Hillary vs Bernie

[crazy canuck]

I think CC is also forgetting the obstructionism (in-fighting) on display when say Obama entered the oval office and Dems controlled both houses.

I have commented on more than one occasion about the inherent weaknesses of your system which prevent anything actually getting done. Some Americans seem to have viewed that as a virtue so YMMV.

[grumbler]

Otherwise, we're done.

okay, if you think obama's campaign revolved around freeing palestine, then see ya until next time

Obama's campaign was about a lot of things, some of which he accomplished despite a Republican party that thought preventing government from functioning was a virtue.

I am surprised you even responded to this straw man comprised entirely of smaller strawmen.  The first time the phrase "obama's [sic] campaign revolved around freeing palestine [sic]" appears in this thread is when LaCroix writes it, and then he pretends that he didn't write it, but I did!

Obama made a lot of promises that he didn't keep.  Some he probably knew he couldn't keep, but wanted in the campaign platform so he would have the mandate to work towards them.  Others he probably misjudged because of his extremely limited experience in federal government.

LaCroix doesn't seem to have an argument, just a strawman and attacks on others' arguments.  I'd let this one rest.

[grumbler]

I have commented on more than one occasion about the inherent weaknesses of your system which prevent anything actually getting done. Some Americans seem to have viewed that as a virtue so YMMV.

There's no question that the system of checks and balances sometimes swings too far in favor of checks, but Turkey, Russia, Hungary, et al give evidence that the US outcome is better than one with too few checks.

[Barrister]

I have commented on more than one occasion about the inherent weaknesses of your system which prevent anything actually getting done. Some Americans seem to have viewed that as a virtue so YMMV.

There's no question that the system of checks and balances sometimes swings too far in favor of checks, but Turkey, Russia, Hungary, et al give evidence that the US outcome is better than one with too few checks.

I'm not touching which system is "better" with a ten foot pole, but it does mean that campaign promises in US elections are almost all merely aspirational - what the candidate would like to do, not what they will do.  In a parliamentary system there's no reason why a winning party shouldn't be able to implement everything they had promised.

[grumbler]

I'm not touching which system is "better" with a ten foot pole, but it does mean that campaign promises in US elections are almost all merely aspirational - what the candidate would like to do, not what they will do.  In a parliamentary system there's no reason why a winning party shouldn't be able to implement everything they had promised.

Quite true.  For good or ill.

[Zanza]

I'm not touching which system is "better" with a ten foot pole, but it does mean that campaign promises in US elections are almost all merely aspirational - what the candidate would like to do, not what they will do.  In a parliamentary system there's no reason why a winning party shouldn't be able to implement everything they had promised.

Our parties always enter coalition governments and there is a powerful obstructionist upper house, so the winning party almost never implements all it promised. So checks and balances also exist in parliamentarian democracies, maybe less so in Westminster systems where the lower house is extremely powerful and the winning party often commands an absolute majority.

[garbon]

I think CC is also forgetting the obstructionism (in-fighting) on display when say Obama entered the oval office and Dems controlled both houses.

I have commented on more than one occasion about the inherent weaknesses of your system which prevent anything actually getting done. Some Americans seem to have viewed that as a virtue so YMMV.

Anything? I think that's a bit extreme. And yeah, I'd say in general that I'm alright with our system. While it does mean that it can take longer for some good ideas to get implemented, it also leaves us less at the whim of the ruling party as it is far harder than many systems to implement drastic changes.

[crazy canuck]

I have commented on more than one occasion about the inherent weaknesses of your system which prevent anything actually getting done. Some Americans seem to have viewed that as a virtue so YMMV.

There's no question that the system of checks and balances sometimes swings too far in favor of checks, but Turkey, Russia, Hungary, et al give evidence that the US outcome is better than one with too few checks.

I agree.  But the US was founded by people who were already well versed the in principles of the English system and so I don't think it was ever going to run the risk of going the way of the countries you listed.  The US would likely have done quite well under a federal Parliamentary system but the Americans decided to create a new form of government.  They did so for very good reasons.  The idea that the crown should simply be a figurehead of a Westminster Parliamentary system had not yet been fully developed.  I suppose one could argue that the American formulation helped that process along.

But despite the good intentions involved in creating the system, it is easily fouled up by people acting unreasonably.  In theory the political process should fix such problems.  I hope that occurs.
 

