Poll
Question:
Does the US need to be fundamentally transformed?
Option 1: Yes (American)
votes: 15
Option 2: No (American)
votes: 11
Option 3: Yes (furriner)
votes: 17
Option 4: No (furrener)
votes: 5
However you take the term to mean, do you think the US needs to be fundamentally transformed?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fferrebeekeeper.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F08%2Fsulla_normal.jpeg&hash=1a308c5902c5a4cddbfb3cd81e8a3583c80a30ea)
:huh:
Fundamentally transformed? Into what?
I mean, I suppose you would all be better people if you returned to your rightful sovereign (The Queen) and adopted a Westminster system, or if a totalitarian Neilist party were to be elected, but there's not a lot wrong with the the US that can't be fixed within your system.
You're verging into Raz territory here speiss.
Why don't you spell out whatever point you want to make and let us discuss, rather than ask a really vague question with no particular context.
Yes. It needs to be funamentally transformed in the manner I am thinking right now.
Yes. Or else.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 27, 2012, 01:30:09 PM
Yes. It needs to be funamentally transformed in the manner I am thinking right now.
Yes, into Voltron.
Quote from: Neil on July 27, 2012, 01:26:36 PM
Fundamentally transformed? Into what?
Into something else.
Quote from: derspiess on July 27, 2012, 01:35:48 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 27, 2012, 01:26:36 PM
Fundamentally transformed? Into what?
Into something else.
Would the US be an Autobot or a Decepticon?
Quote from: derspiess on July 27, 2012, 01:35:48 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 27, 2012, 01:26:36 PM
Fundamentally transformed? Into what?
Into something else.
Why don't you come out and just say you still think Obama's a Muslim and trying to establish Sharia law with all his "foreignicity", instead of beating around the bush about it, derfetuss.
Quote from: Barrister on July 27, 2012, 01:28:11 PM
You're verging into Raz territory here speiss.
Why don't you spell out whatever point you want to make and let us discuss, rather than ask a really vague question with no particular context.
It's a simple question. President Obama has stated multiple times he wants to fundamentally transform the US, and he is about as vague as I was in my question. Just wanted to know if Languishites agree with him that the US needs to be fundamentally transformed in some way.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 27, 2012, 01:39:28 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 27, 2012, 01:35:48 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 27, 2012, 01:26:36 PM
Fundamentally transformed? Into what?
Into something else.
Why don't you come out and just say you still think Obama's a Muslim and trying to establish Sharia law with all his "foreignicity", instead of beating around the bush about it, derfetuss.
ANSWER THE QUESTION YES OR NO
Quote from: derspiess on July 27, 2012, 01:39:31 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 27, 2012, 01:28:11 PM
You're verging into Raz territory here speiss.
Why don't you spell out whatever point you want to make and let us discuss, rather than ask a really vague question with no particular context.
It's a simple question. President Obama has stated multiple times he wants to fundamentally transform the US, and he is about as vague as I was in my question. Just wanted to know if Languishites agree with him that the US needs to be fundamentally transformed in some way.
I dunno man. Harper has said before he wants to 'transform' Canada into a more conservative country, such that the Conservative Party becomes its natural governing party. I don't see anything sinister in sayign that. Obama is President - presumably he does have changes he wants to make, or else why would he become President in the first place?
Quote from: Barrister on July 27, 2012, 01:42:16 PM
I dunno man. Harper has said before he wants to 'transform' Canada into a more conservative country, such that the Conservative Party becomes its natural governing party. I don't see anything sinister in sayign that. Obama is President - presumably he does have changes he wants to make, or else why would he become President in the first place?
fun·da·men·tal·ly/ˌfəndəˈmentl-ē/
Adverb:
In central or primary respects: "two fundamentally different concepts of democracy".
Used to make an emphatic statement about the basic truth of something.
Well, I guess the US could use a few transformations. The whole gun culture could afford to go, as could the cult of celebrity and the fear of socialized medicine. I just don't think that these transformations are especially fundamental. Then again, I'm not a speechwriter, a class for whom the word 'fundamental' is essetially padding.
Someone has been sipping the kool-aid! :lol:
Obama uttered the usual politician's cant about the significance of the changes they would make, and the right-wing kooks appear to have "death-panelled" the phrase. That's an area where America needs to be fundamentally changed: those who profess the big lie need to be laughed out of public view.
Obama's fundamental changes were neither fundamental nor, really, changes. And they took place better than three and a half years ago, so I think we can conclude that this question is silly.
Quote from: Neil on July 27, 2012, 02:01:57 PM
Well, I guess the US could use a few transformations. The whole gun culture could afford to go, as could the cult of celebrity and the fear of socialized medicine. I just don't think that these transformations are especially fundamental. Then again, I'm not a speechwriter, a class for whom the word 'fundamental' is essetially padding.
:huh: Who hijacked Neil's account? This post is lucid and relevant, so it can't be Neil writing.
I think the budgeting process needs to be changed so there is a default in cases of no agreement. Other than that, less fat chicks.
Some of the ways our government works maybe, but that is reform that is needed not fundamental transformers. Also our cultural expectations of an easy life but reality will eventually transform that.
A return to the gold standard. Ron Paul!
Quote from: Faeelin on July 27, 2012, 02:40:44 PM
A return to the gold standard. Ron Paul!
Oh silly me. This a thousand times this!!!111
Quote from: grumbler on July 27, 2012, 02:17:07 PM
Someone has been sipping the kool-aid! :lol:
Obama uttered the usual politician's cant about the significance of the changes they would make, and the right-wing kooks appear to have "death-panelled" the phrase. That's an area where America needs to be fundamentally changed: those who profess the big lie need to be laughed out of public view.
Obama's fundamental changes were neither fundamental nor, really, changes. And they took place better than three and a half years ago, so I think we can conclude that this question is silly.
Nice little rant, but it was an honest question. Pretty much everyone has something that want to reform, but I don't recall any other presidents or major candidates calling for fundamental transformation. I'm genuinely curious if people here think the US has a flaw so serious that it warrants fundamental transformation. What Obama did or did not do in the past 3.5 years is irrelevant to the discussion.
