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

Krieger22 Causing freakouts over sourcing since 2018 from Malaysia Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: I'm in love with my car
Causing freakouts over sourcing since 2018
#184926: Apr 26th 2017 at 2:59:44 PM

If Alex Jones loses custody of his kids it would probably be a sacred duty to chase him around denying their existence.

I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot
Hodor2 Since: Jan, 2015
#184927: Apr 26th 2017 at 2:59:51 PM

One thing I also wanted to point out @Mad Skillz is that you know how much racism there was directed against Obama, and remember how tied to that there were all of these accusations of him being an aberration who wanted to tear down the system in pursuit of far left/anti-American goals, right?

So like when Obama talked about policies, especially in terms of things like targeting Wall Street and supporting various "bail out" and job creation programs and healthcare reform, you get why he would frame these things in the most conservative-friendly way possible, right? And nonetheless, even if his programs were relatively conservative (although still progressive by the standards of U.S. policy to date), he was painted as a dangerous and destructive radical on all of these.

Incidentally, this is on some level one thing that rankles me about Sanders or at least the people who support his policy preferences now but rejected progressive policies under Obama- Yes he's undoubtedly more progressive on some issues than Obama, but it strikes me that there's definitely white privilege at work in terms of how when he openly rails against Wall Street and talks about revolution, it's popular, whereas when Obama made tepid comments to the same effect he was painted as being Pol Pot.

Edit- And yeah, when Obama and that Barlett guy say he would have been a moderate or liberal Republican of decades past, that really says way more about the rightward shift of both the country's Overton Window as well as the Republican Party than it says about Obama.

edited 26th Apr '17 3:02:21 PM by Hodor2

Matues Since: Sep, 2011
#184928: Apr 26th 2017 at 3:00:04 PM

I'm sure it was scheduled for a few hours ago, so the lack of news is slightly surprising.

Ah, how the internet has changed the news-cycle.

Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#184929: Apr 26th 2017 at 3:07:34 PM

I'm still figuring out a response to Mad's latest post (which may or may not happen as time permits) but if you're going to quote a Founding Father, include source and context. The source is [http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/yates.asp from notes on the debates of the constitutional convention] and the context is debate over the term limit of Senators. Here's the full quote.

Mr. MADISON. We are now to determine whether the republican form shall be the basis of our government. -I admit there is weight in the objection of the gentleman from South Carolina; but no plan can steer clear of objections. That great powers are to be given, there is no doubt; and that those powers may be abused is equally true. It is also probable that members may lose their attachments to the States which sent them-Yet the first branch will control them in many of their abuses. But we are now forming a body on whose wisdom we mean to rely, and their permanency in office secures a proper field in which they may exert their firmness and knowledge. Democratic communities may be unsteady, and be led to action by the impulse of the moment. -Like individuals, they may be sensible of their own weakness, and may desire the counsels and checks of friends to guard them against the turbulency and weakness of unruly passions. Such are the various pursuits of this life, that in all civilized countries, the interest of a community will be divided. There will be debtors and creditors, and an unequal possession of property, and hence arises different views and different objects in government. This indeed is the ground-work of aristocracy; and we find it blended in every government, both ancient and modern. Even where titles have survived property, we discover the noble beggar haughty and assuming.

The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa, or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge of the wants or feelings of the day laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe; when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be jsut, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability. Various have been the propositions; but my opinion is, the longer they continue in office, the better will these views be answered.

The recorded opinions of the others in the room are relevant as well. There were two main philisophical points in play: one the issue of how long a term limit to have stability without being opressive and the other was the balance between democracy (pure public representation) and republicanisim (with some assumption that yes, the landed, white...but also, key word, educated elite knew better than the average citizen. At this point in the debates the bimarcal legislature and the shape of the House of Representitives had already been arrived at and the Senate was meant to be a counterbalance to the House. Remember that before the 1800s, Senators were not elected directly...we changed that with an amendment.

Trying to boil down the intent of the founders to one quote is both lazy and disingenuous (and too common in all sides of political debate). This is a field the scholars have devoted their entire careers to.

And frankly, they were not always wrong to be concerned about unchecked populism.

edited 26th Apr '17 3:16:52 PM by Elle

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
#184930: Apr 26th 2017 at 3:11:10 PM

Yeah in the end Obama was always a man trying to find a compromise, he's always talked about how he's in the middle, how he's a centerists, how at a different time he could have been a Republican, etc... I get that a lot of people here feel that Obama was lying, that he talked that talk out of a fear of obstructionism (that he got anyway) and a very personal desire to work with the other side no matter what. But he still did say those things, Mad didn't make them up and it shitty of people to pretend that he did.

Obama was fantastic at finding a compromise, both in his language and in his actions, I mean that as both a genuine compliment and on some level a negative remark, because there are times you shouldn't try and compromise with the other guy.

