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

Izeinsummer Since: Jun, 2013
#159551: Nov 30th 2016 at 10:42:13 AM

The media, in the form of the fourth estate is supposed to inform the public.

The media as it actually exists, has entirely different goals. Which they succeeded at. The media wanted a close race, because that sells advertisements. They distorted the facts until they had one. Thing about close races ? Once you have one, either side stands a chance of winning.

I have no idea whatsoever how one restores the fourth estate to a place where it is fit for it's original purpose.

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#159552: Nov 30th 2016 at 10:42:50 AM

Hillary lost because of apathy. A narrow win would have been easy had a few more people shown up for her.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#159553: Nov 30th 2016 at 10:43:38 AM

@JulianLapostat: I'd argue that position is overly reductionist in modern America. While it still remains a powerful political force, to assert that racism is every bit as potent in the political process as it was in the 1950s is to flat out deny the achievements of the civil rights movement. I don't doubt that the vast majority of Trump's support came from such racial sentiments, and that's especially the case in the south and in rural America. That alone wouldn't have swung the election were it not for a collapse of democratic turnout in the midwest combined with a small subsection of the democratic base defecting to the GOP in that region. GOP turnout was in fact fairly similar to what we saw in previous cycles.

[up] Apathy driven by disillusionment, a sentiment that is, if not really justified, entirely understandable in the rust belt.

edited 30th Nov '16 10:45:38 AM by CaptainCapsase

JulianLapostat Since: Feb, 2014
#159554: Nov 30th 2016 at 10:44:23 AM

I don't deny that racism wasn't a major factor in Trump's election, but that still doesn't explain why Obama carried the Rust Belt so easily eight years ago.

Look the joke at the time was that Obama was getting the "racist vote". Obama's election in 2008 and 2012 was economics focused because the Republicans under John Mccain and Romney didn't play the "race card". That's their prize for basic decency. So that proved how unpopular their policies really are. Trump ran an explicitly race-based campaign from the get-go, and that attracted and energized the worst instincts there. That cannot be neglected and ignored. If Trump ran on economic populism, he would have lost.

In any case, there is no hard evidence to show that the exact same Rust Belt voters who voted Obama voted for Trump. These states were close anyway, its not like everyone there voted Trump. You had some Democrat Hillary voters and they voted for her. Others stayed at home, and Trump got a few converts...which is expected. This was hardly a total declaration of abandonment.

Hillary made a mistake of not campaigning adequately in these states and getting the undecided on their toes. But even then I don't know if that would be enough. Trump's victory came down to luck and a fluke and nothing else. If Hillary won, if some potential Trump voters stayed at home, we would be praising her campaign for her dignity, moderation, and emphasis on "normal politics".

Hodor2 Since: Jan, 2015
#159555: Nov 30th 2016 at 10:45:52 AM

My impression as far as the rust belt goes is that it's not only or even mostly that people who voted for Obama previously voted for Trump; it's that people who voted for Obama previously didn't vote in sufficiently large numbers, and that people who previously didn't vote (read white racists) did vote this time around.

Semi-[nja]

edited 30th Nov '16 10:46:20 AM by Hodor2

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#159556: Nov 30th 2016 at 10:47:04 AM

[up][up] I seriously doubt Trump is a fluke. Similar far right demagogues are cropping up all over the western world, and are already in power in many proximate places such as Russia and Turkey.

[up] I agree, which is why I said I think we're talking past each other. Democrats need to raise turnout in the Midwest, and I think the point of debate is more about how we can do that.

edited 30th Nov '16 10:48:41 AM by CaptainCapsase

AlleyOop Since: Oct, 2010
#159557: Nov 30th 2016 at 10:48:42 AM

I'm tired of seeing people in this thread keep thinking that "we need to appeal to 'white rural voters' more by appealing to economics issues" fundamentally means throwing minorities to the dogs. Maybe it takes reallocation of finite resources to get there so our minority game takes a hit from being 9/10 down to 8/10 so we can pull that 4/10 economics stuff up to a 7/10 but the point is, it's not a zero sum game. So stop acting like the fact that we need to walk on eggshells with some of the white voters to shore up Democratic support that we only lost in the first place due to incompetence is mutually exclusive with maintaining a broad platform of social inclusivity. It only becomes a competition if it's handled badly or by ideologues.

