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

Eschaton Since: Jul, 2010
#168301: Jan 22nd 2017 at 1:57:24 AM

A little earlier in the thread, someone mentioned that they don't think an anti-racist populist could ever beat a racist populist in the United States. Personally, I do not believe that is the case.

However, it would be foolish not to acknowledge what has been made abundantly clear: a lot of people in the US are really fucking stupid.

Lanceleoghauni Cyborg Helmsman from Z or R Twice Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: In my bunk
#168302: Jan 22nd 2017 at 2:09:10 AM

the veins of anti-intellectualism run very deep in the united states. I blame our obsession with protecting (christian) religious expression. "It's my firmly held belief that this vial of /literal water/ that got exposed to a slice of onion 300 distillations ago will cure my cancer!" kind of bullshit should be prosecuted with extreme prejudice but noooo, we only JUST got legislation demanding labeling that says it doesn't work. The "Lets Hear Both Sides" pseudo centrist bullshit doesn't help either.

edited 22nd Jan '17 2:10:04 AM by Lanceleoghauni

"Coffee! Coffeecoffeecoffee! Coffee! Not as strong as Meth-amphetamine, but it lets you keep your teeth!"
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#168303: Jan 22nd 2017 at 2:43:35 AM

Anti-intellectualism was a big part of why HRC had trouble connecting with some voters, and why Trump had no trouble with those same voters.

Disgusted, but not surprised
Lanceleoghauni Cyborg Helmsman from Z or R Twice Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: In my bunk
#168304: Jan 22nd 2017 at 3:07:12 AM

we have sizeable contingents of people who believe fluoride is mind control, vaccines cause autism, and that evolution is either a lie, or horrifically wrong. There is no shortage of absolutely idiotic people in america.

"Coffee! Coffeecoffeecoffee! Coffee! Not as strong as Meth-amphetamine, but it lets you keep your teeth!"
NoName999 Since: May, 2011
#168305: Jan 22nd 2017 at 5:12:40 AM

Also remember: Bernie's Jewish. The racists and the punchable Nazis would still vote got Trump.

Journeyman Overlording the Underworld from On a throne in a vault overlooking the Wasteland Since: Nov, 2010
Overlording the Underworld
#168306: Jan 22nd 2017 at 5:28:21 AM

Yesterday I started throwing my hat in with the Resistance. So far my part's mostly about Net Neutrality. I'm sure everybody here knows what it is but just in case some don't: It's a law saying the internet providers can't pick and choose which sites they support, and forces them to fairly price the bandwidth they give to everyone. Without it, any corporation with a vested interest in shutting down a competitor can bribe the internet providers to cut down the bandwidth they give to those competitors. Trump is a businessman with a grudge against legitimate media. Do the math. If you see anything at all aimed at cutting out Net Neutrality, call your congresspeople and sign petitions and fight it like it'll kill you. Because if we can't protect Net Neutrality, our ability to stay organized and fight other things in the future will be severely diminished.

So far I've talked to co-workers who didn't know about it, and started a thread on another site I frequent explaining this much. At work I mostly talked about it in terms of Net Flix since my state is predominantly pro-Trump, but a couple people I told the full story to.

math792d Since: Jun, 2011 Relationship Status: Drift compatible
#168307: Jan 22nd 2017 at 5:41:45 AM

Alright, so I promised to go and expose the 'WW 1 reparations, therefore Nazis' argument yesterday, and I'm finally getting around to that, so here we go:

The economic depression and hyperinflation that Germany suffered in the 1920's was largely self-imposed.

Here's what most people don't know about the Treaty of Versailles, because the information wasn't declassified until fairly recently: the reparations Germany was stipulated to pay at the conclusion of Versailles was deliberately inflated by the Entente Powers to discourage future warmongering. The actual sum of money that Germany had to pay was much, much smaller, and had payments continued in good faith, even the Weimar Republic wouldn't have had significant issue paying it back, with the final payment being made sometime in the 1940's.

However, the German Finance Minister after the war (who, like many of his contemporaries, was mad about Versailles) deliberately sabotaged the German economy by inducing an artificial hyperinflation in order to attract American loans to pay for the reparations, and to try and force the Allied powers to further lower the amount of money Germany had to pay in reparations.

