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

ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#245201: Jun 11th 2018 at 1:39:56 PM

RE: US Economy

I know part of the reason the tech sector's doing so well (I've got stock in AMD) is due to bitcoin miners driving up demand for hardware in order to harvest them. Naturally, it's only a matter of time before that bubble bursts, especially with the myriad companies trying to cash in on The Next Big Thing (TM) [and I really wish I knew how to properly input Tradesnark™].

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#245202: Jun 11th 2018 at 1:46:32 PM

Maybe it’s from observing my grandmother but I think that stubborn refusal to give up your career can be harmful. My grandfather continued trying to teach even as the cancer that killed him started to ravage his body. That just.....seems wrong to me.

"Because of something that happened in my family I want to force my opinion on everyone else."

You know, when people make these kinds of arguments for keeping drugs or something illegal, the "progressive" left has a meltdown. Yet here we are, demanding people lose their jobs on the basis of age.

LordYAM Since: Jan, 2015
#245203: Jun 11th 2018 at 1:49:35 PM

In Mc Cain’s case it’s more that he’s riddled with cancer and sick. He hasn’t voted since December either. When someone’s dying of cancer or another illness it seems actively harmful to continue trying to do the job.

More importantly my grandmother was 90 when she finally retired. She’s far older than Mc Cain is (97 this year actually) and also had hearing problems.

edited 11th Jun '18 1:51:43 PM by LordYAM

Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#245204: Jun 11th 2018 at 1:50:45 PM

It really depends on the person. My father is an absolute workaholic and I suspect that he would decline fast if he didn't have his work anymore. He would simply not know what to do with himself.

Though in politics there is this not so small issue that nobody can guarantee that someone older than 80 will even make it through one term. That's not really fair to the voters.

edited 11th Jun '18 1:52:00 PM by Swanpride

CrimsonZephyr Would that it were so simple. from Massachusetts Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
Would that it were so simple.
#245205: Jun 11th 2018 at 1:51:39 PM

Mc Cain staying in office until his last breath means months of delaying before the putrid Arizona state house can appointment his replacement.

"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
Grafite Since: Apr, 2016 Relationship Status: Less than three
#245206: Jun 11th 2018 at 1:54:26 PM

@Blue Ninja: I was only talking about US congress. I wouldn't want to force out anyone who needs that job to pay their bills. Members of congress though, they're set up for retirement and more when they reach 80 years of age.

edited 11th Jun '18 1:55:35 PM by Grafite

Life is unfair...
DeathorCake Since: Mar, 2016
#245207: Jun 11th 2018 at 1:55:04 PM

@Ambar

If you averaged me out I guess I'm centre-left, but that's more my economic positions are left edge of Soc Dem and a lot of the other stuff I don't give a damn about so put me in the centre. I'm not going to jump into the permanent Democratic circular firing squad since I barely know the names of any of these people, but you writing off massive swathes of Americans because you think they're mostly brainwashed racists is pretty damn insulting.

Over the last forty years the centre-left and centre-right major parties across the world largely stopped trying to win over big chunks of the other side. They treat their voters like mushrooms, keep them in the dark and feed them bullshit.

So what if there's not a lot of self-described socialists or even normal lefties in Kentucky or Labour voters in the Home Counties? Go campaign there anyway, explain your policies, talk to individual people or small groups until you have enough support for a rally, lay off on the usual short-form propaganda, start building a coalition that might do something in four or eight years. The Nazi vote share in Germany went from basically nothing to 43% in five years to pick an example I have numbers off the top of my head for, it evidently can be done.

You can see this in a lot of smaller issues. A lot of more Conservative Londoners want lower house prices, you can talk a good few Republicans into single payer healthcare with a few stats and an explanation of why Fox News is nonsense, they just won't vote left until you explain to them why they should, and that takes time and more effort than spamming leaflets and billboards which just does a very good job of getting people to retreat into their respective media shells.

