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

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#187326: May 5th 2017 at 8:02:49 PM

LA Times on Jaffe. When called out on his "old white guys" comment his response was to...denounce identity politics. Then talk about how he hoped to pull an upset on Pelosi "like our current president" did.

Now, the good news, as far as I know, is that while he's a rabid Sanders fanboy, and certain rabid Sanders fanboy sites are already starting to push for him (just punch his name into Google News and see what happens), Sanders himself has yet to endorse him, which should keep the number of diehard bros flocking to his cause to a minimum. I know that those of us in the thread have wildly differing views of Pelosi but, as evidenced by the general response to my earlier post on the topic, I think we mostly concur that this guy isn't the answer.

edited 5th May '17 8:03:35 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

fruitpork Since: Oct, 2010
#187327: May 5th 2017 at 8:04:44 PM

@ the onion article: goddamn. That's brutal as fuck. I love it.

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#187328: May 5th 2017 at 8:04:46 PM

[up][up]I wonder how much of their enthusiasm for the guy is based on "he's not Pelosi" as opposed to his own merits.

edited 5th May '17 8:04:54 PM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#187329: May 5th 2017 at 8:06:57 PM

What, is Nancy Pelosi considered a corporatist shill, too?

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#187330: May 5th 2017 at 8:07:10 PM

Slate reviews Ivanka Trump's book. It's about as brutal as you'd expect.

[up][up]I also wonder how much of their hatred of Pelosi is based on anything real.

[up]In Unicorn Brigade land anyone who didn't endorse Sanders during the primaries is a corporatist shill.

edited 5th May '17 8:08:13 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#187331: May 5th 2017 at 8:10:22 PM

In ranking them "equally" that is what you are doing. Here's a reality—the "extreme partisanism" you're talking about? Manifested in racist terms. There's not a single right-wing attack on Obama (maybe the Communism accusations, I suppose) that can be divorced from a racial narrative about which ethnicities are "really" American.

My point is that I think the GOP leaders aren't as racist as their base (although I acknowledge that plenty of the GOP are racist) but more taking control of a racist narrative to further their own agenda. As I said if Obama was elected somehow on their side, I'm betting they'd be quick to call out racism as a shield for opposing their chosen one.

Yet they decided Obama was, and the entire campaign against him rested on presenting him as a foreigner who could not possibly be a real American. This was not a product of "extreme partisanship". This was a product of racism. He was black and therefore could not be the real president.

The "partisanship" you are trying to positions as a separate yet equal cause of the right's hatred of him was motivated by racism, expressed via racism, and sold to people by way of racist tropes. They're not separate issues and to claim that racism is overstated as a cause of Republican hatred of Obama is ludicrous.

I'm arguing chicken or the egg here in concerns to the leaders not the base.

Personally, I believe the GOP latched onto racism to further their own agenda just like they did under Goldwater, Nixon and Reagan.

I don't think most of the GOP leaders hate Obama cause he's black, they hate him because he's not on their team.

edited 5th May '17 8:11:51 PM by MadSkillz

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#187332: May 5th 2017 at 8:11:23 PM

[up] I'd argue that makes them worse than actual racists in a way.

[down]The latter might be worse since they know it's harmful awful bullshit but go along with it anyway.

edited 5th May '17 8:13:15 PM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
Perseus Since: Nov, 2009
#187333: May 5th 2017 at 8:12:19 PM

Racist or indifferent enough to racism to exploit it for personal gain is a distinction without a difference.

edited 5th May '17 8:13:17 PM by Perseus

Blueeyedrat Since: Oct, 2010
#187334: May 5th 2017 at 8:13:10 PM

re: Pelosi: She's part of the Establishment™, and thus cannot be trusted. Also, she's apparently been critical of single-payer, and thus (as with all members of the Establishment™ who do not make single-payer the central tenet of their platform) cannot be trusted.

edited 5th May '17 8:15:45 PM by Blueeyedrat

MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#187335: May 5th 2017 at 8:13:56 PM

@M84 It'd be perfectly reasonable to think so.

I think there are more spineless opportunists than true believers in the GOP but that the asylum is gradually being taken over by the latter (although some could argue it's already happened.)

Racist or indifferent enough to racism to exploit it for personal gain is a distinction without a difference.

Ultimately, yeah, it doesn't matter.

The only thing it changes is how you view the GOP. Are they full of wannabe KKK members or are they just spineless opportunists that only care about staying in power? A little of both? Lopsided more in one side's favor over the other?

edited 5th May '17 8:19:06 PM by MadSkillz

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#187336: May 5th 2017 at 8:17:21 PM

Pelosi has been around for a long time, and there's quite a bit of grumbling from younger democrats in the House that it's time for her to retire and let a new generation of leadership step up to the plate.

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#187337: May 5th 2017 at 8:18:06 PM

[up]Which makes it weird that her rival is a 71 year old white guy.

Disgusted, but not surprised
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#187338: May 5th 2017 at 8:19:50 PM

[up] that's not at all weird considering I don't particularly care for him.

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#187339: May 5th 2017 at 8:22:36 PM

[up][up][up]Complaints like that often come off as putting flash before substance to me. Especially when stuff like [up][up] is the case.

edited 5th May '17 8:24:01 PM by LSBK

BearyScary Since: Sep, 2010 Relationship Status: You spin me right round, baby
#187340: May 5th 2017 at 8:23:33 PM

"It is difficult to step away from businesses that I have worked so hard to build and that I believe in so fully, but the potential to improve the lives of countless women and girls has caused me to fundamentally consider where my work will do the greatest good."

