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

Draghinazzo (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I get a feeling so complicated...
#166751: Jan 14th 2017 at 11:04:41 AM

The Dems will never be able to pull meaningful numbers away from them without abandoning all principle, so this notion of trying to steal Republican votes by doubling down on appeals to the WWC is total hogwash, and honestly starting to feel like a form of backhanded white supremism itself, treating the WWC as some sort of mythical unicorn that will fix all the Dem's electoral problems if they can just find the right way to prostrate themselves before it.

I wouldn't have phrased the rest of your post like you did, but I more or less agree with the gist of this.

It reminds me of that one conservative democrat who was complaining about how the Dems were driving away evangelicals with the party's pro-choice platform.

To which I say "Good, we don't need them.". As I've said multiple times you can only compromise so much before your victory becomes meaningless. The democrats having to court reactionaries defeats everything they're standing for and trying to accomplish.

edited 14th Jan '17 11:06:42 AM by Draghinazzo

Perian Since: Jun, 2016
#166752: Jan 14th 2017 at 11:08:08 AM

@Fighteer: So you believe that advocating for public healthcare, fighting climate change, reforming campaign financing, etc., damage our democracy? Because that's what drove these people to Sanders, and calling them idiots is beyond the standards of civilized discourse. We can politely disagree about something without acting like you're the only informed person in the room.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#166753: Jan 14th 2017 at 11:15:22 AM

[up] Clinton also advocated for those things. She differed in certain details, but the people I'm referring to are the #NeverHillary crowd who refused to vote for her even though she won the primary and even though her opponent was a pile of horse dung with an ugly toupee.

If you, in good conscience, supported Sanders in the primary but then voted for Clinton in the general, then my ire is not directed at you. If you refused to vote, or voted for Stein, then congratulations. I guess you got the President you wanted after all.

edited 14th Jan '17 11:19:33 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Perian Since: Jun, 2016
#166754: Jan 14th 2017 at 11:35:16 AM

[up] Then I don't know what to make of your claims that uninformed people clung to Bernie Sanders "despite his inability to deliver on his promises" and "his pandering to a similar brand of populism as that which got Trump elected" (at any rate, comparing the two is intellectually dishonest, IMO).

I'm not a US citizen, but hypothetically, yes, I would have voted for Clinton, and would have tried to convince all my friends and family to do so as well. But I was talking about the 'us vs them' mentality, which I've seen equally on both sides (and for the record, I'm just as annoyed about the people who can't stop complaining about Clinton as the people who can't stop complaining about Sanders up to this day).

DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#166755: Jan 14th 2017 at 11:56:17 AM

The fact is few people voted for Trump, they mostly voted against Hillary, because they blame Bill for the loss of their jobs, and they saw her as irredemibly dishonest. But thats a good thing, or at least a silver lining, because it means his public support isnt very deep. He could easily lose in a landslide in four years.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
IFwanderer use political terms to describe, not insult from Earth Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
use political terms to describe, not insult
#166756: Jan 14th 2017 at 11:58:45 AM

[up][up]With the first statement he is referencing some articles that have been linked in the past in this thread explaining that Sanders' proposals, as they are presented, are economically impossible to make reality (personal opinion: that is not to say that some altered versions of them can be implemented).

The second statement is about many elements of Sanders' campaign using a similar kind of populist tactics and rhetoric as Trump's (of course he had a more left-wing message than Trump, but I'm talking about a different element). Which I agree with, having experienced populism already where I live.

1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KV
Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#166757: Jan 14th 2017 at 12:04:43 PM

Singer Jennifer Holliday is backing out of Trump's inaugural party.

Also, about a dozen House representatives have stated their intention to boycott Trump's inauguration. I'm writing to mine right now to urge him to join them.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#166758: Jan 14th 2017 at 12:06:03 PM

Sanders had some very specific campaign promises that were blatantly unachievable, but were inserted just for populist value. In his overall political goals, he aligned reasonably well with Clinton, but in order to differentiate himself and stir up enthusiasm, he said some really stupid things.

