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

Cid El Cid Since: Jul, 2015 Relationship Status: Hiding
El Cid
#186526: May 3rd 2017 at 2:19:27 PM

[up][up]I imagine people like throwing out names of know registered Democrat celebrities they like without actually knowing if they're as popular with the rest of the country.

edited 3rd May '17 2:19:34 PM by Cid

IFwanderer use political terms to describe, not insult from Earth Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
use political terms to describe, not insult
#186527: May 3rd 2017 at 2:26:25 PM

[up][up][up]This says Dwayne Johnson is a (socially liberal) registered republican so unless Moore's asking him to try and primary Trump it's not a good idea to ask him to run.

1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KV
MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#186528: May 3rd 2017 at 2:28:31 PM

They want to believe that they are the purist radical left of the American political scene, and that their policies are just too much for "the establishment" to handle. This is horseshit. As evidenced by so very many things that Sanders and his diehards have said in just the past few months, let alone the past few years, they are in many respects far less progressive than the "centrists" and "neoliberals" that they denounce.

No, that's actually right considering their policy goals.

Not in terms of social liberties but the rest.

Single-payer for instance. Say what you want about whether it'd be good here or not but it's not politically realistic because that actually is too much for the establishment.

I harbor doubts it could even pass in dark blue California.

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#186529: May 3rd 2017 at 2:35:13 PM

No, that's actually right considering their policy goals.

Not in terms of social liberties but the rest.

And there you go again, dismissing social policy as if it were some afterthought. Social policy is fully half of what progressives supposedly stand for, and if they don't care for it, then they don't get to claim to claim to being "true progressives" or "radical leftists" or whatever idiotic phrase they want to use. There's nothing radical about demanding socialism for straight, white men.

Favouring economic "radicalization" and social stagnation (or worse yet, social regression) does not make you a far leftist. It puts you on the fringes of American politics, certainly, but not because you've gone particularly far in any one direction.

MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#186530: May 3rd 2017 at 2:37:11 PM

Also there was a test done showing White American implicit bias against African Americans.

It's interesting. It's not divided by Republican and Democrat states.

It's divided east to west. The eastern half of the US' white people are a lot more racist than western half.

The least racist state is New Mexico. Most racist is Mississippi.

edited 3rd May '17 2:40:51 PM by MadSkillz

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#186531: May 3rd 2017 at 2:39:29 PM

What does that metric assess?

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#186532: May 3rd 2017 at 2:40:35 PM

And there you go again, dismissing social policy as if it were some afterthought. Social policy is fully half of what progressives supposedly stand for, and if they don't care for it, then they don't get to claim to claim to being "true progressives" or "radical leftists" or whatever idiotic phrase they want to use.

Cool? I wasn't dismissing it. It was just irrelevant to my argument.

There's nothing radical about demanding socialism for straight, white men.

That actually is radical but these people are so few that it's not worth thinking about. How far are you going to stretch this? I mean are we going to start saying that the colored people that voted for Bernie only want socialism for straight, white men?

Favouring economic "radicalization" and social stagnation (or worse yet, social regression) does not make you a far leftist. It puts you on the fringes of American politics, certainly, but not because you've gone particularly far in any one direction.

Okay, this is all nice but it's all irrelevant to what I was saying.

I was never making an argument about who the true leftists and progressives are which you're pivoting into.

edited 3rd May '17 2:49:19 PM by MadSkillz

MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#186533: May 3rd 2017 at 2:42:41 PM

@Septimus The map shows how easily White Americans associate black faces with negative ideas.

This map shows how easily White Europeans in Europe associate black faces with negative ideas. Each state's color reflects the average Implicit Association Test (IAT) score for that state using data from Harvard's Project Implicit.

I believe they're using scores from hundreds of thousands of people. So it's sort of accurate.

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#186534: May 3rd 2017 at 2:42:50 PM

(Repeats question before it gets drowned out by more bickering about "the far left")

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#186535: May 3rd 2017 at 2:46:58 PM

@Septimus It assesses a white person's subconscious bias upon viewing someone with a black face and what state they're from.

America is more racist against black people than Europeans. Here's the European map for comparison.

edited 3rd May '17 2:47:27 PM by MadSkillz

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#186536: May 3rd 2017 at 2:57:57 PM

Looking at that map, a lot of the Republican states with "least racist" white people, are ones where there are very few black people. The reverse is true for Democratic states that have large black populations. Interesting.

