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

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#139451: Sep 21st 2016 at 8:20:48 AM

[up] We need reasonably experienced politicians, but generally speaking, provided the candidate had at least a few years of experience with high-level elected offices (governors, senators, and so on), experience has historically not really correlated with a President's effectiveness at all. In fact, there's a slight negative correlation, and it's understandable why; a veteran politician's image and their political network is more or less set in stone

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
#139452: Sep 21st 2016 at 8:21:05 AM

Gaddaffi was the recognized leader of Libya

Yet again you're showing your concept of the Libyan people by declaring that you and not the people of a country get to choose who is and is not their legitimate leader. I'd also note that Gadaffi was not the recognised leader of Libya by many countries during 2011, the recognised leaders were the NTC asking for an intervention.

What Russia does in Ukraine is irrelevant.

Only if you ignore the fact that the US signed a treaty to protect Ukraine's sovreignty. Which you have done, presumably because that fact is inconvenient to you.

A Civil War doesn't meas Assad stopped being the leader of Syria.

Again you are arbitrarily deciding who gets to be the leader of other people, do you just consider Arabs to stupid to choose their own leaders?

what's wrong with a country looking out for itself.

Nothing when they're not being an asshole about it, but when they are there's a problem because they're being an asshole and fucking others over.

There have been far more wars than that.

Not wars of aggression there haven't.

It's not about morality. It's about legality.

So you admit that it's immoral and you're just trying to find a legal argument to defend Assad because you're a support of him?

When did I say the US should form alliances with dictatorships?

You didn't, however you have vocally defended the country you support (Russia) forming alliances with brutal dictators. The fact that you're advocating for Russia to ally with dictators instead of the us doesn't make you any less of an advocate of alliances with dictators.

Because I'm not defending America's illegal interventions, I've been called an apologist for dictators.

Are you a scholar of international law? Because Bosnia and Kosovo were ruled legal after the fact, Libya was legal, Afganistan was legal due to self defence, East Timor was legal, Somalia was legal under the UN mandate, Kuwait was legal under a UN mandate, Syria is of disputable legality due to the conflicting points of national sovereignty, local sovereignty, separatist sovereignty, self defence against ISIS and Responsability to Protect.

The only clearly illegal war was the invasion of Iraq in 2003, which nobody here is defending.

We need veteran politicians combined with young turks.

Wait what?! Why would we want geocidal nutjobs?

edited 21st Sep '16 8:24:41 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
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#139453: Sep 21st 2016 at 8:27:37 AM

[up] I presume he's talking about the pop culture sense of the term; young, energetic agitators.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#139454: Sep 21st 2016 at 8:31:50 AM

(That's how the CIA and NSA get away with continuing to fight the Cold War - because you can't get to a position where you can shine a light into the organizations without having a vested interest in protecting their secrets.)

The scrutiny that the security organizations get, while necessary to transparency and such, is given a vastly inflated importance in our political dialogue. Quite frankly, the important issues — our economic future, our climate policy, our state government, our civil rights, and so on — are almost completely unaffected by NSA surveillance or CIA torture programs. It's a lot of sound and fury signifying little but that the person yelling about it holds their privacy in some kind of religious regard that is vastly out of proportion to its significance. Even Guantanamo Bay, while a stain on our national soul, has affected at net the lives of a few hundred people. More people than that die of police brutality every year, and orders of magnitude more die of poverty-related causes.

Now, domestic surveillance might become an issue in a hypothetical Trump administration, when he starts using the security apparatus to round up dissidents. But that's just another argument to vote for Clinton, because at least I trust her not to abuse the power of the executive branch to abrogate the rights of American citizens — never mind those of other countries.

[up]"Young agitators" are important to any functioning democracy, but they should not go directly to power without passing through a maturation process wherein they learn to temper their enthusiasm with a dose of practicality.

edited 21st Sep '16 8:35:40 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#139455: Sep 21st 2016 at 8:34:35 AM

Pretty bad example considering their name.