As for Sanders' policies being popular, I get the LBJ quote, I really do, it's a great quote that gets used a lot here (a ton actually).

But we seem to be pulling of the con, yes I get it, the white middle-class with turn on entitlements the moment they realise that minorities will benefit, well right now they're in favour even though minorities would benefit. We have somehow tricked the racist nutjobs into not realising that our policies will help minorities, I don't know how we did it, but based on the that polling we've done it.

If we can sustain that con, keep it going for 2018 and 2020 we can make a wave, we can pass the kind of legislation that LBJ and FDR would be proud of.

edited 26th Apr '17 3:13:13 PM 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
#184931: Apr 26th 2017 at 3:13:41 PM

[up][up] Trump isn't an example of unchecked populism however; he's quite the opposite in fact; the result of the system working precisely as designed by the founders and privileging rural white landowners over the general population.

Hodor2 Since: Jan, 2015
#184932: Apr 26th 2017 at 3:14:36 PM

[up][up]I don't dispute/actually agree with your wording. I should add that it's quite clear that Obama for better or worse is very even-tempered and likes the idea of compromise in itself. At the same time though, I think the factors I cited are pretty accurate in terms of why (temperament aside) Obama would sell various things as being quite conservative, since all of them were widely attacked as super-radical (and usually as being unconstitutional and evil too).

edited 26th Apr '17 3:14:51 PM by Hodor2

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#184934: Apr 26th 2017 at 3:26:59 PM

[up] How would he even accomplish that? Through congress I assume.

Elle Since: Jan, 2001
#184935: Apr 26th 2017 at 3:27:04 PM

@Cap: I did imply Trump as a symptom but I cut off elaborating as I'm juggling cooking dinner as I write. The fact that he has as much support as he does is a populism problem though. So is racism when it takes the form of tyranny of the majority over minorities. But on the other foot, so is "tear down the rich!". When the torches and pitchforks come out they are very bad at discriminating between corrupt corporate tyrants, corporate but constructive entities, crooked individual businessmen and the well-off self-made honest businessman.

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#184936: Apr 26th 2017 at 3:32:44 PM

[up][up][up] Is it because he blamed them for his various failures?

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#184937: Apr 26th 2017 at 3:35:09 PM

[up][up] Genuine cases of mass popular mobilization are quite rare, and fairly positive (not always, but more often than not I'd argue). When we talk about the Full-Circle Revolution, we're generally talking about a military revolt (often sponsored by a foreign power) which co-opts a sizable but not overwhelmingly popular movement in order to seize power.

"The people" are hardly ever the ones driving the fall of a regime, it's almost always due to elites within the power existing structure jockeying against one another. In the rare situation where there's an extremely broad consensus about a course of action over the entire population of a nation, that's when you tend to see mass mobilization leading to meaningful, positive changes. The civil rights movement and labor movement being two of the best examples of that.

edited 26th Apr '17 3:35:49 PM by CaptainCapsase

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#184938: Apr 26th 2017 at 3:35:54 PM

@Elle Populism is dangerous because it all too often relies on and reinforces "us vs. them" mentality. It makes polarization worse. That and a lot of the things populists promise turn out to be unfeasible, and whenever someone tries to point out the emperor has no clothes, they are branded "them" and shouted down. Or in the most extreme cases, purged.

edited 26th Apr '17 3:36:11 PM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#184939: Apr 26th 2017 at 3:40:00 PM

[up] Meaningful societal changes simply don't occur without large scale popular mobilization; that's pretty much a constant in modern (19th century onwards) history, and thus, if you are not satisfied with the world as it exists today, with all its numerous injustices and inequalities, you have no other option but to accept those risks.

edited 26th Apr '17 3:43:28 PM by CaptainCapsase

MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#184940: Apr 26th 2017 at 3:40:29 PM

this is you shifting the goalposts completely.

Uh, okay?

Because it's detrimental to your point?

I'm not sure why it would be. It's just irrelevant.

The banks didn't want punishment if they could help it. And they hate Dodd-Frank. You know why it was weakened? Ted Kennedy died and was replaced by Scott Brown who demanded that in exchange for being vote 60. Wow, Democrats suck, huh?

You realize that Dodd-Frank helped them out too, right? Before Dodd-Frank only around 10'% of the banks were owned by the 5 largest banks. After it, it was a little less than 50 %.

No. Right now, you are not telling the truth. Like, at fucking all. Like it or not, reagan is a beloved figure in the American political sphere. Praising him when Obama takes policies opposite of what Reagan wanted means nothing. Obama is not 'center right,' he's quite liberal, pushed for liberal policies and signed liberal bills into law with a Democratic congress. So when you say he'd have been a moderate Republican under Reagan, to put it bluntly, you're spreading a lie.

I'm not saying it though. Obama is saying it. I'm using his exact words. You want to call him a liar? Be my guest.

