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

Cid El Cid Since: Jul, 2015 Relationship Status: Hiding
El Cid
#143576: Oct 12th 2016 at 1:40:42 PM

Damn, I missed the talk about ambassadors and appointments.

From what I've been told by my bae and by people working at the SRE, it appears that both career and political ambassador can be very good, and in some cases insiders seem to prefer political ambassadors, those appointed personally by a head of state, because they tend to have something career ambassadors don't: connections, money and/or direct contact with the person who gave them the job.

The first is a bonus because ambassadors also work as the eyes and ears of their home country. Like spies, although far less glamorous, one of their "jobs" is to keep an eye on the host country and use whatever information they can gather to help the home country. If they've got friends in the host country's government or even in the business world, they can get more information more easily. Either by calling their friends or calling in favours.

Money also becomes an advantage when we consider that ambassadors deal mainly with the "elite"# of the host country, be it politicians, business-people or other folks with some degree of influence on their respective countries. Money helps by allowing them to throw fancy social parties for la crème de la crème. As we say in my country: "con dinero baila el perro".

The third is convenient because then the diplomat may skip the bureaucracy if they really need to contact the president or head of state right this minute. For security reasons, not all ambassadors get the privilege of having their boss on call. Things are different when your boss is also your friend. [lol]

PhysicalStamina i'm tired, my friend (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
i'm tired, my friend
#143577: Oct 12th 2016 at 1:44:18 PM

As we say in my country: "con dinero baila el perro".

..."with money it dances the bitch"?

i'm tired, my friend
KarkatTheDalek Not as angry as the name would suggest. from Somwhere in Time/Space Since: Mar, 2012 Relationship Status: You're a beautiful woman, probably
Not as angry as the name would suggest.
#143578: Oct 12th 2016 at 1:44:23 PM

[up]x6 Reminds me of a conversation I had with my mom some time before Clinton announced Kaine as her VP pick - we were discussing the possibility of a Clinton/Warren ticket, and my mom said that she thought that having a woman running for President was controversial enough, and that having two women on the ticket might have been too much for a lot of voters.

I mean, we both would have voted for them all the same, but I do think that might have been on the Clinton campaign's mind when they chose Kaine - in many respects, he is a very safe choice.

Of course, I wonder how many of the aforementioned people would have voted for Clinton in the first place...

edited 12th Oct '16 2:29:45 PM by KarkatTheDalek

Oh God! Natural light!
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#143579: Oct 12th 2016 at 1:47:38 PM

[up] I wonder if that's a similar reason for not asking Bernie Sanders to be her VP. Bernie arguably would have been more difficult for swing voters and independents to handle.

Disgusted, but not surprised
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#143580: Oct 12th 2016 at 1:49:03 PM

Another reason I'm pessimistic about a Clinton presidency is the likelyhood that she'll seek to initiate and win confrontations abroad to shore up her abysmal approval rating. Without any hope of getting major domestic policy initiatives passed in congress barring a democratic house and filibuster proof senate majority, foreign policy victories and a certain degree of jingoism are more or less mandatory if she wants to remain in office in 2020. The most likely candidate for that is Russia, probably by proxy over the fate of Syria, and Putin can't back down from such a confrontation for a very similar reason Clinton can be expected to seek such a confrontation out; his perceived legitimacy in Russia depends on military victories.

That leads to a situation where both sides fight a costly and futile proxy war, which is not the sort of thing either party wants, but is more or less inevitable unless one party is willing to concede on this issue.

[up] Sanders or Warren weren't picked because Clinton promised Kaine the VP seat in exchange for stepping down as DNC chair back in 2014, based on wikileaks. The democrats bleeding to third party voters is the only reason Trump stood a chance at one point.

edited 12th Oct '16 2:02:17 PM by CaptainCapsase

JackOLantern1337 Shameful Display from The Most Miserable Province in the Russian Empir Since: Aug, 2014 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
Shameful Display
#143581: Oct 12th 2016 at 1:50:59 PM

[up][up] Not many.

edited 12th Oct '16 2:11:27 PM by JackOLantern1337

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#143582: Oct 12th 2016 at 2:02:26 PM

[up][up] [citation needed] Republican administrations push foreign conflicts to shore up their flagging domestic approval ratings, not Democratic ones. Again, you have no proof of these assertions, just vague fears and paranoia. Right now the big international flash point seems to be Syria, and it's a toss up which way those cards will fall. If there's anyone I trust to handle it with dignity and forethought, it's Hillary Clinton.