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#139456: Sep 21st 2016 at 8:35:16 AM

Your Protest Vote Only Hurts Others. Sad how many people can't figure that out.

@Silas

I'll just second everything you said here. I mean, not to invoke Godwin's Law, but Hitler was the legally recognized—and democratically elected!—leader of Nazi Germany. Somehow I don't see this guy saying that getting rid of him was a bad thing.

edited 21st Sep '16 8:35:35 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar

CrimsonZephyr Would that it were so simple. from Massachusetts Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
Would that it were so simple.
#139457: Sep 21st 2016 at 8:50:23 AM

"Young turks" are probably a bad term to use for the up-and-coming. Apart from being coined from the name of a right-wing political faction, it implies that you're putting grasping, inexperienced Small Name, Big Ego young guns in charge — which is something that should be avoided.

Honestly, I'm not so worried about a lack of young people in politics (40-somethings are usually the young guns in government, anyway), but a trend where young voters are simultaneously in the limelight, but also pushed further into the political margin because our habit of chasing the next big political fad means that no established political platform will cater to us in a sustained fashion. Millennials aren't stupid, but most of us have political ADD; the everyday banality of government never catches our attention. It's why lunatic right-wing local politicians coast into office on the votes of octogenarians in states without a progressive supermajority — what twenty-something votes for a candidate based on their promises to keep sidewalks better maintained?

"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#139458: Sep 21st 2016 at 8:56:30 AM

@ CrimsonZephyr:

...the everyday banality of government never catches our attention. It's why lunatic right-wing local politicians coast into office on the votes of octogenarians in states without a progressive supermajority — what twenty-something votes for a candidate based on their promises to keep sidewalks better maintained?

Quite — how can one push the progressive cause with highways maintenance? smile


6) I repeat, Crimea was Russian and the majority wanted to rejoin Russia.

A little quiz question for you: When and who authorised Crimea to become part of the Ukraine?

edited 21st Sep '16 9:22:31 AM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On
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
#139459: Sep 21st 2016 at 9:14:52 AM

1) Nl. They're non-interventionists. You don't seem to understand the difference.

And you doesn't understand how no matter how much they claim to be non interventionists, their views are isolationists and at this point I am sure you're misunderstanding the stances of US libertarians as non interventionists on purpose.

2) Wasb't Bernie against it? Hillary had was a senator. She sat on the SASC. She supported the war. It was an illegal war. She supported it. And I'm not talking about the other senators that supported the war. They're irrelevant.

In that context so is Hillary and Hillary admitted publicly that the Iraq War was a great mistake.

3) Gaddaffi was the recognized leader of Libya and the countries sovereignty was violated. If the US wanted to help people in the region, they could deal with the behavior of their closest allies. Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Saudi Arabia and Israel don't have anything to do with Muammar Gaddafi violent suppression of the Arab Spring protests in his country. He lost legitimacy and recognition during the revolt. Also he wasn't elected he was a dictator.

4) Turkeys been an ally forever. Poland was not. NATO wasn't supposed to expand East for obvious reasons, but did anyways. What Russia does in Ukraine is irrelevant. Ukraine isn't in the US' sphere of influence.

News flash, the Cold War ended USSR lost, they can't force ex-sov block republics into their sphere against their will no more. Ukraine is comfortably close to the EU and it was up to Ukraine to decide with whom they are going to ally to, not Russia.

5) And you're acting like the US has clean hands.

Since when?

6) I repeat, Crimea was Russian and the majority wanted to rejoin Russia.

If they wanted to, they could have filled a voting session on the Ukraine parliament to regularize their secession. Also the issue of them wanting to join Russia wasn't a problem until the Russians invaded and it doesn't matter how much you claim they wanted to join Russia. The Crimean take over wasn't legal, wasn't right and wasn't moral no matter how you'd like to paint it.