Quote from: Habbaku on July 27, 2012, 01:35:25 PM
Yes, into Voltron.
E Pluribus Unum?
that's at least one thing that needs changing
Quote from: derspiess on July 27, 2012, 03:03:14 PM
Nice little rant, but it was an honest question. Pretty much everyone has something that want to reform, but I don't recall any other presidents or major candidates calling for fundamental transformation. I'm genuinely curious if people here think the US has a flaw so serious that it warrants fundamental transformation. What Obama did or did not do in the past 3.5 years is irrelevant to the discussion.
I think you're making a big deal out of nothing. Obama is just packing some extra verbiage on his goal of taking money from Teh Man and giving it to hard-working middle class Americans from Main Street so they can get a fair shot.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2012, 03:10:21 PM
I think you're making a big deal out of nothing. Obama is just packing some extra verbiage on his goal of taking money from Teh Man and giving it to hard-working middle class Americans from Main Street so they can get a fair shot.
So are you saying it's not even worth discussing whether the US needs fundamental transformation? Apparently a majority of Languishites so far believe that it does.
I voted yes to fuck with you.
Quote from: garbon on July 27, 2012, 03:13:31 PM
I voted yes to fuck with you.
:hug:
I guess I need a sockpuppet account to do any future polls.
Quote from: derspiess on July 27, 2012, 03:12:44 PM
So are you saying it's not even worth discussing whether the US needs fundamental transformation? Apparently a majority of Languishites so far believe that it does.
It's as interesting as the average Languish thread starter question. But if the point of the excercise is to make Obama look foolish for overblown rhetoric, like I said I don't think the target is big enough.
Can't Lindsay Lohan use her influence with young people to fundamentally change America?
Nothing that needs fixing in US can't be fixed within the current system. It's just that the system is sabotaged by the voters who exercise great power without the great responsibility that accompanies it.
Which vote option would fuck up the poll the most?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 27, 2012, 03:16:54 PM
It's as interesting as the average Languish thread starter question. But if the point of the excercise is to make Obama look foolish for overblown rhetoric, like I said I don't think the target is big enough.
That's really not the point. I don't know whether Obama believes what he said or if it's just overblown rhetoric.
Quote from: DGuller on July 27, 2012, 03:26:36 PM
Which vote option would fuck up the poll the most?
Flip a coin.
Quote from: derspiess on July 27, 2012, 03:30:04 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 27, 2012, 03:26:36 PM
Which vote option would fuck up the poll the most?
Flip a coin.
:huh: There are four options. All my coins only have two sides.
Quote from: The Brain on July 27, 2012, 03:22:50 PM
Can't Lindsay Lohan use her influence with young people to fundamentally change America?
+1
Quote from: derspiess on July 27, 2012, 03:14:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 27, 2012, 03:13:31 PM
I voted yes to fuck with you.
:hug:
I guess I need a sockpuppet account to do any future polls.
I thought that was what your ed anger account was for :huh:
Quote from: DGuller on July 27, 2012, 03:33:31 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 27, 2012, 03:30:04 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 27, 2012, 03:26:36 PM
Which vote option would fuck up the poll the most?
Flip a coin.
:huh: There are four options. All my coins only have two sides.
Are you or are you not an American?
Quote from: derspiess on July 27, 2012, 03:28:40 PM
That's really not the point. I don't know whether Obama believes what he said or if it's just overblown rhetoric.
It's just overblown rhetoric.
Quote from: grumbler on July 27, 2012, 02:18:12 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 27, 2012, 02:01:57 PM
Well, I guess the US could use a few transformations. The whole gun culture could afford to go, as could the cult of celebrity and the fear of socialized medicine. I just don't think that these transformations are especially fundamental. Then again, I'm not a speechwriter, a class for whom the word 'fundamental' is essetially padding.
:huh: Who hijacked Neil's account? This post is lucid and relevant, so it can't be Neil writing.
See people, staying on your meds works!
I voted no, but after the Obama admin is finished with us we may need transformation. ;)
Quote from: Neil on July 27, 2012, 02:01:57 PM
Well, I guess the US could use a few transformations. The whole gun culture could afford to go, as could the cult of celebrity and the fear of socialized medicine. I just don't think that these transformations are especially fundamental. Then again, I'm not a speechwriter, a class for whom the word 'fundamental' is essetially padding.
Weird a Neil post I entirely agree with. :gasp:
Hands off mah guns, furrigners.
I'm going to say yes.
Could you link to an example of an interview with Obama where he says the US need to be fundamentally transformed?
Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2012, 01:55:06 AM
Could you link to an example of an interview with Obama where he says the US need to be fundamentally transformed?
Obama: "Fundamentally Transforming the United States of America"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrefKCaV8m4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrefKCaV8m4)
Quote from: citizen k on July 28, 2012, 02:24:23 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2012, 01:55:06 AM
Could you link to an example of an interview with Obama where he says the US need to be fundamentally transformed?
Obama: "Fundamentally Transforming the United States of America"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrefKCaV8m4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrefKCaV8m4)
So that's an interview? Interesting. :hmm:
He also does not say "USA needs to be fundamentally transformed" but "We are 5 days away from fundamentally transforming the America." Out of context. Once. In a rally speech. From 4 years ago.
Is derspiess a cretin?
Your mother.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.chud.com%2F6%2F68%2F689d51fc_rocky-iv-speech.jpg&hash=af0a98385050c04ca38815897f07f90bb0522c0d)
If I can change
and youse can change
EVERYBODY CAN CHANGE
Quote from: derspiess on July 27, 2012, 01:15:59 PM
However you take the term to mean, do you think the US needs to be fundamentally transformed?
yes, you need socialized medicine, gun control, and a royalty fetish to be just perfect! ;)
Quote from: Barrister on July 27, 2012, 01:28:11 PM
You're verging into Raz territory here speiss.
Why don't you spell out whatever point you want to make and let us discuss, rather than ask a really vague question with no particular context.
Hey!
