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

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#139351: Sep 20th 2016 at 7:25:57 PM

Stein has realized that her/the Greens' appeal is limited to the far-left (and a handful of idiots who hate Clinton/the Dems but can't find another alternative), so she has chosen to pander to this low denominator to retain any level of support.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
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
#139352: Sep 20th 2016 at 8:01:35 PM

The Economist: Pepe and the stormtroopers

How Donald Trump ushered a hateful fringe movement into the mainstream

FIRST, an apology, or rather a regret: The Economist would prefer not to advertise the rantings of racists and cranks. Unfortunately, and somewhat astonishingly, the Alt-Right—the misleading name for a ragtag but consistently repulsive movement that hitherto has flourished only on the internet—has insinuated itself, unignorably, into American politics. That grim achievement points to the reverse sway now held by the margins, of both ideology and the media, over the mainstream. It also reflects the indiscriminate cynicism of Donald Trump’s campaign.

Much of the Alt-Right’s output will seem indecipherably weird to those unfamiliar with the darker penumbras of popular culture. It has its own iconography and vernacular, derived from message boards, video games and pornography. Its signature insult is “cuckservative”, directed at Republicans supposedly emasculated by liberalism and money. Its favourite avatar is Pepe the frog, a cartoon-strip creature co-opted into offensive scenarios; one Pepe image was reposted this week by Donald Trump junior and Roger Stone, a leading Trumpista, the latest example of the candidate’s supporters, and the man himself, circulating the Alt-Right’s memes and hoax statistics. Its contribution to typography is the triple parentheses, placed around names to identify them as Jewish.

To most Americans, the purposes to which these gimmicks are put will seem as outlandish as the lexicon. One of the Alt-Right’s pastimes is to intimidate adversaries with photoshopped pictures of concentration camps; a popular Alt-Right podcast is called “The Daily Shoah”. To their defenders, such outrages are either justified by their shock value or valiantly transgressive pranks. Jokes about ovens, lampshades and gas chambers: what larks!

Jared Taylor of American Renaissance, an extremist website, dismisses these antics as “youthful rebellion”. (Mr Taylor is also involved with the Council of Conservative Citizens, which Dylann Roof cited as an inspiration for his racist massacre in Charleston last year.) But the substance behind the sulphur can seem difficult to pin down. The term Alt-Right, reputedly coined in 2008 by Richard Spencer of the National Policy Institute, a bogus think-tank, encompasses views from libertarianism to paleoconservatism and onwards to the edges of pseudo-intellectual claptrap and the English language. Many Alt-Righters demonise Jews, but a few do not. Some, such as Brad Griffin of Occidental Dissent, another website, think “democracy can become a tool of oppression”, and that monarchy or dictatorship might be better; others, such as Mr Taylor, disagree. Some are techno-futurists; others espouse a kind of agrarian nostalgia. Many mourn the Confederacy. Mr Griffin thinks that, even today, North and South should separate.

Yet from the quack ideologues to the out-and-proud neo-Nazis, some Alt-Right tenets are clear and constant. It repudiates feminism with misogynistic gusto. It embraces isolationism and protectionism. Above all, it champions white nationalism, or a neo-segregationist “race realism”, giving apocalyptic warning of an impending “white genocide”. Which, of course, is really just old-fashioned white supremacism in skimpy camouflage.

That is why the term Alt (short for “alternative”) Right is misleading. Mr Taylor—whom Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Centre, a watchdog, describes as the movement’s “intellectual leader”—says it represents an alternative to “egalitarian orthodoxy and to neutered ‘conservatives’.” That characterisation elevates a racist fixation into a coherent platform. And, if the Alt-Right is not a viable political right, nor, in the scope of American history, is it really an alternative. Rather it is the latest iteration in an old, poisonous strain of American thought, albeit with new enemies, such as Muslims, enlisted alongside the old ones. “Fifty years ago these people were burning crosses,” says Jonathan Greenblatt of the Anti-Defamation League, a venerable anti-racist group. “Today they’re burning up Twitter.”

Probably the best that can be said for the Alt-Right is that its mostly youngish adherents are naive: unaware that 21st-century America is not the worst society the world has ever conjured, and so prime exemplars of the pampered modernity they denounce. Their numbers are hard to gauge, since they mostly operate online and, as with most internet bullies, anonymously: like dissidents in the Soviet Union they must, Mr Taylor insists, for fear of punishment. As with pornographers, though, the web has let them forge like-minded communities and propagate their ideas, as well as harass critics and opponents (particularly those thought to be Jewish). Online, they have achieved sufficient density to warrant wider attention. There, too, they and Mr Trump found each other.