This passage from Ivanka's book made me laugh. I didn't know she was a comedienne. How do you classify this kind of comedy? I don't know how to categorize something so blatantly self-contradictory.

What a meaningless bunch of babble.

edited 5th May '17 8:23:56 PM by BearyScary

Do not obey in advance.
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#187341: May 5th 2017 at 8:24:17 PM

[up]What else would you expect from a Daddy's Little Villain like her?

Disgusted, but not surprised
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
#187342: May 5th 2017 at 8:34:43 PM

I'd contend that "taking control of a racist narrative to further their own agenda" is itself racist.

They're not using racists to stay in power, they are racists, why? Because only a racist would think that it's acceptable to use super-explicit racists to stay in power.

The act of 'using' racists for personal gain is itself an act of racism.

edited 5th May '17 8:35:35 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
MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#187343: May 5th 2017 at 8:37:54 PM

[up]I suppose that's a reasonable argument to make.

It depends on how narrow or wide your definition of racist is.

The act of 'using' racists for personal gain is itself an act of racism.

They're not using racists to stay in power, they are racists, why? Because only a racist would think that it's acceptable to use super-explicit racists to stay in power.

The act of 'using' racists for personal gain is itself an act of racism.

It'd certainly make said person selfish and inhuman. But you could just not care about people at all and have equal disregard for everyone.

So you could argue that's less a racist mindset and more a self-centered one. A mindset you don't serve people just yourself

But it's a blurry line and as someone said it's pretty much a meaningless distinction.

edited 5th May '17 8:59:53 PM by MadSkillz

DingoWalley1 Asgore Adopts Noelle Since: Feb, 2014 Relationship Status: Can't buy me love
Asgore Adopts Noelle
#187344: May 5th 2017 at 8:47:50 PM

Trump continues to praise other nations Healthcare over the US's on Twitter. He says that America's Healthcare "will be better soon", but he has to know (by now) that almost every other nation has Public Health care, and that the AHCA will probably not be good for the majority of Americans, so...

... It kind of makes me wonder... Is Trump intentionally trying to destroy the Private Insurance Industry? Because I'm convinced if the AHCA passes, especially in its current state, the Private Insurance Industry is going to collapse and cause a Recession, but that would allow him to make a Universal Health Care option. Something he wanted to do (according to an Article's Rumor back in February).

edited 5th May '17 8:49:41 PM by DingoWalley1

Lanceleoghauni Cyborg Helmsman from Z or R Twice Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: In my bunk
#187345: May 5th 2017 at 8:49:47 PM

so if suddenly everything is a preexisting condition, and no one is coverable... how do they make money?

"Coffee! Coffeecoffeecoffee! Coffee! Not as strong as Meth-amphetamine, but it lets you keep your teeth!"
LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#187346: May 5th 2017 at 8:50:24 PM

[up][up][up]I'd image that a lot of them just see it as standard shadiness for political gains/greater good. Probably not that different from what they all do. Horribly twisted priorities/lack of conscience, basically.

edited 5th May '17 8:50:45 PM by LSBK

Luigisan98 A wandering user from Venezuelan Muscat Since: Oct, 2013 Relationship Status: I <3 love!
A wandering user
#187347: May 5th 2017 at 8:50:36 PM

Something wrong with the public insurance?

The only good fanboy, is a redeemed fanboy.
DingoWalley1 Asgore Adopts Noelle Since: Feb, 2014 Relationship Status: Can't buy me love
Asgore Adopts Noelle
#187348: May 5th 2017 at 8:58:30 PM

[up] It's poison to Republicans right now; combined with the only Public Options in the US being available to the Super Poor, or Elderly (over 65), and Hospitals and Doctors can turn them away (or at least could before Obamacare).

But if the Private Insurers start going down like flies, due to all the Young, Healthy People not pouring money into the system, and the sick, Middle aged People not being able to afford the skyrocketed premiums, they'd have no choice but to make a Public Option; and Trump would take in all the Credit.

[up][up][up] It's obvious; they'd take Money from Young, Healthy People and pray they never have to give the money back. Problem is, without Obamacare, Premiums will skyrocket worse then under Obamacare, and Young People (who are already less likely to get Health Insurance) will be less likely to pay for these insane premiums.

Hence, a complete collapse in the Private Insurance Industry and a Recession.

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#187349: May 5th 2017 at 9:01:33 PM

Hypothetically if someone had no ill will towards any race but just wanted to stay in power and used racism in order to keep their seat, would that make him a racist? Or would it just be a racist act? How much does belief factor in?

This is like trying to split the difference between "acts of genocide" and "genocide". If you are prepared to push a racist narrative in the interests of maintaining your own power, then you can't claim you have no ill-will towards those people. Ruining someone's life in order to hold onto power is a pretty definitive example of ill-will.

Draghinazzo (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I get a feeling so complicated...
#187350: May 5th 2017 at 9:10:29 PM

This seems mostly to be a semantic argument about the difference between malice and indifference - in practice, they often amount to the same thing.


Total posts: 417,856
Top