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

MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#186651: May 3rd 2017 at 9:57:57 PM

@LSBK I mean if I were to name the ideal progressive in my head, it would be:

-a Keynesian

-fights corporate influence within their party and the government

-leftist economic policies as well as socially liberal

-and actually talks about corporate influence (no hiding it)

I still have to question how Sanders can be a part of politics for so long, and apparently have fairly signifcant influence, but still not be a part of the "establishment"?

I recall something about others finding him not easy to get along with and uncompromising, but those aren't necessarily good traits.

He's not a Dem or a Rep. His socialist tag actually helps him because it makes him seem out of the norm.

Yes. That's the trumpet she blows in every thread she shows up in to talk about progressivism—pushing some version of reality where "Sanders marched with MLK" makes him an outsider, but Jon freaking Lewis is a member of "The Establishment" in the process. I personally can't even begin to wrap my head around it.

I never said John Lewis was a member of the Establishment.

edited 3rd May '17 11:23:57 PM by MadSkillz

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#186652: May 3rd 2017 at 9:59:37 PM

[up][up]He avoids the dreaded "establishment" label through his "Independent" status and his populist rhetoric.

And yeah, he's uncompromising as hell and comes off as somewhat self-righteous. His critics have claimed that Sanders believes that the only reason anyone would disagree with him would be if they were establishment corporate shills.

edited 3rd May '17 10:00:52 PM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#186653: May 3rd 2017 at 10:00:19 PM

@LSBK

He is part of "The Establishment". He's never not been part of The Establishment. The ultimate delusion of his diehard fanboys is that he's somehow outside the system that he's been a part of for more than thirty years.

@Mad

Once again I note how social progressivism is essentially a footnote on your list there.

Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#186654: May 3rd 2017 at 10:00:23 PM

Here's an important factor, too...

Sanders is from Vermont. It's a tiny, demographically homogenous, ultra liberal state. Sanders has never been beholden to anyone but Vermont. He can stand up, talk all he wants about the evils of corporate influence (except Lockheed Martin because hey, he benefits from that personally), and he doesn't have to answer to anyone but a population of 600,000 people.

Senators from larger states with different economies and different populations have a bit of a different demand on them.

Gilphon (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#186655: May 3rd 2017 at 10:00:40 PM

Because it's technically an independent and isn't as ridiculously wealthy as most of the other senator (though he's still quite rich).

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#186656: May 3rd 2017 at 10:01:14 PM
Thumped: Wow. That was rude. Too many of this kind of thump will bring a suspension. Please keep it civil.
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#186657: May 3rd 2017 at 10:01:48 PM

I confess, stuff like the things Ambar notes were the reason behind my "Not-Bernie Bad!" remarks before.

The impression I get from Mads posts and peoples' responses to them are that mad has the kind of unthinking loyalty towards Sanders I tend to find irritating in the topic of politics. WHAT anyone does or doesn't do is secondary, at best, to their relationship to Bernie Sanders.

It easily reaches a point where I don't really MadSkillz's particularly seriously, because I can already guess the general content. Sanders is good, Wall Street and the Establishment are bad, and anyone's worth as a politician is measured accordingly.

Note this isn't intended as any kind of personal attack, and you have my apologies and Thump acceptance if it's taken as such, but it is also my opinion based on personal observation.

edited 3rd May '17 10:05:36 PM by sgamer82

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#186658: May 3rd 2017 at 10:02:11 PM

@Lightysnake And while he's still very popular in Vermont, there's a number of people there who don't particularly like him because of the double standards he has concerning Lockheed Martin.

edited 3rd May '17 10:02:40 PM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#186659: May 3rd 2017 at 10:02:55 PM

He's an independent who caucuses with the Democrats. Again, it's a meaningless distinction. Not only has he been in politics a long time, he's cozy with the military industrial complex and supports one of the most wasteful programs because...his home state gets to benefit. A thing he would be wagging his finger on if anyone else dared to do so.