The French, being onto the Weimar Republic's shenanigans, then really induced some economic damage by occupying the Ruhr, using the heavy industry there to make Germany pay reparations. This induced actual economic damage in 1923-25, but in 1925 when the French backed off, the Germans were doing alright, and were on route to get their economy back on track.

Then the Clutch Plague happened, and the economy seriously took a downswing. This enabled the NSDAP to start seizing large amounts of the popular vote, but it's worth noting that even in 1933, at the last free election before the Third Reich was officially declared, the NSDAP only got 42% of the vote, after all the Communist parties were outlawed and labor unions disbanded. The reason why Hitler came to power was because Paul von Hindenburg saw him as a useful idiot he could use as a beatstick against the labor unions and Communist parties, and a great many industrial concerns (many of whom had been arms manufacturers before the War) politically and financially supported the Nazi Party over concerns about the Communist and Social Democratic parties.

Stop me if any of that sounds familiar - large corporate autocrats and conservative politicians rallying behind a blustering demagogue because it might help them win an election.

That's not to downplay the effects the economic downturn had on the world, of course - you see that all around the world - but it's worth noting that the Clutch Plague didn't bring about fascist or communist coups in any other nation it touched (i.e all of them). Almost as if there were factors besides the economy that foster fascism.

edited 22nd Jan '17 5:42:45 AM by math792d

Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.
IFwanderer use political terms to describe, not insult from Earth Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
use political terms to describe, not insult
#168308: Jan 22nd 2017 at 6:02:03 AM

@~Native Jovian and ~Sci Fi Slasher: [awesome][awesome][awesome]

@~Link To The Future: read these two comments, and keep them in mind when you're feeling hopeless about the US.

@~R Bluefish: Trump's pivot will come five minutes before his term finishes, just before the 46th POTUS is sworn in.

@~cerebralTheatrics: Along with Slasher and Jovian's rebuttals, I want to add this article from Vox analyzing what issues Clinton talked about the most throughout the campaign: jobs alone was mentioned more often than everything in the "Identity Politics" (which I'm starting to think should be called "Civil Rights Issues").

@~math792d ([up]): That's a great post.

1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KV
StarOutlaw Since: Nov, 2010
#168309: Jan 22nd 2017 at 6:08:01 AM

So Trump tried to plagiarize Obama's cake. Glad to see the proceeds are going towards Human Rights Campaign.

edited 22nd Jan '17 6:09:28 AM by StarOutlaw

singularityshot Since: Dec, 2012
#168310: Jan 22nd 2017 at 6:16:06 AM

Thinking about it then, if anti-intellectualism is going to be the kryptonite of any future Democratic platform against the likely bombast of Trump's* re-election campaign then the Democrats need to change their tactics and strategy significantly.

Comparing the two campaigns, I think it is clear that the larger the audience one person has, the simpler the message must be for it to be effective. Trump's messages were so simplistic, they rarely extended past ten syllables. Which is perfect for a mass movement headed by one person. Clinton's messages were far more nuanced, and I think they got lost in the wash whenever she undertook her rallies. Nuance doesn't come across in front of a crowd of thousands or tens of thousands. Add in the amplifying effect of national television, then all chance for nuance to be effectively communicated is lost.

Therefore, I think the Democrats need to abandon the contest of large rallies and simplistic messages, if they wish to retain the intellectual high ground (Disclaimer - this is assuming that the Democrats don't find another Barack Obama to be their candidate in 2020). Rather, they need to take a lesson from the past - and embrace something that they really, really hate right now.

The Electoral College - or more specifically, the electors.

One of the more forgotten about surprises in this campaign was the realisation that the qualification for being an elector was that of party loyalty alone. Anyone could go, and for the most part they were completely faceless and forgettable people. From what I understand, this was not the original intention of the role of the electors for the electoral college. As I understand it, the electors were that candidates champion amongst the local people, as national campaigns were not possible before the invention of air travel and mass media. You elected the elector, and then trusted him (were there any female electors in this era?) to carry your intention to Washington DC and elect the person they said they would elect.