7) I'm glad you agree that the US is a bigger warmongering state than the PRC.

Not for the lack of trying, the PRC realized they wouldn't be able to use direct military action against its neighbors without triggering the US support for one of them or without making former US enemies, US allies. Guess what? Vietnam is seeking US support because it is afraid of China.

8) That's kind of silly. A Civil War doesn't meas Assad stopped being the leader of Syria. He still is and he wants America to stay out of his country.

It pretty much means it makes him stop being the leader of a pretty large chunk of the country.

9) And what did they do about Israel using White Phosphorus. When did they militarily intervene? Did they cut off foreign aid? Did they remove their UN veto. What did they do about it?

There was a reduction in military support for Israel as a consequence and even then the Palestinian-Israeli conflict isn't entirely on Israel either.

[up] 1) Libertarians stress individualism. They're about the freedom to pursue your goals without being constrained by the government. Even if I granted that your asessment of libertarianism was right, what's wrong with a country looking out for itself. Every country needs to protect their interests. The US doesn't have to police the world.

When their goals is to oppress people they don't like and prevent the government from doing anything about along making sure their business are free to screw over everyone as they please you really don't want libertarians taking the shots.

2) You said the Bush family. How wefe Jeb, George the first and the rest involved? It's not just gullibility. She's a hawk and she didn't learn her lesson. Sanders and Chafee were against the war. The war was illegal.

No one is arguing against that.

3) There have been far more wars than that.

Yeah, the Russo-Georgian war. You also need to look the difference between intervention and war.

4) It's not about morality. It's about legality. The international community recognizes Assads government. He doesn't want America in his country. Intervention would be a violation of Syria's sovereignty.

Not really. there are more countries recognizing the Syrian National Council than countries recognizing the Assad's government.

5) When did I say the US should form alliances with dictatorships? They already are. And claims that you're fighting in the Midde East for freedom ring hollow when you're in bed with Saudi Arabia.

And that still a major stain in the US records.

6) That's my line. Because I'm not defending America's illegal interventions, I've been called an apologist for dictators.

Because you have been defending dictators like Assad and Gaddafi as legitimate rulers despite everyone else disagreeing.

This shit is moving in circles harder than a damn NASCAR tournament.

edited 21st Sep '16 10:24:49 AM by AngelusNox

Inter arma enim silent leges
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#139460: Sep 21st 2016 at 9:34:30 AM

Because you have been defending dictators like Assad and Gaddafi as legitimate rulers despite everyone else disagreeing.

This. So very much this. When half the country is in revolt you can't claim that the government holds much in the way of legitimacy. Not to mention that said governments were totalitarian dictatorships to start with. Qaddafi came to power in a military coup when, as a captain, he overthrew the sitting government. Assad inherited his position from his father, who had taken power across a series of political and military coups. If that's a "legitimate" government, then Pinochet and The Process were the legitimate governments of Chile and Argentina.

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#139461: Sep 21st 2016 at 9:34:53 AM

I don't normally use Samuel Warde as a source, since they're heavily biased to the left, but I hadn't been able to find a similar article elsewhere and I thought it was interesting. It details some of the old school journalists' (specifically Tom Browkaw, Dan Rather, Ted Koppel, and Carl Bernstein) disdain for Trump and the current press over the last year to as recently as last Friday.

http://samuel-warde.com/2016/09/news-legends-call-media-hold-donald-trump-accountable-lies/

rmctagg09 The Wanderer from Brooklyn, NY (Before Recorded History) Relationship Status: I won't say I'm in love
The Wanderer
#139462: Sep 21st 2016 at 9:41:02 AM

a generation of Americans who grew up with participation trophies and individually curated social media info-bubbles devoid of triggers and dissenters

I mean I agreed with the article overall but this made my eyes want to roll 720 degrees.