As for looming recessions, they don't just happen out of the blue. The winds don't blow the wrong way on the plains of Africa and cause a credit crisis in America. They are always predictable in hindsight. While it is impossible to rule out that something unforeseen could go badly wrong in our domestic economy, there is at present no reason to believe that such a thing is imminent, outside of known factors that are extrinsic to our country and thus not controllable.

edited 12th Oct '16 2:11:37 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#143583: Oct 12th 2016 at 2:06:12 PM

[up] Sanders or Warren weren't picked because Clinton promised Kaine the VP seat in exchange for stepping down as DNC chair back in 2014, based on wikileaks. The democrats bleeding to third party voters is the only reason Trump stood a chance at one point.
Is that really a credible source, given what folks here have been saying about it and Assange?

BearyScary Since: Sep, 2010 Relationship Status: You spin me right round, baby
#143584: Oct 12th 2016 at 2:07:10 PM

I wondered about a ticket with both candidates being female and came to a similar conclusion about Tim Kaine being a safe choice.

Do not obey in advance.
Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#143585: Oct 12th 2016 at 2:07:43 PM

[up][up][up][up]I think headbutting with Russia over Syria is inevitable at this point with more headbutting possible if they try pushing into the Crimea again. It's likely to happen under anyone not Trump. ISIS has been on the ropes for a while and I agree with her when she says they may be pushed out of Iraq before Obama steps down.

[up][up][up]Fighter, that first sentance is out of line and you know better.

edited 12th Oct '16 2:08:43 PM by Elle

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#143586: Oct 12th 2016 at 2:08:17 PM

@sgamer: It's Credible insofar as that's how political parties generally work. The party generally decides whose going to win a primary and what their presidential ticket is going to bemonths if not years before the first vote is cast. Someone running against the candidate of choice either needs to resonate with the party's base on a fundamental level (Trump), or be able to talk a good chunk of party brass into supporting him or her (Obama) over the presumptive nominee to overcome the house advantage.

edited 12th Oct '16 2:12:46 PM by CaptainCapsase

BearyScary Since: Sep, 2010 Relationship Status: You spin me right round, baby
#143587: Oct 12th 2016 at 2:11:09 PM

I agree that the first sentence of Fighteer's post there was in poor taste.

Do not obey in advance.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#143588: Oct 12th 2016 at 2:11:45 PM

I edited my post. As for the nomination, sure it's the case that political parties start eyeballing who they'd like to run for major offices, including President, long before the actual primary process begins. That's just smart business. There is no pretense that the nomination process is a totally open, free-for-all, vote for whomever you want environment, nor is there any notion that it should be.

Maybe you're one of those "the major political parties are evil" types who thinks that any organized political system is inherently corrupt, but guess what... you are voluntarily excluding yourself from the chance of participating in the system. Not voting, not participating, doesn't make you a heroic rebel against The Man; it just means you have no say whatsoever.

edited 12th Oct '16 2:14:47 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Cid El Cid Since: Jul, 2015 Relationship Status: Hiding
El Cid
#143589: Oct 12th 2016 at 2:11:47 PM

..."with money it dances the bitch"?
The dog dances with money.

I read somewhere that the whole phrase was: "with money anything is possible; if there's money involved, even the dogs will dance".

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#143590: Oct 12th 2016 at 2:12:22 PM

[up][up][up][up] This year's election kind of puts paid to that "the parties decide who'll win the primaries" assertion, between Trump and the fact Sanders gave Clinton a run for her money.

edited 12th Oct '16 2:12:42 PM by sgamer82

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#143591: Oct 12th 2016 at 2:16:10 PM

Heck, Democratic voters were champing at the bit to see Elizabeth Warren and/or Joe Biden compete in the primary. It was far from a foregone conclusion even if the entire party apparatus decided to back Hillary Clinton.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
JackOLantern1337 Shameful Display from The Most Miserable Province in the Russian Empir Since: Aug, 2014 Relationship Status: 700 wives and 300 concubines
Shameful Display
#143592: Oct 12th 2016 at 2:16:56 PM

I don't think Clinton will start a war to jack up her approval ratings. However if the opportunity for confrontation presented itself, I think she would be more eager to jump at it. Not only because she would want higher approval ratings and re election, although the wife of Bill Clinton of all people should know that foreign policy success does not translate into electoral victory. Also she's trying to build a new king of American patriotism and bring the country together. During the Cold War we defend ourselves by not being the Soviet Union, which was multiethnic, atheist, and left wing. It would be grand for liberals if the same thing happened with Russia, which is White,Rightwing, and very Christian.