Did you see the Podesta email geolocation? Martha's Vineyard and the Hamptons were the two most talked about places, then SF, NY, Washington DC and anywhere else was one or two standard deviations further out because it wasn't where the money was. Do the Republicans get to use their current high levels of state control to dominate the next census? Because if so you're even more screwed than you currently are once they lock you out of some of the places they just took with more gerrymandering.

edited 11th Jun '18 2:04:50 PM by DeathorCake

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#245208: Jun 11th 2018 at 1:55:26 PM

In Mc Cain’s case it’s more that he’s riddled with cancer and sick. He hasn’t voted since December either. When someone’s dying of cancer or another illness it seems actively harmful to continue trying to do the job. More importantly my grandmother was 90 when she finally retired. She’s far older than Mc Cain is (97 this year actually) and also had hearing problems.

All of which is entirely irrelevant to the idea of punishing healthy, mentally sound adults for wishing to stay in office after 80.

Seriously, not a thing you just said here is relevant to the argument that people over eighty should be made to retire from Congress. Not a thing.

CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#245209: Jun 11th 2018 at 1:56:59 PM

Mc Cain can do his job.

Is it wise to?

Maybe not, but it's his choice.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Grafite Since: Apr, 2016 Relationship Status: Less than three
#245210: Jun 11th 2018 at 2:00:07 PM

[up] I don't think he's actually been to the Senate lately (in the past year I think). At that point, it's really for the best to retire and let the governor know who he would like to succeed him. His choice though.

Life is unfair...
tclittle Professional Forum Ninja from Somewhere Down in Texas Since: Apr, 2010
Professional Forum Ninja
#245211: Jun 11th 2018 at 2:01:58 PM

Hearing reports of an active shooter at the Department of Justice building in Washington, DC.

"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."
CrimsonZephyr Would that it were so simple. from Massachusetts Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
Would that it were so simple.
#245212: Jun 11th 2018 at 2:02:17 PM

There's nothing inherently valuable about youthful leadership. Just because they may outwardly have more elan doesn't mean they're going to be good administrators and politicians. I mean, the onetime Baby of the House of Representatives, Aaron Schock, is a buffoon currently under investigation for embezzling taxpayer money on X Box games and remodeling his office in the style of Downton Abbey. Yes, really.

Having some grey in one's hair shouldn't be an obstacle if they're of sound mind to carry out their duties. It is a sacred task of the utmost seriousness that is better appreciated when one has experience and wisdom. Enough with this ageist nonsense.

"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#245213: Jun 11th 2018 at 2:07:49 PM

If you averaged me out I guess I'm centre-left, but that's more my economic positions are left edge of Soc Dem and a lot of the other stuff I don't give a damn about so put me in the centre. I'm not going to jump into the permanent Democratic circular firing squad since I barely know the names of any of these people, but you writing off massive swathes of Americans because you think they're mostly brainwashed racists is pretty damn insulting.

So you said you weren't going to jump into a topic you know nothing about...then did exactly that. It's been a well-established fact—as in by way of forty plus years of voting trends—that the only way to get the South to vote left-wing is to promise that black people won't gain any benefits from social welfare policies. This has always been a terrible strategy from a moral perspective, and as time has gone by, has become less viable from a pragmatic one too—we have more and more black and Hispanic voters upon whom the Democratic Party depends.

Numerous efforts have been made to reach out to rural white folks in the USA. They have stubbornly refused all of these efforts and voted right-wing anyway. That's their call, but stop trying to blame the Democrats for it.

Over the last forty years the centre-left and centre-right major parties across the world largely stopped trying to win over big chunks of the other side. They treat their voters like mushrooms, keep them in the dark and feed them bullshit.

There's an entirely general, and completely meaningless statement. The Democrats were pretty damn open with their voters about their platform. That people decided to listen to FOX and read the National Enquirer instead is on them.

So what if there's not a lot of self-described socialists or even normal lefties in Kentucky or Labour voters in the Home Counties? Go campaign there anyway, explain your policies, talk to individual people or small groups until you have enough support for a rally, lay off on the usual short-form propaganda, start building a coalition that might do something in four or eight years. The Nazi vote share in Germany went from basically nothing to 43% in five years to pick an example I have numbers off the top of my head for, it evidently can be done.