Normally exposure breeds tolerance, but seeing how a lot of the red ones had either de jure or de facto segregation built in, I guess not a lot of meaningful exposure. Especially since the de facto segregation is still pretty strong.

edited 3rd May '17 3:06:49 PM by LSBK

Clarste One Winged Egret Since: Jun, 2009 Relationship Status: Non-Canon
One Winged Egret
#186537: May 3rd 2017 at 3:04:21 PM

Well, this is "implicit" racism. The study doesn't ask people to articulate their feelings on black people, it just measures how seeing a picture of a black person changes their reflex speed or whatever. Someone with no real exposure to others might consciously hate them, but haven't trained their reflexes towards them.

edited 3rd May '17 3:04:36 PM by Clarste

Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#186538: May 3rd 2017 at 3:08:29 PM

A smaller amount of black people, or any minority for that matter, posses less of a perceived risk to the established white communities. It's when immigration comes in droves or the black population grows enough and is segregated enough that they start forming their own subcultures that the fear of the "other" starts kicking in.

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#186539: May 3rd 2017 at 3:10:45 PM

That is something I thought about. I noticed that Nevada has the worst score for the West, and it's share of Blacks as a total of the state population is the highest for the region.

pwiegle Cape Malleum Majorem from Nowhere Special Since: Sep, 2015 Relationship Status: Singularity
Cape Malleum Majorem
#186540: May 3rd 2017 at 3:26:58 PM

That sort of thing really began way back in the Middle Ages, when "Ghettos" arose in European cities. Traditionally, a Ghetto was a place where Jewish Law took precedence over local law.

This Space Intentionally Left Blank.
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#186541: May 3rd 2017 at 3:42:56 PM

Mad Skillz, if you're going to link to a study or a poll or something, then please link the actual study/poll/whatever, not a single infographic from it.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#186542: May 3rd 2017 at 3:48:25 PM

Brad DeLong has been looking deeply into the "NAFTA killed U.S. manufacturing" narrative and has been putting out some presentations and talks to debunk it. I posted about one article in the General Economics thread, and now here's Francis Wilkinson in Bloomberg: "Trade is the scapegoat for political failure".

Democrats have no viable plans to bring back sustainable, high-paying, blue-collar jobs [...] Neither, it seems, does anyone else. And wages in the service economy don’t remotely compare with the best wages of industrial glory days. (Neither do most of today’s manufacturing wages.) The notion that “lousy trade deals” are responsible for the erosion of working-class prosperity is a common denominator in the rhetoric of Trump and Bernie Sanders…. At a panel discussion last week at the City University of New York, a handful of prominent economists grappled with “Trade, Jobs and Inequality.” None echoed the views of Sanders or Trump.

“No, lousy trade deals are not a primary cause” of working-class despair, said panel member David Autor of MIT in a follow-up email to me. “It is the case that China’s accession to the WTO in 2001 was a big shock to U.S. manufacturing. This was not really a trade deal, however. This was China becoming a member of an existing trade agreement. And this was an inevitable long-term result of China’s spectacular development.”…

Bradford DeLong of the University of California at Berkeley, pointed out that technological evolution steadily drove down manufacturing’s share of U.S. labor for half a century before the China shock. The demonization of trade deals,DeLong wrote to me in an email, is off target. “NAFTA was supposed to kill the U.S. auto industry,” he wrote. “It didn’t — the auto industry loved it.”

Basically, the narrative beloved of elements of both the right AND the left about how NAFTA, et. al., killed U.S. manufacturing is blatantly false to fact. Its continued use in political rhetoric, therefore, can only be seen as self-serving on the part of those politicians. They are saying what their constituents want to hear, even though it's false.

The failures of the era of globalization are those of politics, not economics. We failed to use redistributive policies to counter the concentrations of wealth permitted by the free movement of capital. We failed to maintain the welfare state so that those disadvantaged by shifts in labor demand would be able to continue consuming at their desired levels. Those failures became most apparent starting with the Reagan era.