The Republicans were vehemently hostile to government regulation, to the government helping people, to organized labor, to environmentalism, to gay rights, equal pay, healthcare, entitlements...

Obama did a lot to help the working class, the laborers, passed new regulations, expanded Civil Rights...stuff reagan despised.

It seems like you're under the false notion that someone who is right wing can't do these things either when we were under a hard right presidency before.

I've already said that Obama is socially progressive enough so I'll ignore this since I'm concentrating specifically on the economic side of his policies.

Obama's record is pretty mixed. Civil Rights went back a step under his presidency in some cases, income inequality has been growing, big banks are more powerful than ever before etc.

MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#184941: Apr 26th 2017 at 3:49:55 PM

The recorded opinions of the others in the room are relevant as well. There were two main philisophical points in play: one the issue of how long a term limit to have stability without being opressive and the other was the balance between democracy (pure public representation) and republicanisim (with some assumption that yes, the landed, white...but also, key word, educated elite knew better than the average citizen. At this point in the debates the bimarcal legislature and the shape of the House of Representitives had already been arrived at and the Senate was meant to be a counterbalance to the House. Remember that before the 1800s, Senators were not elected directly...we changed that with an amendment.

I've already talked about that. The problem even with the House of Representatives is that's it still being elected by middle class white men. So you have one group representing the elite and the other group representing the landowners who weren't elites. Control is still with the affluent.

As John Jay says:

Those how own the country ought to govern it.

Trying to boil down the intent of the founders to one quote is both lazy and disingenuous (and too common in all sides of political debate). This is a field the scholars have devoted their entire careers to.

Exactly so why should you expect to go through every one of their opinions especially since I'm being simplistic to arrive at a larger point.

And frankly, they were not always wrong to be concerned about unchecked populism.

Then do what Aristotle suggested. Reduce inequality.

edited 26th Apr '17 3:50:12 PM by MadSkillz

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#184942: Apr 26th 2017 at 3:52:26 PM

Re: populism. I'll be honest, all the Trump and Bernie Bros stuff has given me plenty of reason to be wary of populism going forward. I definitely am not going to be anti-Establishment anytime soon

edited 26th Apr '17 4:03:55 PM by sgamer82

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#184943: Apr 26th 2017 at 3:54:26 PM

[up] TBH, this is actually kind of tame in terms of how bad populism can get. It can get really, really bad.

Disgusted, but not surprised
Journeyman Overlording the Underworld from On a throne in a vault overlooking the Wasteland Since: Nov, 2010
Overlording the Underworld
#184944: Apr 26th 2017 at 3:57:30 PM

We have examples. Those who shall not be named outside this pothole, the Soviets, pretty much every major dictator gets things rolling with populism because otherwise their reign is short when everyone does the minimum of effort to get things done and the economy goes to Hell.

MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#184945: Apr 26th 2017 at 3:58:16 PM

Re: I'll be honest, all the Trump and Bernie Bros stuff has given me plenty of reason to be wary of populism going forward. I definitely am not going to be anti-Establishment anytime soon.

I mean you realize that the establishment also consists of Republicans too, right?

And the Tea Party is Establishment too.

The Establishment is just another way of saying corporate power.

And corporate power is why we have Trump who is very much an Establishment figure that used populist rhetoric to win people over.

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#184946: Apr 26th 2017 at 3:59:49 PM

[up][up] Don't forget the shitstorm that's going on in Venezuela.

Disgusted, but not surprised
MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#184947: Apr 26th 2017 at 4:00:18 PM

You guys realize that the media describes progressivism as left wing populism and even Elizabeth Warren has been described as a left wing populist, right?

edited 26th Apr '17 4:00:41 PM by MadSkillz

TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor
#184948: Apr 26th 2017 at 4:01:27 PM

Populism is just replacing one set of elite idiots with another set of idiots who become the next generation of elite idiots

New Survey coming this weekend!
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#184949: Apr 26th 2017 at 4:01:39 PM

@Journeyman: The Russian Revolution was a fairly classic example of a military revolt co-opting a large but not overwhelmingly popular movement, and in the case of Germany the Nazis were only able to gain power due to the center and left being totally unwilling to work with each other. "The people" are almost never responsible for the downfall of a regime or government, because the general population rarely develops enough of a consensus to form a cohesive political movement.

The rare occasions when the stars align however are generally quite positive, ie the civil rights and labor movement.

edited 26th Apr '17 4:03:04 PM by CaptainCapsase

Krieger22 Causing freakouts over sourcing since 2018 from Malaysia Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: I'm in love with my car
Causing freakouts over sourcing since 2018
#184950: Apr 26th 2017 at 4:02:04 PM

Yes.

Except that nobody here except for you has referred to Elizabeth Warren as a populist in any capacity.

I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot

Total posts: 417,856
Top