People who want to "fundamentally transform" stuff tend to do very very bad things to people.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 28, 2012, 03:30:09 PM
People who want to "fundamentally transform" stuff tend to do very very bad things to people.
Like the American revolution.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2012, 03:35:04 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 28, 2012, 03:30:09 PM
People who want to "fundamentally transform" stuff tend to do very very bad things to people.
Like the American revolution.
Indeed.
I've watched Reds a couple times the last few weeks since it's been in cable circulation, and I've decided what this nation needs are more younger Paul Sorvinos with Italian accents.
No, I'm sure America's enemies think it's doing just fine. :ph34r:
I still don't really know what despiess was wanting to talk about but I do think we could change our government style a bit. Over the past 5 years I've come to think we need to incorporate some elements of Westminster style governments (fuck off Canadians.)
I don't 100% agree with the way the UK or Canada (or Australia) do things, but the one thing I'd like to see us incorporate into our system is the ability to essentially eliminate gridlock. If the Prime Minister in any of those countries can't get his shit through the legislature, then you can have new elections...and that's a powerful blockage cleaner.
However in the U.S. system we have a technically weak executive (in comparison to any of the Westminster PMs), who in practice has grown immensely powerful with massive control of legislation in addition to their substantial official powers. So I'd probably want to avoid anything that would immediately make the President more powerful. One way in which mixed-systems have cleared log jams is you have the ability to dissolve the legislature and call elections. I wouldn't want that power to solely be in the hands of the President, because he wouldn't be directly impacted by the results of the elections (he'd get to keep his job either way.)
I'm not a constitution-writer, but just doing some off the wall suggestions I think I'd make these changes:
1. I'd give the Speaker of the House the ability to dissolve the body and force new elections.
2. I'd give the President the ability to dissolve the House, but it would require consent (by majority vote) of the Senate.
3. I'd give the presiding officer of the Senate the ability to cloture any debate on a House dissolution vote and immediately end any ongoing filibuster.
4. I'd change House terms to normally be 4 years.
5. I'd only require annual budget bills be passed by the House, and they would bypass the Senate directly.
6. I'd allow the House to bypass the Senate on any other bill with a 3/5ths majority vote in the House, but bypassing in that way causes an automatic one year delay to take effect...the President can't sign it into law for a year.
7. I'd make it easier to override a Presidential veto: 3/5ths majority in both houses would override (down from 2/3rds), and 2/3rds of the House by itself could override a veto.
This would clear up the following gridlock scenarios:
1. One party controls White House & Senate, but other party controls house - The House either gets in line or gets dissolved by the executive.
2. One party controls White House & House, but other party controls Senate - The Senate has far less ability to get in the way now, so this isn't much of a concern to the party in the White House outside of things like judicial confirmations.
3. One party controls White House, other party controls Senate & House - The executive has little recourse, but now his vetoes can be overridden easier so he will be more inclined to negotiate with legislative leadership or face repeated humiliating veto overrides.
You really like the House don't you?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2012, 06:39:51 PM
You really like the House don't you?
One could make the argument that the House is the most democratically responsive part of the US governent. Still, since more democracy is usually a bad thing in the civilized world, and since the House is also the least responsible part of the US government, I'm not sure Otto's plan is for the best.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2012, 06:39:51 PM
You really like the House don't you?
I don't really like the current incarnations of House or Senate, but our current system has very few effective mechanisms in place to resolve issues when the House and Senate don't get along and when the House, Senate, and President can't get along. I feel that the Presidency since the 1930s has eroded substantially the division of powers in our government so if you can give some additional powers to the legislature that also can help alleviate gridlock, that's a good thing.
The House is the most representative and the most accountable, since they have shorter terms and more closely map to population than Senate seats.
I'm fine with turning the Senate into a House of Lords esque body (although it would be a bit more powerful and relevant), and boosting the ability of the legislature to slap the President in the face if they want...while also giving the President the "nuclear" option to use on a recalcitrant and immoderate House. If the people vote in a Senate and a White House of X party I don't think we need the other party using the House to basically bring the entirety of government to a stand still every time they don't get their way.
Quote from: Neil on July 28, 2012, 06:50:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2012, 06:39:51 PM
You really like the House don't you?
One could make the argument that the House is the most democratically responsive part of the US governent. Still, since more democracy is usually a bad thing in the civilized world, and since the House is also the least responsible part of the US government, I'm not sure Otto's plan is for the best.
I agree as you might know that more democracy is usually a bad thing. However the problem with the Senate is it too disproportionately represents states like Rhode Island and New Hampshire that have less people in them than some counties of other States, and with their extremely long terms they're just too unaccountable for their actions.
The British and Canadians seem to mostly do okay with their "lower house" being the real source of all government power and I don't think either of those countries has devolved into any of the anarchical states you can get from "too much democracy." I mean, we'd still have sensible election laws like using first past the post voting and all that, I'm not talking about retard-systems like plurality or preferential voting.
Wyoming does its democratic duty by electing senators who are useless twats.
Yeah, the Senate would certainly work a lot better if there were fewer states. The whole point of the Senate is to defend regional interests against the tyranny of the majority, and in that it is invaluable. But when you have so many states that have essentially identical interests, that value is reduced.
The only problem with more power to the House is the sort of people who get elected to the House. Then again, longer terms would probably help with that, as the representative would be able to spend 2 years prostituting themselves and 2 years legislating, as opposed to the current 2 whoring/0 legislating split.
Transformed?
Of course not.
The US have a self-correcting system. If it goes to far left, like with Obama, Americans will vote him out and move the country back to center. If it goes to far right...well, the US haven't been that far right ever, in its entire history, despite of what the European balls of light might think.
Quote from: Siege on July 28, 2012, 09:08:26 PM
Transformed?
Of course not.
The US have a self-correcting system. If it goes to far left, like with Obama, Americans will vote him out and move the country back to center. If it goes to far right...well, the US haven't been that far right ever, in its entire history, despite of what the European balls of light might think.
Oh course it has. When it did they hung folks like you.