Remember that Sanders has the stones to attack people for supporting a bill he himself voted on (and then lied about his support for it). The man is a flat out member of the establishment and he always has been because being a member of congress is by definition being a member of one of the most 'Establishment' bodies on earth.

edited 3rd May '17 10:04:01 PM by Lightysnake

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#186660: May 3rd 2017 at 10:04:21 PM

He's not even from Vermont. He moved there with the hippies as part of some "back to nature", agriculture fetishism and stayed there. He fled the place he was born, where he'd have had to actually meet some minorities, and ran away to a tiny, mostly white enclave where he could rail against his pet causes and never have to talk to the actual victims of the hard right. If someone else did this, they'd get decried as an opportunist by his fanclub.

edited 3rd May '17 10:05:42 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#186661: May 3rd 2017 at 10:04:39 PM

so, you're just shifting the goalposts? What makes an 'establishment' Dem incapable of being a progressive? And Obama was progressive on a number of issues.

Not really. I use Establishment, Corporate Dem and Centrists interchangeably depending on whether I feel bitter or not.

I never argued that Obama wasn't progressive on some issues. The big stickler for me is corporate influence.

And yet again you shift the goalposts. You're basically saying "Look, all the work Perez spent his life on? Fighting for workers, for civil rights, for economic justice and for society's most vulnerable? That doesn't matter. Unless he fights for my pet cause, he's not progressive." You may want to look up Perez's actual record with corporate influence. Hint: They hated him when he was labor secretary.

I edited it my response before you answered. I realized how that sounded. Go check it.

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#186662: May 3rd 2017 at 10:05:09 PM

[up][up][up]And when people in his home state actually questioned his support of Lockheed Martin a few years ago, he brushed them off. Because again, this is a man who does not listen to criticism.

edited 3rd May '17 10:05:44 PM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#186664: May 3rd 2017 at 10:06:52 PM

Not really. I use Establishment, Corporate Dem and Centrists interchangeably depending on whether I feel bitter or not.

I never argued that Obama wasn't progressive on some issues. The big stickler for me is corporate influence.

So the next time you call someone in the thread a centrist we'll know that no, we're not reading in something that isn't there, we are in fact being insulted.

Good to know. Thanks for the honesty.

[up]Gigantic weapons manufacturer that employs a lot of people in Vermont. Responsible for, among other things, a number of American military planes, including the F-35 project.

edited 3rd May '17 10:07:35 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#186665: May 3rd 2017 at 10:07:30 PM

Not really. I use Establishment, Corporate Dem and Centrists interchangeably depending on whether I feel bitter or not.

I never argued that Obama wasn't progressive on some issues. The big stickler for me is corporate influence.

So...did you ignore the ways he reduced corporate influence? Obama was an open critic of Citizens United. He put in Lobbyist bans for the DNC that Wasserman-Schultz removed. His Labor Department kept siding with labor in rules over corporations.

And you do not get to question John Lewis's progressive credentials. That's a non-starter.

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#186666: May 3rd 2017 at 10:07:44 PM

[up][up][up] Wikipedia's entry on them.

It's a defense contractor corporation. Part of the military industrial complex. [nja]

edited 3rd May '17 10:08:15 PM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#186667: May 3rd 2017 at 10:09:14 PM

His active role in pushing to get VT’s radioactive waste dumped in a poor Latino community in Texas (Sierra Blanca) gets swept under the rug, too.

Fun fact: his wife had a financial stake in that one. If anyone else had pulled that, they'd have been pilloried. Oh, and when Sierra Blanca representatives requested to meet with Bernie? His response was to basically tell them he had to run for reelection and they could go jump in a lake.

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#186668: May 3rd 2017 at 10:09:19 PM

[up][up][up]Not least because, and I will reiterate, once you cite "Bernie marched with MLK", as has happened numerous times in this thread, you lose the right to criticize Lewis. You can't use the Civil Rights movement as a shield to defend a white man with a questionable record, then turn around and attack a key, African-American leader of the movement.