edited 30th Nov '16 10:54:49 AM by AlleyOop

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#159558: Nov 30th 2016 at 10:49:28 AM

[up] I to am tired of people acting like that's what we're suggesting when we talk about appealing to disillusioned rust belt voters.

edited 30th Nov '16 10:51:07 AM by CaptainCapsase

JulianLapostat Since: Feb, 2014
#159559: Nov 30th 2016 at 10:50:41 AM

@Julian Lapostat: I'd argue that position is overly reductionist in modern America.

Did we not see the last three years of police shootings of unarmed black men, the Black Lives Matter thing, the whole debate on redlining, the repeal of Voter Id laws, the gutting of the Voting Rights Act that led to Neo-Jim Crow in North Carolina and other parts?

Don't say it's reductionist.

While it still remains a powerful political force, to assert that racism is every bit as potent in the political process as it was in the 1950s is to flat out deny the achievements of the civil rights movement.

Achievements can be reversed, progress can be overturned. It has happened several times across history. Backlash grows strong precisely in response to incremental advances to equality. Anti-semitism in the 19th and early 20th Century came in response to the deghettoization of Jews and equal citizenship rights spread by the French Revolution and Napoleon. Jim Crow came after Reconstruction. Reagan came after the Civil Rights, and now Trump came after Obama.

Hodor2 Since: Jan, 2015
#159560: Nov 30th 2016 at 10:53:12 AM

Well, speaking for myself, what I'm reacting against is a perception from how leftist commentators frame things which suggests they came into the issue with some degree of hostility toward progressive "identity politics" (not so much on the racial front but more so in terms of feminism). In fact, using the term "identity politics" give the impression that the people who use it consider those interests separate from what they consider legitimate interests.

This is probably to some degree a case of talking past each other, but I'm calling it like I see it.

Draghinazzo (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I get a feeling so complicated...
#159561: Nov 30th 2016 at 10:54:54 AM

I think a salient point that needs to be raised is the fact that Hillary herself was a big factor. The merits of the accusations and scandals levied against her may not stand up to scrutiny, but the simple fact is a lot of the electorate simply doesn't like her, whether it's for good reasons or not, and wasn't enthused about her being the candidate. The media coverage was irresponsible but from what I've gathered was only building on something that was latent for a long time in the public. Again, her actual platform really didn't matter.

Depending on what happens going forward the Democrats may not need to course-correct THAT much, if they can get someone who can people energized and motivated to vote.

edited 30th Nov '16 10:57:20 AM by Draghinazzo

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#159562: Nov 30th 2016 at 10:56:12 AM

[up][up][up] It's reductionist in my view because it assumes that racism is such a powerful and all encompassing motivator that it overcomes any and all other things that drive people to vote, when in reality, it's just another factor in a person's decisionmaking which can vary in its degree of influence, and for some people, changing other factors (the local economy, the opioid crisis in rural America to name two possible factors) most certainly would have changed their votes away from Trump, and expressing a commitment to improvements in those areas is in no way in conflict with a commitment to social justice.

Moreover, the current "wave" of police shootings aren't something new, this has been a fact of life for the black community that is only now coming into the news. Under Trump there's a real danger of a major backslide, but what we have now is still an improvement over the conditions of the Jim Crow era.

[up][up] To me that sounds a lot like confirmation bias, especially in the case of people who have repeatedly affirmed a commitment to the underlying principles of the social justice movement, but are merely questioning the effectiveness of present methods.

edited 30th Nov '16 11:04:26 AM by CaptainCapsase

Wyldchyld (Old as dirt)
#159563: Nov 30th 2016 at 10:57:39 AM

While I am not mandated to do this under the law, I feel it is visually important, as President, to in no way have a conflict of interest with my various businesses.

Well, at least he's point-blank admitting that he's only going through the motions and not really doing anything genuinely substantial.

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.
Hodor2 Since: Jan, 2015
#159564: Nov 30th 2016 at 11:00:42 AM

The issue of police shootings kind of ties into the debate in that Obama and Clinton (and Sanders) spoke openly about this as being a problem and this probably did turn off some people enough to vote for Trump.

