sake of humanitarian reasons. Specially the Serbian intervention which forced the NATO nations to coordinate with Russia due to the extreme risk of someone fucking up. Also US interventions in conflicting countries is a "boots on the ground" for extreme cases, meanwhile the Pentagon chose to use an approach that simply left the local nations and leaders deal with the problem but provide assistance like air strikes on terrorist positions, training and some armaments to fight them, like it has been happening in Nigeria while fighting Boko Haram.

Rwandan genocide became problem because Somalia had a backlash from locals and the international community because it was poorly handled, thus leaving the countries involved with a lot of red tape regarding humanitarian interventionism. Also the UN was already present in Rwanda with a peacekeeping mission but strict Rules of Engagement prevented the UN forces to intervene.

The problem with humanitarian interventions is also the public opinion, they can effectively block interventions when they were needed, like in Rwanda because the public was sick at the time of the US acting like the world police but also can press the government to intervene, like the #Kony 2012 campaign for the US to intervene in Uganda, which resulted in a hunt for terrorist forces that were already being fought with limited US assistance, though the campaign lacked nuance and Kony was just one of the several warlords in the region and focusing in him alone didn't make much sense.

Besides, military is today very important in international diplomacy. The Russians are becoming more militarily aggressive in Syria, invaded Georgia using shoddy arguments for casus beli and engaging in a legal grey zone warfare in Ukraine, prompting the European countries to refocus on their military. The Chinese are building up their forces and militarizing the South China Sea and making territorial claims in areas too close from other Asian nations territorial waters, who in turn are requesting the US for more military support and presence to counter the Chinese expansion into the area.

Inter arma enim silent leges
Medinoc from France (Before Recorded History)
#137809: Sep 9th 2016 at 9:12:57 AM

Quoth Fighteer:

To remove threats to your economic interests.
Be careful, few things can't be labeled "threats to your economic interests."

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#137810: Sep 9th 2016 at 9:29:28 AM

[up][up] China is acting in it's own interests, the US is acting in it's own interests. Altruism is nowhere to be found in the South China Sea dispute, and were the shoe on the other foot, I don't think the US response would be any better. Ignoring international law except when it suits us is old hat for the US, after all.

edited 9th Sep '16 9:30:14 AM by CaptainCapsase

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#137811: Sep 9th 2016 at 9:33:16 AM

Hence why I view the common soldier as a victim, not a villain.

Frankly, both are pretty offensive.

I mean, we do need to take better care of our veterans. Our veterans certainly get screwed. But labelling every soldier a victim?

In a voluntary military?

edited 9th Sep '16 9:34:10 AM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
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
#137812: Sep 9th 2016 at 9:34:25 AM

[up][up]I never said anyone was acting out of altruism, everyone acts on their own interests and having a capable military force that can protect or project their interests is paramount for diplomacy with actors with similar capabilities.

[up]Not ever veteran comes home as a complete wreck either, specially when you consider that more than half of the US personnel are in positions not related to combat duty.

[down][citation needed]

edited 9th Sep '16 9:41:52 AM by AngelusNox

Inter arma enim silent leges
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#137813: Sep 9th 2016 at 9:40:21 AM

[up][up] Voluntary insofar as hard coercion isn't used to fill the ranks. But for the poor, the dispossessed, and the disenfranchised, the soft coercion via peer pressure and propoganda, the (heavily inflated) financial incentives, and the lack of an education sufficient to see through those is nearly as effective as outright conscription.

[up] I'm talking about the combatants in particular when I say "common soldiers."

Also, I'll get around to it when I'm not on mobile, but a very disproportionate number of the people on the front lines are drawn from lower social strata, and tend to have very poor outcomes post-service. That much is absolutely true of the United States, and would expect virtually all countries that actually use their armed forces.

edited 9th Sep '16 9:49:02 AM by CaptainCapsase

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#137814: Sep 9th 2016 at 9:58:39 AM

Regarding the "party realignment" article from a couple pages back — I don't really buy it. They basically argue that the parties are going to redefine themselves as "pro-globalism" and "anti-globalism", so anti-globalism Sanders fans will go Republican and pro-globalism businessmen will go Democrat, but I really don't see it.

The Republican party base basically consists of two groups: small government wonks that want lower taxes and fewer regulations (that's basically big business types and libertarian types), and social conservatives who want the government to enforce their preferred view of Real America (that'd be the religious right and the dixiecrats).

The Democratic party base are the opposite two groups: economic liberals who believe that government intervention is essential for a healthy market (which includes environmentalists that want to restrain big businesses from maximizing profit at the expense of the environment, and the group that I don't have a snappy name for, who believe in a strong social safety net) and social liberals (who focus on fighting discrimination based on sex, race, religion, etc).