If there is one thing that needs to be transformed, it's the power of the small states. Not only do they get a disproportionate share of the Senators, but those Senators tend to stick for a while, and thus gain even more power through seniority rules. Maybe the Great Compromise made sense back when we had to convince independent colonies to give up sovereignty to join the federation, but by know aren't we all Americans?
For the same reason, we need to do away with Electoral College. In practice, what Electoral College leads to is wholesale ignoring of the states which lean one way or the other, and disproportionate power for the quarter of the states deemed to be battlegrounds. A citizen is a citizen, whether he lives in New York or Ohio.
The idea of both those institutions is to prevent large, populous states from running roughshod over smaller, less populous states (i.e., California doesn't want to store nuclear waste on it's soil, so we'll just use our massive voting power to put it all in Idaho).
It's another essential check-and-balance.
The EC gets a lot of flack, but it is just trying to apply that principle to the Executive branch as it exists in the Legislative (though there might be a better way than currently exists).
Of course, the Judicial branch has no such check or balance. Another reason lawyers are evil.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2012, 09:13:13 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 28, 2012, 09:08:26 PM
Transformed?
Of course not.
The US have a self-correcting system. If it goes to far left, like with Obama, Americans will vote him out and move the country back to center. If it goes to far right...well, the US haven't been that far right ever, in its entire history, despite of what the European balls of light might think.
Oh course it has. When it did they hung folks like you.
When did the US ever have laws that imposed hanging as the penalty for drunkeness?
I'm sure Siege does good work, but I admit I am kinda worried the one day there's going to be some kinda of scandal where they find some sergeant has been poisoning wells.
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 28, 2012, 11:01:46 PM
The idea of both those institutions is to prevent large, populous states from running roughshod over smaller, less populous states (i.e., California doesn't want to store nuclear waste on it's soil, so we'll just use our massive voting power to put it all in Idaho).
But as it stands now over two centuries of development, the Senate is heavily weighed towards states with heavy rural populations. Kansas or Wyoming has as much swag as New York or New Jersey. A far cry from the population distribution of 1787.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 29, 2012, 06:34:46 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 28, 2012, 11:01:46 PM
The idea of both those institutions is to prevent large, populous states from running roughshod over smaller, less populous states (i.e., California doesn't want to store nuclear waste on it's soil, so we'll just use our massive voting power to put it all in Idaho).
But as it stands now over two centuries of development, the Senate is heavily weighed towards states with heavy rural populations. Kansas or Wyoming has as much swag as New York or New Jersey. A far cry from the population distribution of 1787.
Here are population estimates used in 1787: http://www.dcte.udel.edu/hlp/resources/newnation/pdfs/PopEstim.pdf
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 29, 2012, 06:34:46 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 28, 2012, 11:01:46 PM
The idea of both those institutions is to prevent large, populous states from running roughshod over smaller, less populous states (i.e., California doesn't want to store nuclear waste on it's soil, so we'll just use our massive voting power to put it all in Idaho).
But as it stands now over two centuries of development, the Senate is heavily weighed towards states with heavy rural populations. Kansas or Wyoming has as much swag as New York or New Jersey. A far cry from the population distribution of 1787.
There were still plenty of states with tiny populations back then. The largest 50% of the states had 75% of the population. The Senate is working as designed, except perhaps with respect to the fillibuster.
Quote from: Phillip V on July 29, 2012, 07:38:20 AM
Here are population estimates used in 1787: http://www.dcte.udel.edu/hlp/resources/newnation/pdfs/PopEstim.pdf
lol, 158 slaves in New Hampshire. Poor bastards.
Quote from: Neil on July 29, 2012, 07:39:26 AM
There were still plenty of states with tiny populations back then. The largest 50% of the states had 75% of the population. The Senate is working as designed, except perhaps with respect to the fillibuster.
For 13 states, it worked. For 50 states, not so much.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 29, 2012, 07:43:45 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on July 29, 2012, 07:38:20 AM
Here are population estimates used in 1787: http://www.dcte.udel.edu/hlp/resources/newnation/pdfs/PopEstim.pdf
lol, 158 slaves in New Hampshire. Poor bastards.
948 in RI. All Timmays.
MASSA! THEY BE A NEW INVENTION! BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 29, 2012, 07:44:31 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 29, 2012, 07:39:26 AM
There were still plenty of states with tiny populations back then. The largest 50% of the states had 75% of the population. The Senate is working as designed, except perhaps with respect to the fillibuster.
For 13 states, it worked. For 50 states, not so much.
I suppose I could see that, but only becuase that's more individual Senators to be bribed. I doubt your treasonous founders had that in mind when they were setting it up though. At any rate, the solution would be to go to 1 senator per state.
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 28, 2012, 11:01:46 PM
The idea of both those institutions is to prevent large, populous states from running roughshod over smaller, less populous states (i.e., California doesn't want to store nuclear waste on it's soil, so we'll just use our massive voting power to put it all in Idaho).
Would that actually happen? Anyway the system is a little odd because it let's you say that the voices of citizens in Idaho should have a great deal more power than those in California in that particular arena.
Quote from: garbon on July 29, 2012, 10:18:11 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 28, 2012, 11:01:46 PM
The idea of both those institutions is to prevent large, populous states from running roughshod over smaller, less populous states (i.e., California doesn't want to store nuclear waste on it's soil, so we'll just use our massive voting power to put it all in Idaho).
Would that actually happen? Anyway the system is a little odd because it let's you say that the voices of citizens in Idaho should have a great deal more power than those in California in that particular arena.
Except it's not odd, because that's the entire point of the Senate. The states are supposed to stand equal in the Senate, while the people stand equal in the House.
Quote from: Neil on July 29, 2012, 10:34:37 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 29, 2012, 10:18:11 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 28, 2012, 11:01:46 PM
The idea of both those institutions is to prevent large, populous states from running roughshod over smaller, less populous states (i.e., California doesn't want to store nuclear waste on it's soil, so we'll just use our massive voting power to put it all in Idaho).
Would that actually happen? Anyway the system is a little odd because it let's you say that the voices of citizens in Idaho should have a great deal more power than those in California in that particular arena.