There is no reason that I can think of that says this can't work in today's world - and it would be especially effective against Trump*. What the Democrats need to do is find 358 surrogates across the states. Train them up to be effective orators and to be able to command an audience of around 1000 ~ basically the amount you get in a large university lecture. And then these 358 ordinary people will be the face of the campaign. Have them organise rally after rally after rally in their local area - but not big rallies. Make it clear that this person is important - they are the person whom the electorate is empowering to elect the next President of the United States. Give them the opportunity to be seen with the candidate - as an equal. That way, the message they communicate is given equal weight with what the candidate is saying - and as the audience is smaller for our surrogates, the message can be far more nuanced, personal and intelligent.

A one man band can't compete against 358 local campaigns. Trump* may fly in to one state, have a big rally, then fly out and won't be back for at least three or four days. In that time, there could be as many as 40 smaller rallies that would serve to neuter the effect of Trump's* simplistic messages. The structure also has the advantage of neutering the other aspect of Trump's* campaign - his anti-establishmentarianism, which goes hand in hand with anti-intellectualism.

The classic mistake that politicians make when defending the establishment is that they defend the status quo. Something which is old, not working and self serving. Burning that old rubbish to the ground is always going to be the more popular option: but populists never have a clue about what to do after they have lit the match. Rather, the best way to defend the establishment is to show that you are a builder of institutions, networks and people. That way the electorate can be confident that you are going to improve the status quo and make it better: and since you've already done that by demonstrating that the Democratic candidate is NOT a one man band but is directly linked to the 358 surrogate campaigns that are all around the country. You have shown that an institution can be flexible and responsive - and there is no reason why you cannot make the establishment do the same thing.

What do other people think? I really do think this idea should be explored more. I'm sure there are many flaws with this plan but in the teeth of anti-intellectualism the Democrats have to play smarter. They won't beat the Republicans in a race to the bottom: and even if they could we would all be poorer for it. A radical suggestion such as this might be the way to forming a more localised, personable campaign that can inoculate against the viral populism of Trump*.

NB - I put * next to Trump because while it is assumed he will be the candidate in 2020, he may not be. But that having been said, I imagine that the Republicans will still just be as vulnerable to a populist take over / a Trumpian candidate willing to use the same winning playbook even if Trump is deposed between now and 2020.

CenturyEye Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign? from I don't know where the Yith sent me this time... Since: Jan, 2017 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign?
#168311: Jan 22nd 2017 at 6:36:06 AM

"In Germany, there are actually rules how much coverage each party gets (meaning each party gets exactly the same number of advertising spots, no matter how big or small they are), how much money they are allowed to spend and the source of the money, when the election campaign is allowed to start, when and where the posters are allowed to be shown (not too close to the ballots), and the news is supposed to cover the major parties as fairly as possible. The first time I saw an American Election I was frankly shocked."

The US was actually heading in that direction after Watergate, but:

  • The Federal Elections Commission was established to be bipartisan (as opposed to nonpartisan) and inevitably waters down regulation that hurts one party and that's when it functions at all. note 
  • Citizens United vs. FEC had a chilling effect on regulatory limits to "speech" which the Supreme Court note  considers a broad net including everything from propaganda films playing near election time to campaign donations. Though, the whole money=speech and government can't mandate or cause equal spending among candidates thing started way back with Buckley v. Valeo.
  • What restrictions on contributions exist have huge and very public loopholes. (Political action committee's take advantage of a loophole that Citizens United opened up and 527 groups are named after an U.S. Code loophole).
  • Plus, do not forget federalism. I do not know how the German states manage it, but it ebbs and flows in the United States. note  As far as state elections go, the Department of Justice (before the voting rights act was gutted by the Supreme Court) had more reach in state elections than any federal regulatory body.

Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our lives
Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#168312: Jan 22nd 2017 at 7:41:13 AM

I am not sure if I buy into the story of the German government sabotaging its own economy because, well, Germany paid the last rate of reparations only a few years ago, more than 90 years after that particular war ended, and what partly helped to pay it off was the inflation. But in general, I think there are three important things to learn from Germany in the 1930:

1. Perception and trust are the core of every state. It actually doesn't matter how much debt one state has piled up as long as there is still believe that it will pay it back and as long as the population keeps trusting in the currency. But it is also impossible to predict the tipping point, therefore it is better to be save than sorry.