Let's go over a partial list (from memory):

  • Single-payer healthcare system.
While superior, this is simply impossible in our legislative environment. Clinton was a supporter of the public option, which means that the government offers a competing plan on healthcare exchanges to help establish a baseline cost that insurers have to meet. Sanders adopted this idea after the primary.
  • Dismantle large banks.
This is pure populism with little basis in reality. While bank mergers have caused problems, the actual issue is regulatory controls on their behavior. The size of the banks was not a direct factor in the crash of 2008; their leverage with collateralized debt instruments was.
  • Prosecute bank executives who commit financially irresponsible acts.
This is a position that I agree with, and one that Clinton did not directly adopt. There is some question as to its legal feasibility.
While the repeal of Glass-Steagall is often cited as a major factor leading up to the 2008 crisis, there is significant skepticism among reputed economists as to whether it would have made as much of a difference as is often claimed. Regardless, the factual basis for Sanders' position is suspect. Further, the Dodd-Frank Act, which was instituted under President Obama, is doing an excellent job by all appearances, considering how vehemently Wall Street institutions have been fighting against it.
  • Fully subsidized public college education for all citizens who earn below a particular income threshold.
Clinton also adopted this platform position, but it's worth noting that it has certain problems that would need to be addressed before it could be considered sound. One of the most important is the risk of schools inflating tuition costs knowing that the government would pay for them no matter what. There are other major problems with our secondary education system that Sanders did not directly address, such as the siphoning of tuition to pay for sports programs.
  • $15 minimum wage.
While many economists would say that this precise number is actually insufficient, there is wide agreement that the negative impacts of such a change would be minimal while its positive effects would be substantial. Clinton did not initially call for a minimum wage increase up to $15, but did advocate increasing it. She later adopted this position entirely. Pie-in-the-sky - we should be shooting for a minimum basic income, which none of the major candidates espoused.
  • Additional stimulus spending on infrastructure.
Clinton also agreed with this position, and it is widely supported by economists as well as progressives of all stripes.
  • The withdrawal of U.S. forces from overseas entanglements.
This is a position that Clinton did not adopt, and one that I don't agree with either. Most people say it is blatantly unrealistic. Sanders didn't spend a whole lot of time on foreign policy so it's hard for me to be precise here. Clinton's foreign policy credentials were clearly superior.
  • Further support for environmentalism and climate change prevention.
Clinton and Sanders aligned on this, which is a fundamental Democratic position.

Now, in terms of campaign tactics, Sanders initially adopted the position that Clinton's judgment was suspect because of her vote in favor of the Iraq war, while he voted against. This is a blatant smear, as the majority of Democrats also voted for the war, and only later recanted after it was revealed that the casus belli advanced by the Bush administration was a pack of lies. Clinton has repeatedly said that she regrets her vote, and noted that the willingness to change one's mind in the face of evidence is supposed to be a good thing. (To his credit, Sanders did refuse to play the "Benghazi/emails" card, but his supporters certainly weren't so shy.)

Sanders benefited greatly from the support of online communities, which had the effect of inflating the vocal presence of his base and making it seem as if he was drawing a larger percentage of voters than the actual polling indicated. His people had a habit of crashing caucus-style primaries, which uniformly have lower turnout, and then proclaiming the "rigged" nature of regular primaries. His supporters also developed a reputation for offensive behavior indistinguishable in principle from that used by Trump's online base. While Sanders disavowed this behavior, he did not change his campaign strategy, which was based around this type of populist appeal.

Some of his supporters further adopted racist and sexist rhetoric which was indistinguishable from that of Trump's supporters. Sanders seemed to hold the position that appealing to the majority white population, particularly economically disadvantaged voters, was key to Democratic victory, downplaying at times the racial tensions underlying the division between minorities and whites. This throwback to the 1930s style of Democratic populism helped fuel internal divisions within the Democratic Party and may have discouraged some minorities from coming to the polls. Moreover, once Clinton won the nomination, any hope of capturing the "missing white voters" for Democrats was lost.

edited 14th Jan '17 12:25:16 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#166759: Jan 14th 2017 at 12:07:36 PM

"Washington protesters vow to fight for civil rights under Trump" - http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-protests-idUSKBN14X2HX

Not sure what to say about the Jennifer Holliday story. Don't really know the performer. She says she didn't realize what her agreement to perform would seem like, but I can't help wondering "you have heard the man speak, right?"

edited 14th Jan '17 12:12:42 PM by sgamer82

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#166760: Jan 14th 2017 at 12:28:27 PM

Krugman: Infrastructure delusions

It's looking a lot like Congress is simply going to ignore most of what Trump has said he wanted to do, including his supposed infrastructure plans, in favor of the Republican Party's core agenda: repealing Obamacare, cutting taxes on the wealthy, gutting regulation and oversight, and so on.

Personal opinion: if this is actually what happens, then Trump's Presidency may be marked not by radically awful policy coming from the White House, but instead by a complete vacuum of competence in the executive branch, letting Congress basically do whatever it wants.