Except it's not odd, because that's the entire point of the Senate. The states are supposed to stand equal in the Senate, while the people stand equal in the House.
I think the point is that after over 200 years of the union, perhaps it's about time to get rid of the federalism.
Quote from: Martinus on July 29, 2012, 12:28:42 PM
I think the point is that after over 200 years of the union, perhaps it's about time to get rid of the federalism.
Then that's a stupid point, as different states and regions still have different interests. The entire point of a Senate is to balance those interests, and that's something that the House is incapable of doing, and the executive won't.
For a country as large and as varied as the US, federalism is the only real option.
Part of the issue with the U.S., is a few minor changes (not even as far reaching as mine) would probably improve things like legislative gridlock--but there is such a massive resistance in this country to any sort of altering of the actual framework of government that it's a total non-starter. I wouldn't want to adopt France's "new constitution every time the sun rises" policy since the 18th century, but there is a legitimate problem when you become so entrenched in a 223 year old document that you're totally unwilling to even think of altering any of the core parts of it.
That's what amendments are for.
Quote from: Neil on July 29, 2012, 10:34:37 AM
Except it's not odd, because that's the entire point of the Senate. The states are supposed to stand equal in the Senate, while the people stand equal in the House.
Which strikes me as a bit silly given that we've states whose total population would be about the size of a city in most other states. Irresponsible granting of statehood.
Quote from: garbon on July 29, 2012, 02:05:07 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 29, 2012, 10:34:37 AM
Except it's not odd, because that's the entire point of the Senate. The states are supposed to stand equal in the Senate, while the people stand equal in the House.
Which strikes me as a bit silly given that we've states whose total population would be about the size of a city in most other states. Irresponsible granting of statehood.
What should the state admission requirements have been?
Quote from: garbon on July 29, 2012, 02:05:07 PM
Which strikes me as a bit silly given that we've states whose total population would be about the size of a city in most other states. Irresponsible granting of statehood.
It strikes me as a bit silly to complain about something that isn't a real problem, and which couldn't be changed anyway because the small states muster enough numbers to block an amendment to strip them of their powers.
The focus should be on problems that are real and which can be fixed. The electoral college problem, for instance, could be solved without a constitutional amendment simply by having states distrubute EC votes according to the popular vote in the state. The filibuster problem could be solved by requiring an actual filibuster, rather than a mere statement of intent.
Quote from: garbon on July 29, 2012, 02:05:07 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 29, 2012, 10:34:37 AM
Except it's not odd, because that's the entire point of the Senate. The states are supposed to stand equal in the Senate, while the people stand equal in the House.
Which strikes me as a bit silly given that we've states whose total population would be about the size of a city in most other states. Irresponsible granting of statehood.
Not especially. The states had to be sized such that they could be conveniently governed. Population wasn't the only factor in granting statehood, nor should it have been. Also, most of the micro-states came in at the creation of the country, so there wasn't much that could be done.
Quote from: grumbler on July 29, 2012, 02:26:23 PM
The electoral college problem, for instance, could be solved without a constitutional amendment simply by having states distrubute EC votes according to the popular vote in the state.
If EC votes just mirror the popular vote, why bother with the EC at all then?
A benign dictatorship under yours truly would work wonders.
Tim at the airport:
Tim: Finally back in America!
Airport Security: Sir, please follow us.
Tim: okay! *skips off with them*
Tim: Disintegration booth?
Airport Security: DEATH TO DWEEBS! HAIL ED!
*zap*
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 29, 2012, 02:35:04 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 29, 2012, 02:26:23 PM
The electoral college problem, for instance, could be solved without a constitutional amendment simply by having states distrubute EC votes according to the popular vote in the state.
If EC votes just mirror the popular vote, why bother with the EC at all then?
There's this thing called the United States Constitution. The rules have to follow it. The EC is in that constitution.
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 29, 2012, 01:30:39 PM
That's what amendments are for.
And Acts of Congress.
Quote from: grumbler on July 29, 2012, 02:45:50 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 29, 2012, 02:35:04 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 29, 2012, 02:26:23 PM
The electoral college problem, for instance, could be solved without a constitutional amendment simply by having states distrubute EC votes according to the popular vote in the state.
If EC votes just mirror the popular vote, why bother with the EC at all then?
There's this thing called the United States Constitution. The rules have to follow it. The EC is in that constitution.
At risk of creating a strawman, I would argue that the likelihood of all the states changing their laws to do such a thing is comparable to the odds of a successful Constitutional amendment that eliminates the EC. :P
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 29, 2012, 03:05:02 PM
At risk of creating a strawman, I would argue that the likelihood of all the states changing their laws to do such a thing is comparable to the odds of a successful Constitutional amendment that eliminates the EC. :P
You actually wouldn't need to get every state to do it. :P Some states have already done it, and it could easily be be encouraged in others by offering a carrot, or even by just portraying it as the honest reform that it is.
Technically you can't fundamentally alter the Senate. There is a prohibition on certain amendments, and Senate apportionment is one of the prohibitions:
QuoteThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
I have no idea how that would work in application, I mean I guess a State could consent to lose its equal Suffrage...but again, it's one of those issues that is such a non-starter in this country that it's never realistically been addressed.
Perhaps I am just skeptical of it as a useful reform, if it is just parroting the direct election.
If there is a major flaw in comparing how the direct election/EC balance works, compared to the Senate/House balance works...it is that the EC wins over the direct election every time (unlike the Senate).
One might argue that the most "democratic" way to reform the EC would to have the names of actual state electors on the ballots along with the Presidential candidates, make them justify themselves to the electorate like any other politician, and let them cast their votes freely.
Of course, that would inflate the craziness level of Presidential elections to an unacceptable level. :P
I would wonder about a State that consents to downgrade its level of Senate suffrage. :hmm:
Maybe they were thinking in terms of a condition of admission for new states?
Quote from: Martinus on July 29, 2012, 12:28:42 PM
I think the point is that after over 200 years of the union, perhaps it's about time to get rid of the federalism.