You know what building a coalition in the South requires? It requires a) appealing to racists or b) running Blue Dogs like Manchin. Personally, I'm in favour of running Blue Dogs like Manchin. Alas, the "progressives" who started this whole discussion aren't. They want to insist that we can win in the South by running to the hard-left, which, of course, we can't. Not unless we promise that the only benefits of said hard-left policies will go to white folks.

When asked to provide evidence for their position, they point to people like the State Sec of Kentucky we just mentioned who is...a middle of the road Democrat with one or two positions they like and insist she's a member of the hard-left. She's not—she's a to-the-right-of-the-party compromiser and if they weren't using her to prove a point, they'd bash her for a Blue Dog.

I've got to ask at this point if you've even read this discussion, because you're not arguing with a position I hold, or in favour of a position anyone else holds. I'm all in favour of trying to win over rural voters provided that we don't appeal to racists in the process. I just don't think we're going to do it by pretending what those voters want is ultra-leftist candidates, and I have to laugh every time someone suggests it.

Grafite Since: Apr, 2016 Relationship Status: Less than three
#245214: Jun 11th 2018 at 2:12:34 PM

@Ambar: The strategy for winning races in the South now is to put all resources into encouraging minority turnout in great numbers (by getting them registered, appealing to their causes, etc.)

No need for racism or a total blue dog, we've seen it in Alabama and I got a feeling we'll see it again in Georgia this year with Stacey Abrams, the first black woman to be a party nominee for governor.

@tclittle: Seems like that was a false alarm according to Fox 5.

edited 11th Jun '18 2:16:28 PM by Grafite

Life is unfair...
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
#245215: Jun 11th 2018 at 2:14:53 PM

There is a third option for winning in the South, instead of running moderates or racists you run minority candidates, high minority turnout combined with winning over people who can be swung is a viable tactic.

However this suggestion tends to not be made by those associated with Sanders. They’re not pushing for more minority progressives to run despite that being a seriously viable way to win.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
LordYAM Since: Jan, 2015
#245216: Jun 11th 2018 at 2:16:50 PM

Mc Cain hasn't been there since December so about half a year.

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#245217: Jun 11th 2018 at 2:18:38 PM

The strategy for winning races in the South now is to put all resources into encouraging minority turnout in great numbers (by getting them registrated, appealing to their causes, etc.) No need for racism or a total blue dog, we've seen it in Alabama and I got a feeling we'll see it again in Georgia this year with Stacey Abrams (first black woman to be a party nominee for governor).

This I'm all in favour of. Didn't mention it above because the conversation had been the usual one about rural white voters.

Getting out the African-American, Hispanic, and other minority votes, is something that's worked once already, and likely can work again. Black women are the base of the party now, and we need to acknowledge that fact.

There is a third option for winning in the South, instead of running moderates or racists you run minority candidates, high minority turnout combined with winning over people who can be swung is a viable tactic. However this suggestion tends to not be made by those associated with Sanders. They’re not pushing for more minority progressives to run despite that being a seriously viable way to win.

Quite the opposite. They usually complain about "identity politics" and insist we must run on an economic platform. Which somehow always means "why vote for a minority when you have a perfectly good white man."

I'm all in favour of running more minorities and drumming up minority support. Doug Jones got in because of the African-American vote. "Identity politics" won that election...which is more than I can say for the success of the "Southern Socialism" platform thus far.

Let's run more black women. Let's run a lot of them. And let's see what happens.

edited 11th Jun '18 2:21:54 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

TrashJack Confirmed Doomer from beyond the Despair Event Horizon (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Confirmed Doomer
#245218: Jun 11th 2018 at 2:19:59 PM

[up]x4, [up]x3, and [up]: Now watch as all the red states (particularly in the South) drop as many minority voters from the rolls as they think they can get away with (or can stall legal proceedings for beyond the midterms) in the wake of the Ohio SCOTUS decision.

edited 11th Jun '18 2:21:29 PM by TrashJack

"Cynic, n. — A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be." - The Devil's Dictionary
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
LordYAM Since: Jan, 2015
#245220: Jun 11th 2018 at 2:25:28 PM

Yeah. Doug Jones winning was due to minority voters (and it was a very pleasant surprise. I really thought he was going to lose but he pulled it off.)

