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...
#186301: May 2nd 2017 at 5:24:31 PM

It's just that after the war, the South began to try to reinvent itself from the guys who were literally planning to invade South America to spread and preserve slavery.

What? That's the first I've heard of this, but admittedly I only have a very basic understanding of the motivations behind the civil war and I don't really know anything else about it.

MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#186302: May 2nd 2017 at 5:25:18 PM

I'm not sure whether I want more state power or less.

On the one hand, it screws over the people living in those repugnant states. But on the other, it keeps a demagogue from having too much power and screwing people over everywhere.

And well atm, my state is protecting its citizens from Trump.

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#186303: May 2nd 2017 at 5:26:06 PM

California and New York are a lot less culturally distinct from the rest of the United States than the South was from the North at the time. More than two hundred years as a single country with massive waves of internal migration will do that.

Also, I still find it weird than when stuff like this gets brought up "The North" still gets talked about as if it were a single unified entity, now or then. But especially now, when it also apparently includes all the Western and Midwestern states.

edited 2nd May '17 5:29:51 PM by LSBK

MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#186304: May 2nd 2017 at 5:28:14 PM

The North Remembers, LSBK!

Jasaiga Since: Jan, 2015
#186305: May 2nd 2017 at 5:31:21 PM

Southerner here. I'm of the opinion that Sherman didn't go far enough. Guy should've razed the Deep South to the ground.

Such despicable people should've never been able to recover unless it was completely on the Union's terms.

edited 2nd May '17 5:32:23 PM by Jasaiga

Clarste One Winged Egret Since: Jun, 2009 Relationship Status: Non-Canon
One Winged Egret
#186306: May 2nd 2017 at 5:34:04 PM

I never mentioned the North as a distinct unit in modern times.

Nowadays the distinction is mostly between urban and rural culture. California and New York just represent the densest population centers in the country (and surprise surprise represent like a third of the nation's economy on their own).

edited 2nd May '17 5:35:29 PM by Clarste

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#186307: May 2nd 2017 at 5:36:12 PM

I didn't mean you specifically, just in general.

Even then apply that to either California or New York as a whole is pretty misleading. Not sure what point you think you're making with that "surprise, surprise". No one has ever denied that a lot of money is made there.

edited 2nd May '17 5:37:23 PM by LSBK

Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#186308: May 2nd 2017 at 5:40:39 PM

States can't leave the Union unilaterally the same way nations can leave the EU because the EU isn't a country, it's a bunch of little countries in a big organization. The United States is a country, created when the original thirteen states gave up their sovereignty to form a single political entity, which grew as more states were created from United States territory. Most of these states were never sovereign entities, they were created by the United States for the United States. A handful of them were independent entities for a time, but when they applied for statehood they sign on the dotted line agreeing, like the original thirteen, to give up that independence.

According to the Supreme Court a state can leave the Union, so long as the state and the Union agree on terms for the separation. Which last I checked, seems to be how most countries deal with things like that. For a state to unilaterally leave the Union is rebellion, and a threat to the existence of the United States. For better or for worse all nation-state have a right to protect their own existence.

Clarste One Winged Egret Since: Jun, 2009 Relationship Status: Non-Canon
One Winged Egret
#186309: May 2nd 2017 at 5:40:47 PM

Yeah, both states have their own little conservative pockets as well. They just get drowned out by the votes of the cities.

Not sure what point you think you're making with that "surprise, surprise". No one has ever denied that a lot of money is made there.

I'm just cynical about the Electoral College and all these little tiny states that think they matter. There's nothing wrong with everyone working together for the greater good, but I'm pretty sure a lot of the voters who live there don't realize that on their own they're barely better off than a developing third world nation, and are just clinging to the coattails of their richer neighbors. Show some appreciation for the goodwill and generosity of mankind, I guess? Instead of spitting in their faces.

edited 2nd May '17 5:45:29 PM by Clarste

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#186310: May 2nd 2017 at 5:45:56 PM

Neither of those is "little". It's a huge part of state politics. A lot of states like that; what happens in national politics doesn't necessarily reflect how state politics goes.

I'm still not sure what point you're trying to make. Most of the United States isn't even "hyper-conservative", Congress skews much farther to the right than the populace as a whole.

Edit:[up] Well, getting that I agree with you about the Electoral College first, the rest of that post just makes you sound like the pretentious liberal stereotype those same people hate. For good reason.

edited 2nd May '17 5:47:52 PM by LSBK

Clarste One Winged Egret Since: Jun, 2009 Relationship Status: Non-Canon
One Winged Egret
#186311: May 2nd 2017 at 5:47:15 PM

47% of us voted for Trump, at the very least.

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#186312: May 2nd 2017 at 5:47:56 PM

In my opinion the states can't secede because they're not actual nations. They're just administrative divisions of a greater country called the United States. It's like Manhattan trying to become a separate city from the rest of New York City. It just doesn't make sense. That's on top of the fact that very few states could survive on their own least of all the tiny red states. Frankly they need the US more than it needs them.

Clarste One Winged Egret Since: Jun, 2009 Relationship Status: Non-Canon
One Winged Egret
#186313: May 2nd 2017 at 5:49:35 PM

Edit:[up] Well, getting that I agree with you about the Electoral College first, the rest of that post just makes you sound like the pretentious liberal stereotype those same people hate. For good reason.

I'll admit it's not the most PR friendly, but when the people who hate welfare the most are also the people who rely on it the most, I reserve the right to think of those particular people as stupid.