You of all people should be in favor not making it easier for the majority to steamroll the minority.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 28, 2012, 06:14:01 PMOtto's long post
Why on Earth would you want to cut down on gridlock? You'd have those morons actually up there doing things to us if you did that.
The manner in which you quoted my post has made us mortal enemies. My only goal in life is now to see yours ruined.
Quote from: grumbler on July 29, 2012, 02:26:23 PM
The focus should be on problems that are real and which can be fixed.
Why? As if our banter here on Languish will actually lead to anything. ;)
Quote from: garbon on July 29, 2012, 04:45:05 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 29, 2012, 02:26:23 PM
The focus should be on problems that are real and which can be fixed.
Why? As if our banter here on Languish will actually lead to anything. ;)
:lol: Touche
Quote from: Neil on July 29, 2012, 02:28:06 PM
Not especially. The states had to be sized such that they could be conveniently governed. Population wasn't the only factor in granting statehood, nor should it have been. Also, most of the micro-states came in at the creation of the country, so there wasn't much that could be done.
I'm not talking about micor-states formed at the creation of the country. Hell, even Rhode Island is more populous than Wyoming.
Quote from: garbon on July 29, 2012, 04:49:08 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 29, 2012, 02:28:06 PM
Not especially. The states had to be sized such that they could be conveniently governed. Population wasn't the only factor in granting statehood, nor should it have been. Also, most of the micro-states came in at the creation of the country, so there wasn't much that could be done.
I'm not talking about micor-states formed at the creation of the country. Hell, even Rhode Island is more populous than Wyoming.
They really didn't have much of a way of knowing which states would hit it big when they were carving the west into territories in the mid-19th century.
Yeah, they had some unwieldy-large territories that they knew they'd need to carve up into States. I'm not sure if you could have predicted back then that Wyoming would end up having dramatically less population than say, Idaho, Colorado or Utah. Wyoming does have the potential to eventually outgrow smaller eastern states like Rhode Island or Vermont just because of all that land...never know when an economic boom could happen. New England you can be pretty sure will grow at new stagnation levels probably forever, there's not much that could happen there that would lead to massive influx of people.
The US doesn't need fundamental transformation.. ripping out the foundations by the roots or in latin radii, such a thing that a radical would do.
There is a change going on, it's just not the change the US observers think it is. It's not the instutitions you have that have changed or really need change. What is happening in the US is that US politics are europeanizing, becoming party or cause focused rather than person focused as they were before.
Grover Nordqvist and his tax hating nutjobs along with the Abortion hating nutjobs sort of started it. By making it clear that they would destroy any republican candidate which did not pass their purity test they made sure that every candidate did his level best to pass the purity test. Remember the 10-1 question from the republican debates where every candidate (including my man Huntsman) stated that they would not agree to 10 dollars in tax cuts if they had to increase taxes elsewhere by 1 dollar?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKzGZj32LYc
This is a case of manifesto writing not by committee of party insiders, but rather by think tanks and special interests. This is what the Tea Party is and why I hate it so much. It specifically produces candidates which are prevented from thinking or negotiating.
If you agree to any tax increase, or limitation on free gun access, or vote the wrong way on abortion etc.etc. you get creamed. Note, this is not a purely Republican phenomenon, moveonistas tried to screw over Joe Lieberman (and only succeeded in making him a republican caucusing with democrats); the only real difference is discipline and staying power.
Most european countries have done away with the executive and legislative branches as checks and balances, the upper houses in most parliaments have effectively been done away with (britain by making them irrelevant except as a means of delay and norway where the parliament always sits in joint session and nobody knows who is in which house except politics nerds).
The US still has the institutional checks and balances while it is adding the partisan checks and balances that europe has.
All countries need institutions that fit their politics and vice versa. The US does need to choose though; if you are going to have political parties then you need to learn how to run them for the good of the country; if you are going to return to your older system you will have to figure out how to muzzle your radicals and extremists that are ruining your process.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 29, 2012, 03:48:20 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 28, 2012, 06:14:01 PMOtto's long post
Why on Earth would you want to cut down on gridlock? You'd have those morons actually up there doing things to us if you did that.
Because the purpose of the government is to govern, and not to fail to govern. And you'd be amazed how much better people perform once they actually have some responsibility (i.e. governing).
The Senate is an august body that gives Wyoming its just due. Who cares that this state has only 500k people (less than the county I was born in)? Wyoming deserves the representation since the US government owns half of the land here, and we only get to use our ATVs and guns on it.
Quote from: DGuller on July 29, 2012, 06:24:11 PM
Because the purpose of the government is to govern, and not to fail to govern. And you'd be amazed how much better people perform once they actually have some responsibility (i.e. governing).
The absence of new legislation renders it impossible to govern? The government is not a doctoral candidate you know.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 29, 2012, 06:36:12 PM
The government is not a doctoral candidate you know.
But both don't really have jobs outside of the service sector...
Quote from: Viking on July 29, 2012, 06:24:01 PM
The US doesn't need fundamental transformation.. ripping out the foundations by the roots or in latin radii, such a thing that a radical would do.
There is a change going on, it's just not the change the US observers think it is. It's not the instutitions you have that have changed or really need change. What is happening in the US is that US politics are europeanizing, becoming party or cause focused rather than person focused as they were before.
Grover Nordqvist and his tax hating nutjobs along with the Abortion hating nutjobs sort of started it. By making it clear that they would destroy any republican candidate which did not pass their purity test they made sure that every candidate did his level best to pass the purity test. Remember the 10-1 question from the republican debates where every candidate (including my man Huntsman) stated that they would not agree to 10 dollars in tax cuts if they had to increase taxes elsewhere by 1 dollar?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKzGZj32LYc
This is a case of manifesto writing not by committee of party insiders, but rather by think tanks and special interests. This is what the Tea Party is and why I hate it so much. It specifically produces candidates which are prevented from thinking or negotiating.
If you agree to any tax increase, or limitation on free gun access, or vote the wrong way on abortion etc.etc. you get creamed. Note, this is not a purely Republican phenomenon, moveonistas tried to screw over Joe Lieberman (and only succeeded in making him a republican caucusing with democrats); the only real difference is discipline and staying power.