And understandably, there's going to be some heated words when someone's take (whether from the Right or Left) is to the effect that considering police shootings an issue of importance was some kind of awful identity politics as contrasted with legitimate politics which involve in the interests of the white working class.

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#159565: Nov 30th 2016 at 11:03:26 AM

[up] And that's not what I'm saying. I do think that appeals should be less micro-targeted, especially for issues like police shootings and the general militarization of our police force which doesn't exclusively impact minorities (ie we need to emphasis how it's harmful for all Americans rather than framing it as something that exclusively effects a particular sector of the population), but that's a matter of practicality rather than principle.

edited 30th Nov '16 11:05:23 AM by CaptainCapsase

JulianLapostat Since: Feb, 2014
#159566: Nov 30th 2016 at 11:05:17 AM

I seriously doubt Trump is a fluke. Similar far right demagogues are cropping up all over the western world, and are already in power in many proximate places such as Russia and Turkey.

Correlation does not imply causation. Erdogan did not rise recently, he's been in power as a strongman for quite a while, as has Putin. Nigel Farage and Le Pen's rise has a lot more links because of the EU than Trump does in USA.

Trump lost the Popular vote in USA, where Brexit actually did get the popular vote by a narrow margin. Trump became president because of a quirk in the system built to accomodate slavery, co-opting sentiments that had to do with white revanchism which is related to slavery. Neoliberal consensus and others played a part no doubt but ultimately Trump's campaign and success has nothing to do with reality. European commentators may see linkages through their context there but most Europeans are generally not entirely savvy about American history (Cf, Eric Hobsbawm the Marxist saying Jesse James was a "social bandit").

I'm tired of seeing people in this thread keep thinking that "we need to appeal to 'white rural voters' more by appealing to economics issues" fundamentally means throwing minorities to the dogs.

It has happened before. That's why people are reacting this way, they have seen this happen time and time again.

In 1876, the Republicans threw away the freedmen and scalawags, and other reconstructionists to the Democrats, and removed their army from the south which until then had been protecting voters from violence. That led to Jim Crow where in the name of "peace" with poor Southern whites, the South was declared to be "redeemed". The New Deal was originally directed to go to the poor white and they were assured that it wouldn't go to black folks. Then in the 90s, Bill Clinton despite being popular personally among African-Americans lengthened and heightened Reaganesque Tough on Crime laws that led to Mass Incarceration (voted by Bernie Sanders and other white progressives) and Clinton's whole campaign was "do Reagan's job better than he did" which is more or less what Clinton is Reagan-As-Advertised, or Competent!Reagan.

So don't be "tired of seeing people"...they know from where they speak. They know the real consequences of what marginalization of social issues in favor of "economic" ones lead to.

AlleyOop Since: Oct, 2010
#159567: Nov 30th 2016 at 11:11:18 AM

@Hodor 2

I do think the social justice wing of the left has some serious issues, though it's more with the means by which they communicate problems to laypeople (in particular, their often impenetrably pseudoacademic and self-masturbatory rhetoric; one of the reasons I enjoy the writings of Laura Dale on trans issues for example is because she avoids this in favor of a more audience-inclusive style) than the emphasis of the platform on those issues.

My impression reading a lot of these articles is for the former than the latter, though I agree that some of their suggestions overcorrect into becoming the latter; you still have to be somewhat firm in making your point or else you'll fail at trying to convince people in the first place. However what we're seeing is the outcome of heavyhanded use of the "tone policing" argument, which a lot of SJ folks have dismissed as negligible in the face of holding the moral high ground, only to find out exactly why that's a bad idea as Society Hasn't Marched On for a lot of people not already familiar with such ideas.

And this may be my own confirmation bias but when I think of identity politics, I think of how people would dismiss Jonathan Chait primarily for being a straight white cis male rather than debunking his (flawed) arguments on their own lack of merit. Things like treating white privilege as if it guarantees an easy life or literally means you have no excuse to suffer clinical depression, or the lovely arguments that there's nothing wrong with discriminating against or even physically hitting people if they have identities which happen to be considered privileged. I've been on Tumblr enough to know these are real issues with the SJ moviement, though it's true they may be overrepresented on that site. Although you're probably right about the talking past each other thing and I may just be reading what I want into those articles.