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#143593: Oct 12th 2016 at 2:17:02 PM

[up][up][up] Sanders lost decisively. What's unusual is that it was a self identified socialist and possibly agnostic Jew rather than another challenger who got to play token opposition. He also was the only candidate in either primary who was actually getting people to vote who usually don't.

@Fighteer: The fact that neither chose to run seems to indicate the democratic brass didn't want a decisive primary. The democrats only allowed primary elections when their base literally rioted at the conventions. They've never been fond of them.

edited 12th Oct '16 2:22:09 PM by CaptainCapsase

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#143594: Oct 12th 2016 at 2:21:28 PM

[up] A big chunk of the American electorate, for whatever reasons, has checked out of the process entirely, believing that it is too corrupt and/or unrepresentative for them to give it their time and attention. This, unfortunately, becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when their lack of participation causes the major parties to decide that they aren't worth addressing and thus pull farther away from their interests.

It's only natural for such people to latch onto (apparent) "outsider" candidates who offer a change from the system they have come to irrationally despise. But Sanders isn't an outsider. He has good ideas, but come on, the dude's been in government for 40 years. The appetite for "something different" is grossly disproportionate to what such a candidate would bring to the table.

On a strictly factual basis, the Democratic national platform offers (mostly) the policies that would best serve most Americans. That people don't understand this, whether through disinformation or willful ignorance, is tragic, but it does not mean that we should trash the system just to pander to their illusions.

Edit: You do know that there were five candidates for the Democratic nomination, right? Seven had Biden and Warren decided to run. That's not a foregone conclusion. To suggest that the latter decided not to run because of party pressure is conspiracy theorist malarkey at its finest. It is entirely possible that, absent a few folks, there was a general sentiment in the Democratic party that Clinton should be the next President. That's not "anti-democratic". It's just a fact.

edited 12th Oct '16 2:25:41 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#143595: Oct 12th 2016 at 2:22:32 PM

Yeah, when people say that Sanders did better than expected it's not because he did better than past democratic primary challengers, it's that given the list of his traits that are assumed to be anathema in an American candidate, he did well at all. ([up] Also, part of his "outsider" cred is that he's an independent who registered Democrat for the sake of this rate.)

Also, wasn't Hillary the heir presumptive of 2008 before Obama showed her up?

edited 12th Oct '16 2:25:08 PM by Elle

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#143596: Oct 12th 2016 at 2:25:16 PM

[up] She was, and everyone assumed Obama would get crushed until he starting turning party brass to his side, a testament to his tremendous charisma.

@Fighteer: Wikileaks DNC emails at least seems to suggest Biden was specifically asked not to run by DNC officials, though I don't doubt he didn't require much convincing. Party discipline has gotten much stricter in the US over the years, so it's hardly surprising, nor is it necessarily undesirable.

edited 12th Oct '16 2:45:08 PM by CaptainCapsase

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#143597: Oct 12th 2016 at 2:25:49 PM

We'd e a lot better off if people stopped looking for some messianic figure. Obama, Warren, Sanders, Trump., all etc. Regardless of their individual merits or downfalls, it seems like a lot of people don't care about their actual substance instead of the packaging.

Conversely, you get the exact opposite with Clinton, where oddly enough she'll probably be under even a bigger (in a way) microscope than Obama because she'll also have a large portion of the left chomping at the bit at anything that even vaguely reinforces their whole narrative of her being a "war criminal shill for Wall Street".

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#143598: Oct 12th 2016 at 3:00:41 PM

[up] "The issues" don't really matter in a democracy as much as personality and the incumbent party approval rating. Case in point, this particular election cycle; virtually the entire campaign for both sides has consisted of smears and character attacks. The democratic primary was unusually issues focused this year, but I can't say the general election has been that much worse in terms of substance than any campaign I remember, even if it's more vicious than usual.

edited 12th Oct '16 3:01:34 PM by CaptainCapsase

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#143599: Oct 12th 2016 at 3:10:07 PM

[up] Clearly you have not actually listened to any of Hillary Clinton's campaign speeches, including a particularly good one she gave yesterday about the environment, with Al Gore in attendance. It's not that she's not talking, it's that our media isn't paying attention, preferring to dwell on the scandals and play up the conflicts.

edited 12th Oct '16 3:10:49 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#143600: Oct 12th 2016 at 3:14:55 PM

[up] I have. But what he bulk of the population experiences is the soundbites, the scandals, and the commercials, and thus, except for the purposes of highly educated (or self-informed) sectors of the population, such speeches might as well not exist.

edited 12th Oct '16 3:15:51 PM by CaptainCapsase


Total posts: 417,856
Top