Hugging a Vanillite will give you frostbite.
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#139463: Sep 21st 2016 at 9:44:08 AM

Infobubbles are an actual problem, but they are not specific to a given generation nor are "triggers" in any way relevant.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#139464: Sep 21st 2016 at 9:44:53 AM

Imagine that the Republican Party used superdelegates but is taken over by Trump and his people. That way superdelegates can be used to prevent a moderate such as Kasich from getting the nomination as well.
Sure. That's why you don't want the superdelegates to have too much power. I think 15% is a good amount that strikes a fair balance between "party establishment has no say at all" and "party establishment has complete control". Superdelegates can only kick the results in one direction or another if it's already a close race.

I'm concerned that the system could prevent such a future candidate from getting the nomination over a candidate who is preferred by the party's establishment, even if they won a majority of pledged delegates.
And I just spent an entire post outlining why a strict adherence to a slim plurality isn't necessarily the best thing for anyone.

If Sanders had won the pledged delegates, I don't think there would have been any justifiable reason for the superdelegates to vote for Clinton.
The whole point is that the superdelegates can legitimately have a different perspective on things than voters, which may lead them to support a different candidate, and this isn't necessarily a bad thing — especially if the superdelegates' power is relatively small so they can only affect relatively close races anyway.

I meant that you can look at the latest events - Trump's nomination, Brexit, the far right rising in Europe -, conclude that there's a problem with democracy, solve this problem by making the political system more oligarchical and call it a day. Or you could try to solve the underlying problems that led to these events, including (among many other things) racism in society and politicians appealing to racist sentiment in order to win votes, economic anxiety, general distrust of the political system, low voter education, media propaganda etc. The latter solution seems much more sustainable to me - even if the Republicans had prevented Trump's nomination with superdelegates, the sentiment that led to his rise would not have gone away: if anything, it might have become even worse.
The two aren't mutually exclusive — in fact, I'd argue that you need the former to do the latter. You can't fix systemic racism if your racist voter population keeps electing racist officials to enforce racist policies.

edited 21st Sep '16 9:45:36 AM by NativeJovian

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
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
#139465: Sep 21st 2016 at 9:50:29 AM

That Samuel Warde article was long due to happen, but there is that faint hope the Mainstream US media will remove their heads from their collective lower intestines.

Inter arma enim silent leges
CrimsonZephyr Would that it were so simple. from Massachusetts Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
Would that it were so simple.
#139466: Sep 21st 2016 at 10:12:24 AM

The constant references to participation trophies in anti-millennial media — a genre of its own at this point — perplexes me. I mean, I get that "we're all winners!" is an asinine statement (even though the concept of mutual benefit isn't talked about nearly enough in our politics), but why do middle-aged people think millennials crave participation trophies, or that we receive so many of them? I received like, two or three when I was five, but they're dinky, plastic pieces of crap and always a product of mollifying enraged Baby Boomer parents who live vicariously through their childrens' achievements.

"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#139467: Sep 21st 2016 at 10:15:19 AM

[up]Probably because the authors are seeking an explanation for the "Bernie really won" attitude.

edited 21st Sep '16 10:15:45 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar

Perian Since: Jun, 2016
#139468: Sep 21st 2016 at 10:18:13 AM

Edit: Nevermind

edited 21st Sep '16 10:18:59 AM by Perian

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
#139469: Sep 21st 2016 at 10:33:21 AM

Yeah we weren't the ones who demanded participation trophies, our parents demanded them, we never gave a shit.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Perian Since: Jun, 2016
#139470: Sep 21st 2016 at 10:45:20 AM

@139439: Wow. That's incredibly condescending, and entirely uncalled for. If you have any substantive criticism on my post, please say so. But if you assume that anyone who voices criticism on the Democratic Party is an ignorant sheep who is brainwashed by Republican propaganda (never mind the fact that Republicans never mentioned superdelegates at all), I don't think you're interested to engage in a debate.

[up][up][up][up][up][up] Superdelegates can (or more precisely, could) effectively override a 17% win margin - that's rather big, especially since establishment candidates are favoured in other ways as well. And they don't solely have an effect if they are used to override the popular vote, as I argued in my post.