[up] Again my point isn't that it can't happen. It will if this outreach is handled badly. And it's happened before as the result of society itself having been less socially aware in the past. But the way some of you are talking about it suggests you believe the complete abandonment of minority issues at the national level is necessary to emphasize economic ones, which assumes a rather Manichaean view of such things.

edited 30th Nov '16 11:29:09 AM by AlleyOop

TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor
#159568: Nov 30th 2016 at 11:12:55 AM

NEW: Sarah Palin under consideration for Secretary of Veterans Affairs, sources tell @ABC News. -@shushwalshe

This is fine.

New Survey coming this weekend!
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#159569: Nov 30th 2016 at 11:14:04 AM

[up][up][up] The overall trend, despite the setbacks and occasional rollbacks has been one of gradual progress; what exactly are you proposing we do in response to the current predicament we are faced with? Simply laying down and letting the GOP have their way because of some misguided adherence to principles isn't a politically viable option. Unless you can come up with a better approach than what's been proposed (no rollbacks on social justice issues, but a focus on a more universal message over microtargeting), if you aren't willing to sully your hands and compromise your principles, somebody else will, and they might not share your ultimate objectives.

edited 30th Nov '16 11:16:10 AM by CaptainCapsase

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#159570: Nov 30th 2016 at 11:16:05 AM

"This is fine" as in "she'll screw up horribly, validating all claims that the Trump administration is a pile of cretins"?

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
JulianLapostat Since: Feb, 2014
#159572: Nov 30th 2016 at 11:22:24 AM

The overall trend, despite the setbacks and occasional rollbacks has been one of gradual progress;

Is the Republican Party's overall trend "gradual progress". Is that of the Democrats "gradual progress". The fact is Nixon was more on the Left than Reagan-Clinton-Both Bushes-Obama, and the latter is the first President who made moves to bring back social democracy.

Society has the potential for progress but only if human beings want it and stay committed to it.

...what exactly are you proposing we do in response to the current predicament we are faced with?

I propose loyalty to the 64 million who voted for Hillary despite her "voice", her issues, her scandals and everything. They have to come first, foremost and last and not the disloyal fifth-columnists who turned to Trump. That is your base and you must strengthen and empower that base.

In practical terms, appealing to white Trump voters, in the landscape of the media, legitimizes their choice and grievances over that of your base. It says "these voters from these three states" are the real victims. They aren't.

Simply laying down and letting the GOP have their way because of some misguided adherence to principles isn't a politically viable option.

The GOP have their way already...in this climate principles is your best and most pragmatic weapon.

CrimsonZephyr Would that it were so simple. from Massachusetts Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
Would that it were so simple.
#159573: Nov 30th 2016 at 11:22:41 AM

" The overall trend, despite the setbacks and occasional rollbacks has been one of gradual progress."

Yes, and in the long run, we're all dead. If we live to allow a rollback of social justice within our own lifetimes, that they might trickle back over the course of centuries is irrelevant. For fuck's sake, I want a society I can proudly call my own while I still draw breath.

edited 30th Nov '16 11:23:39 AM by CrimsonZephyr

"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."
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#159574: Nov 30th 2016 at 11:26:20 AM

[up][up] And if it turns out that base has in fact reached saturation, more or less? If it turns out, as Harry Enten of Five Thirty Eight argues, that demographics are not destiny, what do you do?

[up] And I'd like a society in which all people are free and able to fulfill their own aspirations and lead a fulfilling life. That It's extraordinarily unlikely I will live to see such a society is irrelevant to my commitment to such a goal.

edited 30th Nov '16 11:29:31 AM by CaptainCapsase

unknowing from somewhere.. Since: Mar, 2014
#159575: Nov 30th 2016 at 11:26:44 AM

", but the simple fact is a lot of the electorate simply doesn't like her"

While this is true, a large part is because Trump manage to set the tone of the campain, making more about feels and charisma that ideas,party or precedent, Trump back in the "lone everyman who is tired of everyone shit!" and that is hard to fight.

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"

Total posts: 417,856
Top