When Bernie Sanders tells you we need higher taxes on the wealthy, he's correct. When Bernie Sanders tells you that NAFTA kills American jobs, he's lying. Ask yourself the next time you cheer for him: what does he gain with that lie? We know what Donald Trump gains, of course.

edited 3rd May '17 4:06:13 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
DingoWalley1 Asgore Adopts Noelle Since: Feb, 2014 Relationship Status: Can't buy me love
Asgore Adopts Noelle
#186544: May 3rd 2017 at 3:58:05 PM

[up] I'm never gonna vote for that Ass again, I can tell you that. It was a terrible mistake I voted for him the first time. Should've looked more into him before November...

Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#186545: May 3rd 2017 at 4:10:39 PM

The "NAFTA killed jobs" thing really doesn't hold up when you look at it. Especially when you look at the rhetoric of the American companies that are theoretically threatened by it.

Both the lumber and dairy industries are using the same arguments, and what the arguments ultimately boil down to is: "How dare you protect your workers, when ours are suffering because we did everything we could to lower costs, including slashing wages! How dare you. You should let us exploit you!"

Yeah, it's more nuanced then that, but the vast majority of the problems these industries are facing is either systemic (i.e., the coal market is dying because it isn't the cheapest option anymore) or self-inflicted.

You want to know what confuses me about the health insurance thing? The US mandates car insurance if you own a car. This means that car insurance is affordable. If you try and skip out, you can be fined for it. Why is it okay to force everyone (who owns a car) to pay for car insurance, but it's suddenly awful to make everyone pay for health insurance?

edited 3rd May '17 4:13:08 PM by Zendervai

ViperMagnum357 Since: Mar, 2012
#186546: May 3rd 2017 at 4:15:40 PM

[up]Short version-racism. Someone better read than I can break it down; but somewhere between FDR and Truman we should have had universal health care, and you can thank the precursors to the Dixiecrats for that.

edited 3rd May '17 4:16:38 PM by ViperMagnum357

MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#186547: May 3rd 2017 at 4:18:59 PM

Basically, the narrative beloved of elements of both the right AND the left about how NAFTA, et. al., killed U.S. manufacturing is blatantly false to fact. Its continued use in political rhetoric, therefore, can only be seen as self-serving on the part of those politicians. They are saying what their constituents want to hear, even though it's false.

The failures of the era of globalization are those of politics, not economics. We failed to use redistributive policies to counter the concentrations of wealth permitted by the free movement of capital. We failed to maintain the welfare state so that those disadvantaged by shifts in labor demand would be able to continue consuming at their desired levels.

Failed to maintain? Some in the party actively tried to dismantle the welfare state.

Anyways NAFTA did have side-effects that's not talked about there. It collapsed the peso and it made a lot Mexican workers jobless because suddenly Mexican farms could not compete with American corn subsidized by the US which then prompted even bigger immigration waves.

And immigrants can depress wages to an extent because most of those immigrants that came to the US were unskilled workers and most of the working class are in labor meant for unskilled workers.

When Bernie Sanders tells you we need higher taxes on the wealthy, he's correct. When Bernie Sanders tells you that NAFTA kills American jobs, he's lying. Ask yourself the next time you cheer for him: what does he gain with that lie? We know what Donald Trump gains, of course.

I don't think Bernie is lying when he says that. True or false, I think he believes it. All you have to do is read his book, see who he respects and who he admires to see that he's a true believer in his stuff.

And he did vote against NAFTA very early on using the same claims that it would be bad for workers as he does now.

This is him talking about it back in 1993.

edited 3rd May '17 4:19:49 PM by MadSkillz

Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#186548: May 3rd 2017 at 4:21:34 PM

Then he's wrong. The problem is, he's repeating things he either knows or should know to be false and isn't looking into it to keep his narrative going.

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#186549: May 3rd 2017 at 4:22:15 PM

I think the general consensus here is whether or not people truly believe harmful things will improve their lives or other peoples lives doesn't matter, if it's still harmful.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#186550: May 3rd 2017 at 4:26:54 PM

Again, MadSkillz, those effects on Mexican workers and whatnot were political, not economic. They had nothing to do with the terms of NAFTA itself.

And dear Bernie is selling snake oil whether he knows it or not. What I find particularly remarkable is the coincidence that this lie appeals to the same voters that Donald Trump wooed successfully.

edited 3rd May '17 4:28:21 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Total posts: 417,856
Top