Those two basic issues — call them "economic" and "social" issues for convenience — are the defining features of the two parties, and that's where most of the political divide between the parties lie. Other issues (like foreign policy) also have large political divides, but those divides exist within parties rather than between them (both parties have their hawks and their doves, for instance). There's even significant overlap between the different factions within the parties, but it all comes down to voter priorities. The religious right is socially conservative but often economically liberal, for instance — but they place more importance on the social issues, so they vote Republican. (The religious left is the same, socially conservative but economically liberal, but they vote Democrat because the value liberal economics more than conservative social policy.)

So where the hell does globalism come into that?

Globalism isn't an agenda, it's just a fact. A portion of the social conservative wing demonizes globalism because it allows them to blame UnAmerican Influences for whatever they feel like. Economic downturn? Mexicans are stealing our jobs! Geopolitical instability? It's Muslim jihadists' fault! Global economic woes? It's China manipulating their currency and buying up all our debt! But that doesn't stop them from buying clothes from Bangladesh or electronics from China and loving the fact that it's way cheaper than it would be to make them in America. Their problem isn't really with globalism, globalism just makes a convenient scapegoat.

Meanwhile, I'm not convinced the anti-globalism wing of the Democratic party the article posits actually exists. All it really offers as evidence for it is "Sanders supporters", almost all of which are now Clinton supporters, and most of the few that aren't have gone to the Green party rather than Trump. Both the economic and social liberals like globalism because they see it as a way to import the policies they like from outside America (such as European-style social democracy) and export the American policies they like to the rest of the world (like freedom of press and religion, environmental activism, etc).

If a party realignment is eminent (which it may or may not be), it's going to be a shuffling of existing voter blocks, not a complete reimagining of the political landscape.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#137815: Sep 9th 2016 at 10:04:00 AM

[up] I'd like to think that as well, but there's nothing precluding economic leftism/liberalism from being detached from social leftism/liberalism.

This also tends to assume the GOP drops the racism in favor of a more racially inclusive generic cultural xenophobia.

edited 9th Sep '16 10:05:08 AM by CaptainCapsase

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#137816: Sep 9th 2016 at 10:15:32 AM

Meanwhile, the Washington Post has finally admitted that all the fuss over Hillary Clinton's emails is a crock of shit. Krugman thinks that Matt Lauer may have finally broken the cycle of illusory centrism in the media by doing such a blatantly incompetent job at the veterans' forum.

Edit: @Capsace: While it is certainly the case that enlisted military personnel are drawn in large part from economically disenfranchised youth, it is not clear that one can necessarily draw the conclusion from said fact that militaries are illegitimate or immoral or whatever point you're trying to make.

The U.S. could offer superior pay and incentives to draw from additional economic strata; it could treat its soldiers better both during and after their service; it could offer better economic conditions in general so that people wouldn't feel the need to enlist as an alternative to poverty. You seem to be flinging blame around indiscriminately, while it's pretty clear from observed evidence that the right tends to have less respect for the actual people that are our soldiers than does the left, with a few exceptions such as the post-Vietnam era.

Moreover, the left was mainly angry at the institution of unjust war and took it out on the soldiers by proxy, while the right has always been way more concerned about the military-industrial complex than the people that complex notionally serves.

edited 9th Sep '16 10:40:21 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#137817: Sep 9th 2016 at 10:28:59 AM

Anti-Globalisim is as much a feature of the far left as the (current) far right, though they may claim different justifications for it (exploitation of foreign cheap labor, American (corporate/cultural) imperialism and anti corporatism in general are some of the popular ones). Many of those were the sort found around my college campus. Whether they typically vote Democrat I can't say but of those I still keep tabs on, many were Sanders supporters (though none I know of were of the extreme sort that will snub Hillary over it).

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#137818: Sep 9th 2016 at 10:39:45 AM

Voluntary insofar as hard coercion isn't used to fill the ranks. But for the poor, the dispossessed, and the disenfranchised, the soft coercion via peer pressure and propoganda, the (heavily inflated) financial incentives, and the lack of an education sufficient to see through those is nearly as effective as outright conscription.

Wow. Just, wow. You literally just said that people join the military because they're too stupid to realize that society is lying to them about any reasons they could possibly have for enlisting.

I don't even know what to say to that.

edited 9th Sep '16 10:40:12 AM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#137819: Sep 9th 2016 at 10:41:29 AM

[up][up][up] Krugman's thinking is wishful at best. Trust in the media among the general population is absolutely abysmal, and I'd actually argue that Trump has been treated rather harshly by the media. While he deserves it in my opinion, I'd argue it's happening for the wrong reasons, and that it's happening in a manner that's no less shallow than Trump himself.

"Literally Hitler" for example, is not a good argument against Trump. The media loved to compare him to fascist dictators, and when Truml comes on air sounding fairly benign compared to the expectation that builds, certain people start thinking "well see he's not all that bad."

My thesis is thus that it is not the "illusion of centrism" nor the "neutrality" of the media that's helping Trump, but rather a shallowness and ratings driven focus on style over substance that has allowed Trump to thrive.