The association precedes Mr Trump’s hiring as his campaign manager of Stephen Bannon, former boss of Breitbart News, a reactionary news website that Mr Bannon reportedly described as “the platform for the Alt-Right”, and which has covered the movement favourably. Already Mr Trump had echoed the Alt-Right’s views on Muslims, immigration, trade and, indeed, Vladimir Putin, whom Alt-Righters ludicrously admire for his supposed pursuit of Russia’s national interest. Pressed about these shared prejudices (and tweets), Mr Trump has denied knowing what the Alt-Right is, even that it exists—unable, as usual, to disavow any support, however cretinous, or to apply a moral filter to his alliances or tactics.

This is not to say he created or leads it, much as Alt-Right activists lionise his strongman style. Mr Taylor says Mr Trump seems to have “nationalistic instincts that have led him to stumble onto an immigration policy that is congruent with Alt-Right ideas”, but that “we are supporting him, not the reverse.” Breitbart, Alt-Righters say, is merely Alt-Lite. The true relationship may be more a correlation than causal: Mr Trump’s rise and the Alt-Right were both cultivated by the kamikaze anti-elitism of the Tea Party, rampant conspiracy theories and demographic shifts that disconcert some white Americans.

Unquestionably, however, Mr Trump has bestowed on this excrescence a scarcely dreamed-of prominence. As Hillary Clinton recently lamented, no previous major-party nominee has given America’s paranoid fringe a “national megaphone”. Many on the Alt-Right loved that speech: “it was great,” says Mr Griffin. “She positioned us as the real opposition.” Because of Mr Trump, the Alt-Right thinks it is on the verge of entering American politics as an equal-terms participant. “He is a bulldozer who is destroying our traditional enemy,” says Mr Griffin. Mr Trump may not be Alt-Right himself, but “he doesn’t have to be to advance our cause.”

edited 20th Sep '16 8:09:44 PM by AngelusNox

Inter arma enim silent leges
940131 Since: Feb, 2014
#139353: Sep 20th 2016 at 8:13:45 PM

@Karkat Are you saying that the US doesn't violate human rights? This idea that the US has to confront Russia is incredibly dangerous. What obligation does the United States have to the Ukraine? They aren't in NATO or the EU.

edited 20th Sep '16 8:14:51 PM by 940131

smokeycut Since: Mar, 2013
#139354: Sep 20th 2016 at 8:19:38 PM

They're people who are being invaded. We should offer a hand, not serve them up to Russia on a platter.

940131 Since: Feb, 2014
#139355: Sep 20th 2016 at 8:23:31 PM

[up] Will you help the people of Yemen, Palestine, Tibet and North Korea too? In the long run, the idea that the US will be able to keep Russia from interfering in the affairs of it's closest neighbors is a fantasy. All it does is bring the US and Russia closer to a nuclear confrontation and that would be very dangerous.

edited 20th Sep '16 8:25:54 PM by 940131

smokeycut Since: Mar, 2013
#139356: Sep 20th 2016 at 8:27:08 PM

I'm saying that the 1st world countries need to make it clear you can't just go around invading people's homes and taking control.

LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#139357: Sep 20th 2016 at 8:27:18 PM

Of course we should, we're obligated to as a superpower and as a member of NATO.

Oh really when?
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
#139358: Sep 20th 2016 at 8:28:45 PM

Oh please, those closest neighbors don't even want the Russians to be there or be within the Russian sphere, and them walking away from Russia towards the NATO and EU it isn't going to bring anyone closer to Nuclear Warfare because the Kremlin does know it pretty well it is a losing game.

Inter arma enim silent leges
940131 Since: Feb, 2014
#139359: Sep 20th 2016 at 8:30:48 PM

[up]x3 Iraq.

[up]x2 We're talking about two different things. The US has the power to intervene in the affairs of other countries, but in most cases it doesn't have the moral or legal authority. And again, Ukraine isn't part of NATO.

[up] What they want isn't really relevant. The Cubans wanted close relations with the USSR, but the US correctly saw it as a threat.

edited 20th Sep '16 8:32:02 PM by 940131

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
#139360: Sep 20th 2016 at 8:31:24 PM

[up] Well the US (and others) did sign an agreement to protect Ukraine's sovreignty if it gave up nuclear weapons after the Cold War, there's also the basic idea of respect for democracy.

Still many on the hard left only support democracy if it agrees with their geopolitical interests.

Oh and this might suprise you but George Bush isn't president of the US anymore.

Edit: Cuba wasn't a thread what are you on about? Hell the US military actually knew that at the time and just didn't want to admit it publicly.

edited 20th Sep '16 8:34:17 PM 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
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
#139361: Sep 20th 2016 at 8:37:37 PM

[up][up]Sorry but the US didn't invade any country and snatched a sizable portion of its landmass because their useful puppet was thrown out during a popular revolt.