[up]While cooperating with W Bush to do it, no less. I guess compromise is only bad when it's on one of his pet causes, who knew? And corporate influence is only bad when it isn't his wife.

edited 3rd May '17 10:10:55 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#186669: May 3rd 2017 at 10:09:40 PM

Honestly, I think I tend to fall in line with a centrist mindset because, rightly or wrongly, I think they seem the most pragmatic of the bunch. Maybe that aren't always progressive enough, but that bothers me less than a true progressive who can't make progress.

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#186670: May 3rd 2017 at 10:10:00 PM

Just to be clear, it's not his support for the thing, but the hypocrisy that is the sticking point, right?

Anyway, while I don't seem to be as anti-Sanders as most of you, I will say that my biggest sticking point with him is reinforcing the narrative of being an "outsider" and why that's important. Though that's less about him, and more just a general trend he represents.

Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#186671: May 3rd 2017 at 10:11:59 PM

Yeah, that's my sticking point.

None of this is particularly indefensible . Voting for the crime bill in the 90s is excusable as an error. Voting for a wasteful military spending program as it benefits your state? Sure. Supporting people who champion your issues at cost of compromising others? That's how politics works. None of this is outside the realms of what we could forgive from a politician.

But you do not get to hold yourself as the One Honest Man Of Integrity and act with this flagrant level of hypocrisy. And those who act as if Sanders is above approach and much better than people who are from different states with different demands excuse him for things they hate others for. Bernie attacking Clinton for supporting the crime bill he voted for and then lying about why he supported it is a problem for me.

There is a fair argument that Sierra Blanca could've had less environmental damage than feared. Bernie telling concerned citizens to piss off because he had an election to run? Not cool.

edited 3rd May '17 10:14:26 PM by Lightysnake

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#186672: May 3rd 2017 at 10:12:26 PM

[up][up]Yes. I would not give a rip about a lot of the stuff Bernie has done if it weren't for the way he positions himself, and worse yet, the way his fanboys try to build him up as the True Progressive Messiah (TM), all while ignoring the fact that he's done all this shit.

Most of the bad stuff Sanders has done is forgivable, because most of it (Sierra Blanca and voting against the goddamn Amber Alert aside) is stuff that only he and his diehards would ever see as a crime in the first place. The double standard is the issue.

edited 3rd May '17 10:13:23 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#186673: May 3rd 2017 at 10:14:17 PM

It sounds the typical issue I tend to hate most in politics, the "it's okay if my guy does it"/THEIR SIDE BAD mindset.

MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#186674: May 3rd 2017 at 10:14:52 PM

It easily reaches a point where I don't really Mad Skillz's particularly seriously, because I can already guess the general content. Sanders is good, Wall Street and the Establishment are bad, and anyone's worth as a politician is measured accordingly.

Well the Sanders thing isn't true. I just come off like a bigger Sanders' fan than I am because I dont bother to critique him especially since you all have that handled.

I'm a lot more mixed on him than I've let him on.

But barely anyone bothers to critique Obama, Hillary and the rest so I bring that stuff up.

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#186675: May 3rd 2017 at 10:16:16 PM

I mean, you shouldn't expect anyone in Congress, and for so long, to have their hands entirely clean. Be a decent, upright person? Sure. But spotless? You shouldn't expect that of anyone; I get having higher standards but you can't ask people to be perfect. He's become part of the problem by representing something that can never be.

Actually, forget Ralph Nader, he's more like Ron Paul.

[up]There are certain heavy implications to how often and the way in which both of them are criticized that simply don't apply to Sanders. That's not to say they should be free of criticism (and they aren't anyway), but it's really not the same.

edited 3rd May '17 10:19:28 PM by LSBK


Total posts: 417,856
Top