Rather than present-day Hungary, or 1920s Italy, we'll all be like Brownback's Kansas.

edited 14th Jan '17 12:31:03 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor
#166761: Jan 14th 2017 at 12:34:25 PM

Even if it were legislatively possible, Single Payer in the USA is a terrible idea, just on the basis of how many layers of government we have and how autonomous they are (or can be, potentially.) let alone the fact that you'd have a shit ton of lawsuits (and not all of them batshit crazy either) the damn DAY AFTER it was passed. The Insurance industry would collapse overnight, tens of thousands of jobs would be lost, and we now have an economic crisis on our hand with all these people filing for unemployment until they can be retrained for the Federal Healthcare system.

New Survey coming this weekend!
DingoWalley1 Asgore Adopts Noelle Since: Feb, 2014 Relationship Status: Can't buy me love
Asgore Adopts Noelle
#166762: Jan 14th 2017 at 12:35:52 PM

[up][up] Or Grover Clevelend's (2nd Term)/Calvin Coolidge's America's. One which was in a Depression. The other which dived into a Depression.

Also makes me think that Trump will either become an Oddball in his Party (like John Tyler/Andrew Johnson/Theodore Roosevelt) or he's going to actively sabotage the party by 2018 by tweeting constantly about how Congressional Republicans suck, getting a bunch of Radical Allies running against the Democrats (a la the Tea Party), and the Dems sweeping because of Trump fracturing the party and the party being seen as terrible for America/lying.

Or both.

edited 14th Jan '17 12:36:06 PM by DingoWalley1

Draghinazzo (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I get a feeling so complicated...
#166763: Jan 14th 2017 at 12:44:12 PM

Personal opinion: if this is actually what happens, then Trump's Presidency may be marked not by radically awful policy coming from the White House, but instead by a complete vacuum of competence in the executive branch, letting Congress basically do whatever it wants.

Is there any chance of Trump getting salty about the Republicans dancing around and/or ignoring him and sabotaging them out of petty spite?

DingoWalley1 Asgore Adopts Noelle Since: Feb, 2014 Relationship Status: Can't buy me love
Asgore Adopts Noelle
#166764: Jan 14th 2017 at 12:46:53 PM

[up] Absolutely; in fact I'd expect that to be the case.

And if Trump does try to pull his own Tea Party amongst the Republicans, they will suffer; Trump doesn't have the popularity to get Alt-Righters (or Semi-Alt-Righters) elected, and he will be viewed as a liar if none of his policies are enacted in 2 years by the majority of Americans. The Republicans ignoring Trump will absolutely bite them in the ass in 2 years...

... Then again, following Trump will also bite them in the ass...

edited 14th Jan '17 12:47:39 PM by DingoWalley1

Mio Since: Jan, 2001
#166765: Jan 14th 2017 at 12:47:42 PM

[up][up][up][up]Private health insurance would still exist as even the most generous national healthcare systems in the world don't cover everything. Even if we went single-payer there would likely still be co-pays and perhaps even premiums for service, so private insurance will likely be there to cover that "gap" in coverage, or people will be able to buy government regulated plan in lieu of the public insurance in a similar as the medicare advantage program.

That is actually probably one of the bigger criticisms of Sanders healthcare proposals, and by extension the "medicare for all" movement. They propose a plan that is actually too generous and by extension mischaracterizes how medicare (the closest we have to single-payer) actually works.

edited 14th Jan '17 12:47:56 PM by Mio

JBC31187 Since: Jan, 2015
#166766: Jan 14th 2017 at 12:53:02 PM

Regarding single payer: this article helped me understand it better.

Perian Since: Jun, 2016
#166767: Jan 14th 2017 at 1:35:13 PM

@Fighteer Half of the things on your list you agree with yourself, so I'm not sure why you include them. 'Dismantling large banks' is the only thing you mention without basis in reality, and I must admit that I don't know enough about that particular issue to make a judgement (on foreign policy, that's a misrepresentation of his actual position). Regardless, Clinton has also said some populist things (e.g. on suing gun manufacturers for mass shootings or about how Bill Clinton was mainly responsible for the great economy during his presidency), but I'm not going around saying that Clinton's support is proof of people being uninformed.

Now, in terms of campaign tactics, Sanders initially adopted the position that Clinton's judgment was suspect because of her vote in favor of the Iraq war, while he voted against.