And What happened in the 60's has no bearing in today's policies or should be used as an example of how to maintain the status quo. Even then it was diplomacy that defused the Cuban crisis with the US agreeing to remove their MRBM's from Turkey and the Russians remove theirs from Cuba.

Inter arma enim silent leges
940131 Since: Feb, 2014
#139362: Sep 20th 2016 at 8:49:28 PM

[up]x2 This might surprise you, but the Russian invasion of Ukraine is over. I guess because it's in the past it not relevant anymore. What are you on about? It's not like America has stopped it's disastrous interventions. In the Presidential Campaign most of the candidates espoused their support for more wars. It's madness. Assad is the legitimate ruler of Syria. He wants Russian intervention. He doesn't want an American intervention. American intervention would be a violation of Syria's sovereignty. Illegal.

[up] 1) Crimea had a Russian majority.

2) It was a coup backed by the EU and the US.

3) That's the point. NATO expansion is a legitimate national security threat to Russia. The stage is being set for World War 3.

edited 20th Sep '16 8:54:07 PM by 940131

tclittle Professional Forum Ninja from Somewhere Down in Texas Since: Apr, 2010
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#139364: Sep 20th 2016 at 9:19:28 PM

[up][up] Russia also allowed things to progress to this point. Had they put their foot down when the US went into NATO talks with Poland, things wouldn't have gotten nearly this dire.

Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#139365: Sep 20th 2016 at 9:28:35 PM

2) It was a coup backed by the EU and the US.

3) That's the point. NATO expansion is a legitimate national security threat to Russia.

Citation needed. I doubt there is one that isn't being directly fed by Russia itself.

I'm led to wonder if you've been listening too much to Russia's professional trolls.

edited 20th Sep '16 9:33:49 PM by Elle

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
#139366: Sep 20th 2016 at 9:29:56 PM

[up][up][up][up]Give me a fucking break.

The Invasion of Ukraine isn't over by a long shot, the War in Donbass still going on with totally not Russian military personnel and support being sent to Ukraine despise Putin and his ilk denying every bit of it.

Since when Hillary or Bernie said anything about invading other countries? The worse Hillary mentioned was intervention to prevent another Syria from happening and Bernie pretty much desired to leave the US out of it unless requested.

Crimea had a Russian majority.

Russian majority or not, it still bullshit to invade with a flagless army, ignore the sovereignty of a country you had a non aggression pack with and give a mock and fraudulent referendum with the options to "Join Russia Now" or Join Russia Later.

It was a coup backed by the EU and the US.

[Citation FUCKING needed]

Unless you equate US and EU politicians expressing support for the protesters as "backing a coup", the Ukrainians were already leaning towards the EU until Yanu decided to screw everything over and give a good reason for people to protest, then decide the best way to deal with the protesters was to shoot at them and finally flee to Russia but not before pocketing the Ukrainian treasury.

That's the point. NATO expansion is a legitimate national security threat to Russia. The stage is being set for World War 3.

Russia's antics proved to be a self fulling prophecy because every time they try to act like the former USSR countries are still their private backyard, the NATO membership application queue gets longer and then they complain about NATO encroachment in their sphere.

And no, we're not anywhere near being set for WWIII and the threat to Russian's interests is the Kremlin finally realizing they can't intimidate their neighbors into submission anymore and those countries realizing they have other options besides being the Kremlin's vassals.

edited 20th Sep '16 9:31:32 PM by AngelusNox

Inter arma enim silent leges
Superdark33 The dark Mage of the playground from Playgrounds and Adventures Since: Jan, 2013 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
The dark Mage of the playground
#139367: Sep 20th 2016 at 9:31:15 PM

Also: the russians are there because they killed or banished the previous Tatars and Ukranians that lived there.

As they did in any other country with a sizable russian minority.

But i guess they get a free pass because?

940131 Since: Feb, 2014
#139368: Sep 20th 2016 at 9:32:14 PM

[up]x2 1) Who would you believe? Ray Mc Govern? He was a CIA analyst at the Russian desk for 3 decades. What about Philip Giraldi? He was a military intelligence officer with the CIA for 2 decades and said the same thing? Or Michael Scheueur. He was in the CIA for two decades and called it a coup.

[up] That's an interesting way of looking at things. Ethnic cleansing is wrong. What happened to the Tatars is wrong. However, if the US cares so much about the Russians forcing the Tatars off their lanf, perhaps they should force their Israeli allies to give the Palestinians tbe Right of Return.

edited 20th Sep '16 9:40:06 PM by 940131

Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#139369: Sep 20th 2016 at 9:37:47 PM

Not without actual evidence of them having said anything, whoever they are.