Most european countries have done away with the executive and legislative branches as checks and balances, the upper houses in most parliaments have effectively been done away with (britain by making them irrelevant except as a means of delay and norway where the parliament always sits in joint session and nobody knows who is in which house except politics nerds).
The US still has the institutional checks and balances while it is adding the partisan checks and balances that europe has.
All countries need institutions that fit their politics and vice versa. The US does need to choose though; if you are going to have political parties then you need to learn how to run them for the good of the country; if you are going to return to your older system you will have to figure out how to muzzle your radicals and extremists that are ruining your process.
the phenomenon you are speaking of a is largely a creature of the American primary system. A good place to start if you want reform.
I think you mispoke in the bolded part. If one does away with both the legislative and executive branches you are not really left with much of a government. Typically the criticism of the Westminster system is that the executive (the PM and cabinet) has taken on too much power and the legislative has become a rubber stamp so long as the governing party holds a majority. Is that what you meant?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 29, 2012, 06:54:10 PM
I think you mispoke in the bolded part. If one does away with both the legislative and executive branches you are not really left with much of a government. Typically the criticism of the Westminster system is that the executive (the PM and cabinet) has taken on too much power and the legislative has become a rubber stamp so long as the governing party holds a majority. Is that what you meant?
Bagehot's 'efficient secret' of the British constitution.
My transformation's rather less dramatic. I suspect we're at a period like the early seventies when the previous governing ideology is failing, and visibly so, in both the UK and the US. I think there'll be a transformation as profound as Thatcherism/Reaganism. I don't know what it'll be or who or when.
Europe is on the edge of an even more profound transformation almost regardless of what happens in the Eurozone crisis.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 29, 2012, 06:36:12 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 29, 2012, 06:24:11 PM
Because the purpose of the government is to govern, and not to fail to govern. And you'd be amazed how much better people perform once they actually have some responsibility (i.e. governing).
The absence of new legislation renders it impossible to govern? The government is not a doctoral candidate you know.
Because clearly there is no need for any legislation right now. :rolleyes: Seriously, if there is one flaw in the American society that would prove to be its undoing, it would be the infantile desire to sabotage their own government, which then results in self-fulfilling prophecy. The rest of the world wouldn't be shooting itself in both feet forever, so we can keep shooting ourselves into one foot for only so long.
Quote from: DGuller on July 29, 2012, 07:21:44 PM
Because clearly there is no need for any legislation right now. :rolleyes:
:lol: You know Guller, the way normal people express the point you're trying to make is "there is some legislation I wish the Congress would pass."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 29, 2012, 07:41:19 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 29, 2012, 07:21:44 PM
Because clearly there is no need for any legislation right now. :rolleyes:
:lol: You know Guller, the way normal people express the point you're trying to make is "there is some legislation I wish the Congress would pass."
:hmm: Good to know.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 29, 2012, 06:54:10 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 29, 2012, 06:24:01 PM
Most european countries have done away with the executive and legislative branches as checks and balances
the phenomenon you are speaking of a is largely a creature of the American primary system. A good place to start if you want reform.
I think you mispoke in the bolded part. If one does away with both the legislative and executive branches you are not really left with much of a government. Typically the criticism of the Westminster system is that the executive (the PM and cabinet) has taken on too much power and the legislative has become a rubber stamp so long as the governing party holds a majority. Is that what you meant?
Note the full text of what I said. They have been done away with as checks and balances; they have not be done away with as existing institutions. When the majority in the legislative branch picks the executive and the legislative is a civil service which and be hired, fired and promoted sideways you don't have checks and balances from any side other than the electorate. e.g. you don't do stupid things because you want to be re-elected.
The primary system works fine when the purpose of the parties is not to implement a party program but rather as a sorting mechanism to make each first past the post contest as interesting as possible. In the british sense doing away with safe seats. It didn't quite work as intended but it did produce conservative democrats and liberal republicans. Once conservative and liberal become synonymous with republican and democrat this no longer works as a sorting mechanism since in "safe seats" the primary becomes the election mechanism.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 29, 2012, 07:04:32 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 29, 2012, 06:54:10 PM
I think you mispoke in the bolded part. If one does away with both the legislative and executive branches you are not really left with much of a government. Typically the criticism of the Westminster system is that the executive (the PM and cabinet) has taken on too much power and the legislative has become a rubber stamp so long as the governing party holds a majority. Is that what you meant?
Bagehot's 'efficient secret' of the British constitution.
My transformation's rather less dramatic. I suspect we're at a period like the early seventies when the previous governing ideology is failing, and visibly so, in both the UK and the US. I think there'll be a transformation as profound as Thatcherism/Reaganism. I don't know what it'll be or who or when.
Europe is on the edge of an even more profound transformation almost regardless of what happens in the Eurozone crisis.
QFT, wise words.
I get the same impression as yours from all sorts of people in different sections of society; there's a great unease, but apathy and no one seems to be articulating a viable way forward, by that I mean a coherent response to Thatcherism and what will replace it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 29, 2012, 07:04:32 PM
I suspect we're at a period like the early seventies when the previous governing ideology is failing, and visibly so, in both the UK and the US. I think there'll be a transformation as profound as Thatcherism/Reaganism. I don't know what it'll be or who or when.
Europe is on the edge of an even more profound transformation almost regardless of what happens in the Eurozone crisis.
It will be interesting to see what comes out of all this - A Federal Europe perhaps.
Quote from: mongers on July 30, 2012, 07:31:37 AM
I get the same impression as yours from all sorts of people in different sections of society; there's a great unease, but apathy and no one seems to be articulating a viable way forward, by that I mean a coherent response to Thatcherism and what will replace it.
Britain already had its response to Thatcherism - The Third Way.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 30, 2012, 10:54:19 AM
Quote from: mongers on July 30, 2012, 07:31:37 AM
I get the same impression as yours from all sorts of people in different sections of society; there's a great unease, but apathy and no one seems to be articulating a viable way forward, by that I mean a coherent response to Thatcherism and what will replace it.