[up] Doug Jones winning probably encouraged them to do it even more.

edited 11th Jun '18 2:27:03 PM by LordYAM

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#245221: Jun 11th 2018 at 2:30:22 PM

On, "identity politics", there also seems to be a bit of projection going on there. People assuming running Black or Hispanic people meaning those candidates will only care about Black or Hispanic people, and thus have broader appeal, and will care less about their constituents as a whole, etc. So obviously the only correct thing is to run a white guy who will make sure white people aren't being "forgotten", right?

DeathorCake Since: Mar, 2016
#245222: Jun 11th 2018 at 2:42:43 PM

By "the firing squad" I meant the continuous argument over who counts as a progressive and who's done the shadiest stuff, not no criticizing the party full stop. There's not one actual socialist politician in the Democratic Party, at best they get to Ed Milliband with maybe a side order of warhawk. Admittedly the American left has a lot more problems with moving left again than the European left, since your system can't have some nationalist party or bunch of actual socialists eating your centrist votes like the Germans do.

Evidently the South can't be entirely made up of racists, you get some of their votes, and I don't give a damn whether you run people who are white, black or bright green if you think it'll work. Always thought it might be a better world if people ran in elections in comparative anonymity, but we cannot give anyone a robot body to make speeches with yet. According to your population map a good half of those southern states you're saying are full of racists have the largest minority populations, so fair enough, run the Blue Dogs if you don't mind a bunch of possible defectors on the federal level who might block you getting bigger things done. That was a fact I wasn't aware of, I had assumed they were white as the driven snow like most of Devon and Dorset over here. My bad.

By the way, do the Republicans get that free pile of seats with the census?

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#245223: Jun 11th 2018 at 2:53:47 PM

Evidently the South can't be entirely made up of racists, you get some of their votes, and I don't give a damn whether you run people who are white, black or bright green if you think it'll work.

We get the minority vote. A fact that the "we need to appeal to working class white people with 'socialism'" crowd does not understand. This is how we had the incident where Sanders wrote off the entire South as "The Confederacy," ignoring the minority voters there who went for Clinton.

According to your population map a good half of those southern states you're saying are full of racists have the largest minority populations, so fair enough, run the Blue Dogs if you don't mind a bunch of possible defectors on the federal level who might block you getting bigger things done.

The large minority population is why the area is full of racist white voters. Large parts of the South are still mad they don't get to own their black neighbours as property anymore.

Republicans do their best to gerrymander things so that minority voters don't get a say, which keeps the white racists relevant, and keeps people trying to figure out how to appeal to them.

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#245224: Jun 11th 2018 at 3:00:33 PM

To play devil's advocate a bit, I do think there was a bit of an issue with conflating "minority vote" with "Black vote". Now in the Deep South those two things are basically one in the same, but that's not everywhere, and trying to play those votes off as mattering less was still, at best, pretty tone-deaf on Sander's part.

And, yeah, not all White people in the South (deep or otherwise) or ultra racist/Republican, a sizeable minority aren't. But unfortunately, they are a minority still, so you can't just play to them, ignore everything else, and expect to win.

You probably can't win in the South without really good turnout from the Black vote, and those not terrible White people, but as voting block goes, the Black people are a bigger one, so it makes sense that they, or rather, we, get more focus.

edited 11th Jun '18 3:01:11 PM by LSBK

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
#245225: Jun 11th 2018 at 3:26:33 PM

The best way to win rural areas is to focus on the small towns and combine it with the poorer bits of villages. In towns you’re getting people in the service industry and doing similar low wage jobs, in villages you can find people doing support jobs (childcare, driving lessons, housecleaning, nurses, ect...). Combine the two and you’ve got a basis that can work if you get turnout right.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

Total posts: 417,856
Top