2. The perception of the general population is often wrong. When Hitler came into power, Germany was actually already on the road of recovery. In the beginning he got the credit for things his predecessors brought on the way.

3. It is usually not the population which undermines a democratic system, but the people who already have a lot of power and influence, but wrongly believe that they could do better.

Also, never trust in a puppet, it might turn around to bite you. Honestly, US school should have taught German history properly, and not just from the perspective of the Hollywood War movie in which the heroic Americans rescue the world. Understanding the mechanism behind Nazi-Germany would have been the first step to prevent Trump.

edited 22nd Jan '17 7:41:32 AM by Swanpride

Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#168313: Jan 22nd 2017 at 7:53:08 AM

Yeah, Canada has that problem too. It's only "Hitler and the Nazis were total monsters who seized power" with all the focus after that being on Canada's involvement. That admittedly covers a lot more time than the American involvement, but it doesn't help people understand why Nazi Germany existed at all.

And, of course, people tend to project Nazi Germany back onto World War One, which didn't really have clear good or bad guys. There were specific monsters, sure, but no one was actually trying to wipe out a whole race.

IFwanderer use political terms to describe, not insult from Earth Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
use political terms to describe, not insult
#168314: Jan 22nd 2017 at 7:56:10 AM

Did anyone already post this picture of the Women Marches throughout the entire US? "coastal elite" my ass, that's in all 50 states.

1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KV
Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#168315: Jan 22nd 2017 at 8:00:36 AM

There was a march here in St. Catharines, and we're a pretty small Canadian town that's dependent on the GM car factory (and both a college and a university). Granted, it was probably because the city of Niagara Falls is absolutely terrible to walk through.

There's a bit of a joke around here that the march was so Canadian that they stopped to let traffic through.

edited 22nd Jan '17 8:01:13 AM by Zendervai

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#168318: Jan 22nd 2017 at 8:21:04 AM

No, Kellyanne Conway said that the press secretary wasn't lying, he was using "alternative facts".

LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#168319: Jan 22nd 2017 at 8:22:51 AM

"I don't think you can prove those numbers one way or another. There's no way to quantify crowd numbers," Conway said.

Conway also suggested that Todd's insistence on asking why Spicer delivered a demonstrably false statement could affect the White House's treatment of the media.

"If we're going to keep referring to the press secretary in those types of terms I think we're going to have to rethink our relationship here," she said.

Fucking wow. That last sentence though.

Oh really when?
PhysicalStamina i'm tired, my friend (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
i'm tired, my friend
#168320: Jan 22nd 2017 at 8:33:20 AM

How does an "alternative fact" work? Either it is or it isn't.

i'm tired, my friend
Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#168321: Jan 22nd 2017 at 8:34:30 AM

It's another term for gaslighting, basically. Be so insistent that the lie is true in order to confuse people into thinking the lie is true.

math792d Since: Jun, 2011 Relationship Status: Drift compatible
#168323: Jan 22nd 2017 at 8:50:23 AM

I am not sure if I buy into the story of the German government sabotaging its own economy because, well, Germany paid the last rate of reparations only a few years ago, more than 90 years after that particular war ended

History doesn't care if you buy it or not, it's on public record now. If you haven't, read Adam Tooze's The Wages of Destruction for more information about how the Weimar Republic tried to dodge out of paying the Versailles reparations. It's an important component of killing the Versailles Myth.

It's also worth noting, of course, that the Weimar Republic was still a quasi-authoritarian 'Deep State' of the kind Germany had experienced in its imperial years, so it was easy enough for the Nazis to re-tool that since they already had most of the pieces in place. This kind of German state didn't really disappear until (imo) after the Spiegel Scandal.

Also, the debt paid off in 2011 was not the Versailles reparations payments, that's just the accumulated debt of repairs to French infrastructure. Actual reparation payments stopped dead in 1931 and were never renewed.

edited 22nd Jan '17 8:55:25 AM by math792d

Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#168324: Jan 22nd 2017 at 8:50:27 AM

I swear that the GOP loves Israel more than America...

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#168325: Jan 22nd 2017 at 8:55:52 AM

They don't even love Israel. They just hate Muslims.

Oh really when?

Total posts: 417,856
Top