Anyway, as I said - you only have two candidates to vote for. Do you really think it can be justified that two tiny groups of people can be trusted to make the best decision for the rest of America who these candidates are going to be? If so, I think we have a fundamental disagreement. At any rate, the influence of the superdelegates is being reduced, so they might not have such a large effect in the future anyway.

With regards to the racism part - a party can also simply refuse to appeal to racist sentiment so that such a candidate never gets nominated in the first place. Donald Trump would never have survived for this reason in the Democratic primaries, for instance.

Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#139471: Sep 21st 2016 at 10:56:00 AM

I want to say the participation trophy furor predates "millennials". I mean, I know my pre-millennium childhood had them. Likewise, past a certain age I was pretty well aware that they were basically consolation prizes.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#139472: Sep 21st 2016 at 11:14:04 AM

[up][up] No, it's completely called for, especially since I didn't specify Republican propaganda; it comes from the left way more than it comes from the right. It's part of the "sore loser" club, who wish to pin their defeat on anything other than the failings of their ideology. In that, it does sharply mirror right-wing politics.

Do you really think it can be justified that two tiny groups of people can be trusted to make the best decision for the rest of America who these candidates are going to be?
First, look up "democratic fallacy". Second, it's not "two tiny groups of people making a decision". To state this is to deliberately ignore the fact that this has not happened in recent memory, in favor of a paranoid notion of what could potentially happen.

Every time a Democratic candidate loses a presidential primary, their side screams foul at the superdelegate system, ignoring the fact that superdelegates have never overridden the committed delegates, and the fact that, as mentioned below, one of their major roles is precisely to stop a really bad candidate who happens to be popular from getting the nomination.

edited 21st Sep '16 12:53:09 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#139473: Sep 21st 2016 at 11:20:31 AM

Superdelegates can (or more precisely, could) effectively override a 17% win margin - that's rather big
For a general election, it's huge. For a primary... meh. It's significant but not overwhelming. We're probably going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Anyway, as I said - you only have two candidates to vote for. Do you really think it can be justified that two tiny groups of people can be trusted to make the best decision for the rest of America who these candidates are going to be?
You made this exact point already and I addressed it already. I'm not sure if you disagree with my response or just don't think I really covered it, but I don't see the point in recovering the same territory without some more specific question/response/clarification/etc to go on.

With regards to the racism part - a party can also simply refuse to appeal to racist sentiment so that such a candidate never gets nominated in the first place. Donald Trump would never have survived for this reason in the Democratic primaries, for instance.
That's like saying "solving problems is easy — all you have to do is come up with solutions and then enact them". You're not wrong, but it's not nearly as simple as "stop being racist". The superdelegate thing is a method for making "stop being racist" happen, by preventing the racist wing of the party from getting their prefered racist candidate as the party nominee.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
nervmeister Since: Oct, 2010
#139474: Sep 21st 2016 at 11:39:09 AM

That's like saying "solving problems is easy — all you have to do is come up with solutions and then enact them". You're not wrong, but it's not nearly as simple as "stop being racist". The superdelegate thing is a method for making "stop being racist" happen, by preventing the racist wing of the party from getting their prefered racist candidate as the party nominee
If by "stop being racist" you mean actually convincing people that their racist views are super-flawed and impractical, that method's not likely to work (at least not for most of them). Seeing their political horse lose just tends to makes them feel more powerless and frustrated and therefore more likely to retreat back into whatever comfort zone or collective they have to reinforce those beliefs harder, and the whole thing starts over again at some point.

edited 21st Sep '16 11:43:31 AM by nervmeister

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#139475: Sep 21st 2016 at 11:48:55 AM

[up] So it's a choice between letting racists win and causing racists to have hurt feelings about being cheated of a win? I'll pick door number 2, Monty.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Total posts: 417,856
Top