[LaCroix]

Their platforms are different.  But I certainly don't get an "occupy wall street vibe" from Sander's campaign.  From the perspective of a Canadian watching your process from the outside, his policies reflect more or less what we already do in terms of subsidizing university education, health care etc.  I suppose it only seems like a radical change because US politics have swung so far to the right in the last number of decades.

bernie sanders's site:

https://berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequality/

There is something profoundly wrong when the top one-tenth of one percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent.

(literally impossible under constitution)

https://berniesanders.com/issues/its-time-to-make-college-tuition-free-and-debt-free/

(no quote really necessary, the link title says it all. don't really know how this could be implemented -- canada definitely doesn't have free tuition and debt free students)

https://berniesanders.com/issues/money-in-politics/

(this is where sanders actually admits his goal is impossible under the constitution -- he says he will appoint supreme court justices who vow to overturn citizen's united and promises to try his best to amend the freaking constitution; also, some vague comment on eliminating super PACS (by overturning united?? I dunno))

https://berniesanders.com/issues/creating-jobs-rebuilding-america/

(various infrastructure plans, $1 trillion over five years. this is technically possible, though not realistic whatsoever in this political climate)

that's the first few. I'm not spending time clicking on the rest. I did see this, though, and figured I'd toss this in as well

https://berniesanders.com/issues/reforming-wall-street/

(literally impossible under the constitution)

basically, having checked his site, I don't think sanders's policies reflect canadian policies at all

[crazy canuck]

I'm not touching which system is "better" with a ten foot pole, but it does mean that campaign promises in US elections are almost all merely aspirational - what the candidate would like to do, not what they will do.  In a parliamentary system there's no reason why a winning party shouldn't be able to implement everything they had promised.

Quite true.  For good or ill.

While it is true that a Parliamentary majority can make its own decisions without further obstacles within Parliament itself, BB overstates the issue when he says there is no reason a majority shouldn't be able to implement everything they promised. As an example the Conservatives, in their 10 years in power in Canada, had a great deal of difficulty implementing all they had promised.  Public support still matters to a government with a majority.  Also, the Courts provide an important role in deciding whether legislation is constitutionally valid - and there were many instances where the Court struck down their legislation as being inconsistent with the Charter.

[LaCroix]

I'm not touching which system is "better" with a ten foot pole, but it does mean that campaign promises in US elections are almost all merely aspirational - what the candidate would like to do, not what they will do.  In a parliamentary system there's no reason why a winning party shouldn't be able to implement everything they had promised.

my original point before grumbler jumped in was that many of sanders's promises are impossible. not just in this political climate, but actually impossible to implement under the US constitution and/or/maybe budget. I exaggerated with all -- I hadn't read up on every single sanders promise.

basically, I don't think any candidate should promise the impossible. and if that candidate actually believes he can implement the impossible, then he's just not very bright.

[DGuller]

Anything? I think that's a bit extreme. And yeah, I'd say in general that I'm alright with our system. While it does mean that it can take longer for some good ideas to get implemented, it also leaves us less at the whim of the ruling party as it is far harder than many systems to implement drastic changes.

But it leaves with with the situation where the winning party has the responsibility without having power.  That destroys feedback loop between actions and results, and incentives for good governance go away.

[crazy canuck]

Their platforms are different.  But I certainly don't get an "occupy wall street vibe" from Sander's campaign.  From the perspective of a Canadian watching your process from the outside, his policies reflect more or less what we already do in terms of subsidizing university education, health care etc.  I suppose it only seems like a radical change because US politics have swung so far to the right in the last number of decades.

bernie sanders's site:

https://berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequality/

There is something profoundly wrong when the top one-tenth of one percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent.

(literally impossible under constitution)

https://berniesanders.com/issues/its-time-to-make-college-tuition-free-and-debt-free/

(no quote really necessary, the link title says it all. don't really know how this could be implemented -- canada definitely doesn't have free tuition and debt free students)

https://berniesanders.com/issues/money-in-politics/

(this is where sanders actually admits his goal is impossible under the constitution -- he says he will appoint supreme court justices who vow to overturn citizen's united and promises to try his best to amend the freaking constitution; also, some vague comment on eliminating super PACS (by overturning united?? I dunno))

https://berniesanders.com/issues/creating-jobs-rebuilding-america/

(various infrastructure plans, $1 trillion over five years. this is technically possible, though not realistic whatsoever in this political climate)

that's the first few. I'm not spending time clicking on the rest. I did see this, though, and figured I'd toss this in as well

https://berniesanders.com/issues/reforming-wall-street/

(literally impossible under the constitution)

basically, having checked his site, I don't think sanders's policies reflect canadian policies at all

Its literally impossible for the US government to introduce tax reform? That doesn't sound right.  In any event the Liberals were elected on exactly that platform.