[up] No, I'm saying that our society willfully misleads and takes advantage of the most disadvantaged subsets of our population in order to further the pursuit of Empire. The fact of the matter is, recruitment for the most dangerous positions in the military is targeted at demographics with poor access to education and low standards of living, since when it comes down to it, thowe who sign up for this are getting a pretty rotten deal for what they're put through. Which is why I consider the common soldier a victim.

edited 9th Sep '16 10:51:05 AM by CaptainCapsase

GameGuruGG Vampire Hunter from Castlevania (Before Recorded History)
Vampire Hunter
#137820: Sep 9th 2016 at 10:43:37 AM

To comment on the party realignment article myself, I actually think there is a problem with its view purely because of what we've seen in Europe. Britain brexited and France is banning burqinis, but the basic gist of both actions is the same... An isolationist nationalism that hates minority groups and immigrants. The reason why Tory succeeds with Brexit and Labour is collapsing as a party while Democrats are succeeding in a big tent coalition and Republicans are collapsing as a party is purely due to the United States having a much larger percentage of minorities that any nation of Europe has. Both Hispanics and African-Americans make up a double-digit percentage of the United States population.

Wizard Needs Food Badly
Euodiachloris Since: Oct, 2010
#137821: Sep 9th 2016 at 10:57:21 AM

[up]Yes-no: it's not that simple with Brexit. Quite a few of the demographic breakdowns of who voted what saw a massive North-South divide among second or third generation immigrants in England.

Most of the Northen minority populations voted predominantly for Brexit. So, going "greater minority populations = major difference": nope. Disadvantaged areas of all make-ups voted for Team Leave for a host of reasons. -_- Most of them very popular lies built on older lies. tongue

edited 9th Sep '16 11:06:04 AM by Euodiachloris

AlleyOop Since: Oct, 2010
#137822: Sep 9th 2016 at 11:16:51 AM

From what I've been told a fair amount of older BME voters chose Leave. High generational difference. Also apparently that Eastern Europeans are seen as beneath the black and South Asian demographics on the racism ladder.

edited 9th Sep '16 11:18:59 AM by AlleyOop

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#137823: Sep 9th 2016 at 11:17:39 AM

I'd like to think that as well, but there's nothing precluding economic leftism/liberalism from being detached from social leftism/liberalism.
Exactly — that's precisely what I was getting at. It's not impossible that we'll see the two parties go economically left/socially right (which would attract the religious left and the religious right, plus environmentalists and strong social safety net supporters) and economically right/socially left (which would attract big business and libertarians plus social activists fighting sexism, racism, and LGBT discrimination).

On a personal note, it'd also leave me deeply ambivalent about both parties, as I tend to the left both socially and economically. Oh well.

Anti-Globalisim is as much a feature of the far left as the (current) far right, though they may claim different justifications for it (exploitation of foreign cheap labor, American (corporate/cultural) imperialism and anti corporatism in general are some of the popular ones).
For the most part, though, those types are happy to fight those negative aspects through globalist means. Things like certified free trade or rainforest-friendly products, which profess to fight against sweatshops and environmentally exploitative practices and the like. And complaints against American imperialism is an entirely globalist mindset — it places the good of other parts of the world on the same level (or even higher!) than the good of America and Americans. Anti-globalist isn't "America should stop being an asshole to the rest of the world", anti-globalist is "fuck the rest of the world, America should worry about making things better for America and that's all".

To comment on the party realignment article myself, I actually think there is a problem with its view purely because of what we've seen in Europe. Britain brexited and France is banning burqinis, but the basic gist of both actions is the same... An isolationist nationalism that hates minority groups and immigrants.
I think that supports their point, actually. Brexit is very anti-globalist. Intolerance of foreigners and immigrants is very anti-globalist. The opposite of globalism is nationalism, which is very much about what Brexit and burkini bans are about. "Britain first, screw Europe" and "France for the French, don't bring your foreign cultural values up in here".

Where the article screws up is applying it to American politics — I don't think there's a significant nationalist base outside of the Republican party, so a reorganization to globalist and anti-globalist parties wouldn't look very different than what we have now.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Julep Since: Jul, 2010
#137824: Sep 9th 2016 at 11:21:55 AM

[up]x4 Actually France isn't banning burqinis. Several mayors tried to pass a ban, and the PM supported it, but the State Council declared it to be inconstitutional.

The only ban that was approved was in a Corsican city by the Corsican administrative tribunal, however, it happened because there was a riot on the beach in this city because people thought there were burqinis (there weren't) so the reason given was "public order protection," not anything related to defending laicity (the usual BS argument given by the previous mayors).

edited 9th Sep '16 11:26:32 AM by Julep

LinkToTheFuture A real bad hombre from somewhere completely different Since: Apr, 2015 Relationship Status: What's love got to do with it?
A real bad hombre
#137825: Sep 9th 2016 at 11:24:52 AM

I keep hearing people talk about illegal and/or shady things that Hillary Clinton has done. Can someone give me a rundown of these, because I can't really think of anything beyond the email thing, which I'll admit to not really understanding in the first place.

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." -Thomas Edison

Total posts: 417,856
Top