Why is criticizing past votes that had a disastrous outcome off limits (Obama criticized her about it as well anyway in 2008, and it is not as if all Democrats voted for the Iraq war)? Anyway, it is not as if this was a major talking point of the Sanders campaign. (And talking about underhanded smears, Clinton can't really claim to have the moral high ground when she spread the nasty 'Bernie Bro' narrative, more about that below).

His people had a habit of crashing caucus-style primaries, which uniformly have lower turnout, and then proclaiming the "rigged" nature of regular primaries. His supporters also developed a reputation for offensive behavior indistinguishable in principle from that used by Trump's online base.

The 'rigged' claim is completely overblown, but at the same time, you also can't claim that the DNC was neutral during the primary process. And if you want an example of offensive behaviour indistinguishable from Trump's base, just go to r/Enough Sanders Spam, but I'm not claiming that these people are indicative of Clinton's support, so I don't know why people think it's fair to equate Sanders supporters with the worst elements of his base. Also on this point:

Some of his supporters further adopted racist and sexist rhetoric which was indistinguishable from that of Trump's supporters.

So why do these people matter? Factually, more Clinton supporters have racist stereotypes than Sanders supporters have, so I don't see why we should talk all time about the opinions of a fringe minority. But the truth is, the 'Bernie Bro' myth is a dumb narrative promoted by the media about some fundamental division in the Democratic party ('economic justice' vs. 'social justice') with little base in reality. Personally I care a lot about minority rights, as almost any Bernie Sanders supporter does, so it's no wonder that any mention of 'Bernie Bro' infuriates us. And for people who talk all the time about how the media has misrepresented Clinton, it's rather hypocritical to mindlessly adapt the media's criticism of 'Bernie Bros'.

Sanders seemed to hold the position that appealing to the majority white population, particularly economically disadvantaged voters, was key to Democratic victory, downplaying at times the racial tensions underlying the division between minorities and whites. This throwback to the 1930s style of Democratic populism helped fuel internal divisions within the Democratic Party and may have discouraged some minorities from coming to the polls.

That's a little revisionist, seeing that Sanders mainly started talking about the white working class in particular after the election, when Clinton didn't manage to win their support. And saying how the economy should benefit anyone is the minimum I'd expect from any Democratic politician (and I'm not sure how this should be offensive to black and latino voters).

edited 14th Jan '17 1:37:06 PM by Perian

pwiegle Cape Malleum Majorem from Nowhere Special Since: Sep, 2015 Relationship Status: Singularity
Cape Malleum Majorem
#166768: Jan 14th 2017 at 2:26:48 PM

Jennifer Holliday might have bailed on the Inauguration, simply because "performing for Trump" could wind up meaning something very different for her...

This Space Intentionally Left Blank.
PushoverMediaCritic I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out. from the Italy of America Since: Jul, 2015 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out.
#166769: Jan 14th 2017 at 3:17:39 PM

Can #Hillary Did Nothing Wrong please be a thing?

RedSavant Since: Jan, 2001
#166771: Jan 14th 2017 at 3:32:19 PM

Is there a reason why we'd intentionally link Hillary with Hitler through that hashtag?

It's been fun.
Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#166772: Jan 14th 2017 at 3:33:22 PM

[up][up][up]It wouldn't be completely true. the whole private server thing shouldn't have happened and the way she delt with some of her husband's accusers in her First Lady days was less than stellar.

But don't take that to mean I think she deserves to be prossecuted. I wouldn't put her as much worse, on the balance, than Obama (whom I have some serious disagreements with on policy and effectiveness but respect in other ways).

edited 14th Jan '17 3:34:01 PM by Elle

TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor
#166773: Jan 14th 2017 at 3:51:39 PM

And to think, had the GOP not been so dead on on finding anything on Benjamin Ghazi we would've never EVER found out about the private email server

New Survey coming this weekend!
PushoverMediaCritic I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out. from the Italy of America Since: Jul, 2015 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out.
#166774: Jan 14th 2017 at 3:56:31 PM

I swear I didn't even think of the Hitler did nothing wrong hashtag.

pwiegle Cape Malleum Majorem from Nowhere Special Since: Sep, 2015 Relationship Status: Singularity
Cape Malleum Majorem
#166775: Jan 14th 2017 at 4:14:31 PM

[up]I've never heard of it either. But it's ridiculous for people to equate Hillary with Hitler just over a bleeping hashtag meme. If they're going to do that, then we might as well have tropes such as: Hillary Ate Sugar, Stupid Jetpack Hillary, etc.

edited 14th Jan '17 4:18:19 PM by pwiegle

This Space Intentionally Left Blank.

Total posts: 417,856
Top