Canada does have heavily subsidized tuition both in forms of direct funding to universities which off sets the need to raise money through tuition and by direct assistance to students.  You are correct that tuition levels in Canada have risen over the last two decades as governments have decreased funding but the government could, and some here argue should, do more including what Sander's proposes.

The Liberals were just elected on a platform of deficit spending to finance infrastructure spending.  It was one of their main platforms that garnered a great deal of support for them.

Its literally impossible for the US government to regulate the financial sector?  That also doesnt seem right to me.  As I recall it prior to the crash people within the Clinton administration were advocating for greater regulation but that fell on deaf ears - including the ears belonging to Clinton.  Canada has always had strong regulation in this area.

[LaCroix]

Their platforms are different.  But I certainly don't get an "occupy wall street vibe" from Sander's campaign.  From the perspective of a Canadian watching your process from the outside, his policies reflect more or less what we already do in terms of subsidizing university education, health care etc.  I suppose it only seems like a radical change because US politics have swung so far to the right in the last number of decades.

bernie sanders's site:

https://berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequality/

There is something profoundly wrong when the top one-tenth of one percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent.

(literally impossible under constitution)

https://berniesanders.com/issues/its-time-to-make-college-tuition-free-and-debt-free/

(no quote really necessary, the link title says it all. don't really know how this could be implemented -- canada definitely doesn't have free tuition and debt free students)

https://berniesanders.com/issues/money-in-politics/

(this is where sanders actually admits his goal is impossible under the constitution -- he says he will appoint supreme court justices who vow to overturn citizen's united and promises to try his best to amend the freaking constitution; also, some vague comment on eliminating super PACS (by overturning united?? I dunno))

https://berniesanders.com/issues/creating-jobs-rebuilding-america/

(various infrastructure plans, $1 trillion over five years. this is technically possible, though not realistic whatsoever in this political climate)

that's the first few. I'm not spending time clicking on the rest. I did see this, though, and figured I'd toss this in as well

https://berniesanders.com/issues/reforming-wall-street/

(literally impossible under the constitution)

basically, having checked his site, I don't think sanders's policies reflect canadian policies at all

Its literally impossible for the US government to introduce tax reform? That doesn't sound right.

Canada does have heavily subsidized tuition both in forms of direct funding to universities which off sets the need to raise money through tuition and by direct assistance to students.  You are correct that tuition levels in Canada have risen over the last two decades as governments have decreased funding but that government could, and some here argue should, do more including what Sander's proposes.

The Liberals were just elected on a platform of deficit spending to finance infrastructure spending.  It was one of their main platforms that garnered a great deal of support for them.

Its literally impossible for the US government to regulate the financial sector?  That also doesnt seem right to me.  As I recall it prior to the crash people within the Clinton administration were advocating for greater regulation but that fell on deaf ears - including the ears belonging to Clinton.

takings clause. legit government purpose (or whatever the test is). wealth redistribution, which is what "it's wrong that .1% owns equal to 90%" essentially suggests, doesn't fit that.

I know that canada has low, cheap tuition. we're talking ZERO tuition.

I don't understand your point re "Liberals were just elected on a platform of deficit spending to finance infrastructure spending." what I posted re infrastructure is bernie sanders's goal under a republican congress. not bernie sanders's goal under a canadian congress.

re: finance reform. again, takings clause. you can have finance reform, but when you're proposing that the government step in and strip assets from private businesses based on nothing but a wall street hate-boner? that's unconstitutional

[garbon]

Anything? I think that's a bit extreme. And yeah, I'd say in general that I'm alright with our system. While it does mean that it can take longer for some good ideas to get implemented, it also leaves us less at the whim of the ruling party as it is far harder than many systems to implement drastic changes.

But it leaves with with the situation where the winning party has the responsibility without having power.  That destroys feedback loop between actions and results, and incentives for good governance go away.

I don't know about that. I'm not sure I agree with the overall narrative that things can't get accomplished. I think there are plenty of good substantive things happened during Obama's presidency even if overall I'd describe him as middling to weak.