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#186314: May 2nd 2017 at 5:49:53 PM

[up][up][up]And that doesn't necessarily equal "hyper conservative". Not really sure ''what' Trump is but that label seems just as badly fitting as anything else that implies a coherent or definitive political platform.

[up]That's assuming they're the ones in the states taking welfare the most. Things are more complicated than that. In places like Alabama stuff like Section 8 housing and food stamps tend to congregate in Democratic areas. It's not as simple as "Democrat rich, Republican poor" and you're not doing any favors by acting as if it is. Just looking at the Electoral College doesn't give your nearly enough information.

edited 2nd May '17 5:53:19 PM by LSBK

TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor
#186315: May 2nd 2017 at 5:50:31 PM

Plus it makes sense to have states. Could you imagine if the USA were like some countries around the world where local government barely exists and it's all centralized control from the capital?

New Survey coming this weekend!
Clarste One Winged Egret Since: Jun, 2009 Relationship Status: Non-Canon
One Winged Egret
#186316: May 2nd 2017 at 5:52:45 PM

[up][up]And that doesn't necessarily equal "hyper conservative". Not really sure ''what' Trump is but that label seems just as badly fitting as anything else that implies a coherent or definitive political platform.

He ran on a platform of irrational xenophobia. "Build a wall" and all that. It doesn't really matter if he has coherent policy ideas, what matters is that 47% of the country agreed with his vague feelings on things.

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#186317: May 2nd 2017 at 5:55:01 PM

And that too, is also more complicated than you're making it out to be. Many people didn't "agree" with Trump, they just hated Hilary Clinton more, for various reasons.

Many of which I disagree with, and I'd assume you would too, but "everyone who voted for Trump is racist" was and continues to be a gross oversimplification of things.

Edit: This entire thing barely relates to secession, there's not a serious movement for that anywhere except for maybe Alaska and Hawaii.

edited 2nd May '17 5:56:16 PM by LSBK

Clarste One Winged Egret Since: Jun, 2009 Relationship Status: Non-Canon
One Winged Egret
#186318: May 2nd 2017 at 5:55:45 PM

[up]That's assuming they're the ones in the states taking welfare the most. Things are more complicated than that. In places like Alabama stuff like Section 8 housing and food stamps tend to congregate in Democratic areas. It's not as simple as "Democrat rich, Republican poor" and you're not doing any favors by acting as if it is. Just looking at the Electoral College doesn't give your nearly enough information.

Okay, that's fair enough.

Many of which I disagree with, and I'd assume you would too, but "everyone who voted for Trump is racist" was and continues to be a gross oversimplification of things.

The fact that they were willing to overlook those things about him also speaks to their priorities though.

edited 2nd May '17 5:57:42 PM by Clarste

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#186319: May 2nd 2017 at 5:56:15 PM

Then we get into the tricky situation of whether there's an appreciable difference between being racist and enabling racism. Frankly I think it's irrelevant. If you voted for the racist you're tacitly admitting that their beliefs aren't a dealbreaker. That has to make you at least marginally racist.

edit: @Dems in red states use welfare: That may be true but the key thing here is that they need it more because the red state economies generally aren't as good. That can be linked to the fact that they're red states.

edited 2nd May '17 5:57:19 PM by Kostya

MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#186320: May 2nd 2017 at 5:58:22 PM

Personally, I wouldn't mind if the US turned into more of a collection of autonomous communities within the US. Not entirely autonomous though. We still have to protect people.

Not 50 autonomous communities but more like a mish-mash of states that share ideals and culture together.

Pacific States(Cali, Oregon, and Washington) + Nevada + Hawaii

The Sunbelt (Texas, New Mexico and Arizona)

South East Coast states

The Midwest

The Rust Belt

The rest of the South

edited 2nd May '17 6:03:31 PM by MadSkillz

ViperMagnum357 Since: Mar, 2012
#186321: May 2nd 2017 at 6:00:35 PM

[up]No F@#$ing way. I do not even want to contemplate life in the actual Confederate States of America.

edited 2nd May '17 6:04:43 PM by ViperMagnum357

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#186322: May 2nd 2017 at 6:01:37 PM

[up][up][up] and [up][up][up][up]I would agree, and those are issues that deeply need to be fixed, but I think understanding the difference between the statistical observation that Republicans and hardcore Trump voters tend to have much higher negative views on racial minorities is different from black listing them all as unsalvageable racists.

Plus, part of stuff like this is that a lot of them just don't think the people in question will actually do what they do. I talked to a Trump voter who bet a lot on the people around him being able to reign him in. That seems to be a lot of them.

edited 2nd May '17 6:02:14 PM by LSBK

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#186323: May 2nd 2017 at 6:01:40 PM

That sounds like a terrible idea. What you're suggesting is halfway to a Divided States of America.

MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#186324: May 2nd 2017 at 6:02:14 PM

@Viper Well in my make believe world, the federal government would still be the ones to set the laws protecting minorities from a variety of abuses.

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#186325: May 2nd 2017 at 6:04:45 PM

@Dems in red states use welfare: That may be true but the key thing here is that they need it more because the red state economies generally aren't as good. That can be linked to the fact that they're red states.

I mean, not really? Democrats using welfare more is just a consistent thing for various reasons, blue or red state.

Red states also tend to have more military bases and personnel and land owned by the federal government like national parks.

My point here isn't that red state economics is better, we've already established that. It's just that things like looking at money received from the federal government and just going "Ha!" without looking at where in the states that money is actually going and why, has always struck me as somewhat disingenuous.

edited 2nd May '17 6:08:13 PM by LSBK


Total posts: 417,856
Top