940131 Since: Feb, 2014
#139370: Sep 20th 2016 at 9:41:43 PM

[up] Well their veteran intelligence agents from the CIA. One spent three decades dealing specifically with Russia. There a handful of veteran intelligence officers who have come out and called what happened in Ukraine a coup. But I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. We've seen Western backed coups before and really, America shouldn't be intervening in the Ukraine for a whole bunch of reasons.

edited 20th Sep '16 9:42:59 PM by 940131

Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#139371: Sep 20th 2016 at 9:44:41 PM

No, we're not simply going to agree to disagree here. We don't even agree that the US is interfering in Ukraine. What I'm seeing is you being challenged to back up a ludicrous claim with evidence and trying to evade it.

940131 Since: Feb, 2014
#139372: Sep 20th 2016 at 9:47:25 PM

[up]x5 1) Hillary doesn't want war? Check her record and her statements on foreign policy. She's not as bad as Mc Cain and Graham (but who is), but she's still a hawk.

Bernie mostly talked about domestic affairs, but he said he'd continue to use drones and a kill list.

2) The Crimean Russians were happy to rejoin Russia.

3) If Cuba wanted an alliance with Russia and allowed Russia to build military bases on their land, would America see that as provocative?

4) This is a bunch of hypocrisy. America acts like Latin America is it's backyard and has interfered in their affairs regularly for the better part of 2 centuries. That's what Great Powers do. Even if there was a moral argument for intervening in Eastern Europe, it's still incredibly stupid and dangerous. But many people in the US and their Allied countries are so myopic on how they view the world that they can't abide by the idea that their countries aren't good by definition.

[up] What the heck do you want from me? I could link to the articles for you, but you're just going to dismiss them out of hand. Let's assume that The EU and the US stayed out of the Ukraine and Russia went in anyways. So what? How many times has America and it's allies violated the sovereignty of other countries since 9/11. They're not really in a position to lecture Russia and the world isn't black and white.

edited 20th Sep '16 10:05:52 PM by 940131

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
#139373: Sep 20th 2016 at 9:58:18 PM

@940131Oh yeah, a few Ex-CIA nutters who haven't been inside the organization for at least 20 years and including two tied to far right wing, libertarian and NATO skeptic movements and with favorable views towards Putin and Trump, said it was an US/EU/NATO backed coup so it must be right?

Real objectivity right there.

Where did she say she wants more War here? Or do you consider making strives to strengthen alliances and make multilateral deals with the US partners being a War Hawk because some of the reasons are to contain Russian and Chinese expansionism?

Also, counter terrorism operations, in which drones are just a tool, aren't war. Otherwise you might as well tell everyone else dealing with terrorism to never leave its own borders.

2) The Crimean Russians were happy to rejoin Russia.

Are they? They seem pretty much forgotten after those Naval Bases have been secured.

3) If Cuba wanted an alliance with Russia and allowed Russia to build military bases on their land, would America see that as provocative?

As you said, not relevant anymore and during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the US and USSR dealt with the issues through diplomacy and not acting like all bets are off.

4) This is a bunch of hypocrisy. America acts like Latin America is it's backyard and has interfered in their affairs regularly for the better part of 2 centuries. That's what Great Powers do. Even if there was a moral argument for intervening in Eastern Europe, it's still incredibly stupid and dangerous. But many people in the US and their Allied countries are so myopic on how they view the world that they can't abide by the idea that their countries aren't good by definition.

Past tense. Latin America, specially in South America in which the US intervention began during the Cold War and died with it, isn't the US backyard for decades to the point the continent is filled with left wing leaders we elected and a rather US averse policy.

Digging out the wrongs and screw ups the US did in the pass is no excuse for Russia do still act like it is a Great Power that should have the leeway to intervene as it pleases.

edited 20th Sep '16 10:10:31 PM by AngelusNox

Inter arma enim silent leges
Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#139374: Sep 20th 2016 at 9:59:51 PM

[up][up]If you were actually around here more often you might know that most of us here aren't fans of some of the dirty business the US was involved with in Latin America either.

[up]Going just by Wikipedia profiles, only Michael Scheuer jumps out at me as especially nutty though the other two articles were thin on some details. Still, he asserts they've made such claims without actually pointing to evidence of said claims.

edited 20th Sep '16 10:03:48 PM by Elle

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#139375: Sep 20th 2016 at 10:03:17 PM

So because Stalin shot a bunch of Ukranians and sent Russian colonists into Crimea, Russia has a right to annex Crimea? This is like saying France has a right to invade Quebec. Only even more illogical.

Also, I really like how in your mind "Assad is the legitimate ruler of Syria" and attempts to get rid of him are unlawful, but when Russia invades the Ukraine and carves off pieces of it, that's entirely legit.

Frankly, I'd contend that saying any dictator is "legitimate" is at best a serious stretch. Bashar al-Assad holds power in Syria because he and his father have spent the last few decades shooting anybody who disagreed with them.


Total posts: 417,856
Top