Britain already had its response to Thatcherism - The Third Way.
No one has a coherent response to the question of how to recover from Blairism, and what will replace it.
Quote from: grumbler on July 30, 2012, 12:07:38 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 30, 2012, 10:54:19 AM
Quote from: mongers on July 30, 2012, 07:31:37 AM
I get the same impression as yours from all sorts of people in different sections of society; there's a great unease, but apathy and no one seems to be articulating a viable way forward, by that I mean a coherent response to Thatcherism and what will replace it.
Britain already had its response to Thatcherism - The Third Way.
No one has a coherent response to the question of how to recover from Blairism, and what will replace it.
Yeah, that is the point. Thatcher certainly cannot be blamed for what is going on now as Mongers post seemed to suggest.
Nobody here seems to understand that Blairism is Thatcherism with a kinder gentler less matronly face. Blair made no moves to remove Thatchers changes and reforms and improved on a few of them (in part getting rid of the rotten reek of Foot).
Yeah, as Lord Mandelson put it 'we're all Thatcherites now'. It's like saying Clinton was a rebuke to Reagan.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 30, 2012, 12:16:00 PM
Yeah, as Lord Mandelson put it 'we're all Thatcherites now'. It's like saying Clinton was a rebuke to Reagan.
I see. The Third Way didnt work and that is Maggy's fault?
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 30, 2012, 12:16:00 PM
Yeah, as Lord Mandelson put it 'we're all Thatcherites now'. It's like saying Clinton was a rebuke to Reagan.
Or that Churchill was a rebuke to Chamberlain. Britain under Churchill was still involved in the same war, on the same side, as it had been under Chamberlain.
Quote from: Viking on July 30, 2012, 12:13:15 PM
Nobody here seems to understand that Blairism is Thatcherism with a kinder gentler less matronly face. Blair made no moves to remove Thatchers changes and reforms and improved on a few of them (in part getting rid of the rotten reek of Foot).
I do, that in part was my point; Blairism is Thatcherism-lite as you've also pointed out. And Cameronism is the same policies, ie privatisation, but now by stealth, 'fronted' by that compassionate conservative bloke.
Quote from: mongers on July 30, 2012, 03:29:30 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 30, 2012, 12:13:15 PM
Nobody here seems to understand that Blairism is Thatcherism with a kinder gentler less matronly face. Blair made no moves to remove Thatchers changes and reforms and improved on a few of them (in part getting rid of the rotten reek of Foot).
I do, that in part was my point; Blairism is Thatcherism-lite as you've also pointed out. And Cameronism is the same policies, ie privatisation, but now by stealth, 'fronted' by that compassionate conservative bloke.
It's good that Thatcherism has softened though. Organized labour needed to be taken down for the good of society. Now finance is going to get it.
Quote from: Neil on July 30, 2012, 05:05:35 PM
It's good that Thatcherism has softened though. Organized labour needed to be taken down for the good of society. Now finance is going to get it.
Thatcherism was just good, middle-of-the-road governance with a touch of "tough love." Blair didn't need the tough love, as Thatcher had done that part of the work. I think he put the NHS on a much sounder footing than Thatcher, though, and generally appointed better ministers. Maintaining Thatcherism is just maintaining the kind of government Britain has traditionally had, though. It was the post-WW2 nanny state that was the aberration.
Quote from: Neil on July 30, 2012, 05:05:35 PM
Quote from: mongers on July 30, 2012, 03:29:30 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 30, 2012, 12:13:15 PM
Nobody here seems to understand that Blairism is Thatcherism with a kinder gentler less matronly face. Blair made no moves to remove Thatchers changes and reforms and improved on a few of them (in part getting rid of the rotten reek of Foot).
I do, that in part was my point; Blairism is Thatcherism-lite as you've also pointed out. And Cameronism is the same policies, ie privatisation, but now by stealth, 'fronted' by that compassionate conservative bloke.
It's good that Thatcherism has softened though. Organized labour needed to be taken down for the good of society. Now finance is going to get it.
The problem with pre-Thatcher unions is that they had a veto on economic activity. The problem with finance is that their incentives incentivized them to fuck the system and punters over. You can't solve the finance problem by creating a new veto on economic activity.
I'm actually starting to incline to the Austrian solution here. Regulation itself might not be capable of regulating given the gross imperfection of human planning and the extreme motivation politicians have to meddle. Many small busts and many small personal tragedies are quite possibly much more preferable to the big bust and the moral implications on fairness.
Quote from: Viking on July 30, 2012, 05:15:43 PM
I'm actually starting to incline to the Austrian solution here. Regulation itself might not be capable of regulating given the gross imperfection of human planning and the extreme motivation politicians have to meddle. Many small busts and many small personal tragedies are quite possibly much more preferable to the big bust and the moral implications on fairness.
Resist the temptation.
Gilded age economic history teaches that the busts of hard money laissez faire, while "many," are not "small".
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 30, 2012, 12:27:05 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 30, 2012, 12:16:00 PM
Yeah, as Lord Mandelson put it 'we're all Thatcherites now'. It's like saying Clinton was a rebuke to Reagan.
I see. The Third Way didnt work and that is Maggy's fault?
Not at all. Thatcherism was a necessary corrective to the 1970s. I don't think you can blame Maggie any more than you can blame Attlee for the 1970s. But in the same way as the 70s showed the fraying of the welfare state/post-war consensus/New Dealer era of politics, so I think our current era is showing the weaknesses of the Thatcherite/Reaganite settlement. As I say I don't know what the response will be, I don't know what our next political transformation will be.
Blairism wasn't a major repudiation, or reform of Thatcherism. It was the left coming to terms with that, accepting that it was a necessary response to the social and economic situation at the time. To the extent it changed anything it was in its celebration of diversity and some increase in investment in the public sector.
Quote from: grumbler on July 30, 2012, 01:12:15 PM
Or that Churchill was a rebuke to Chamberlain. Britain under Churchill was still involved in the same war, on the same side, as it had been under Chamberlain.
I must have missed Clinton's 'go, in the name of God go' speech.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 30, 2012, 06:04:12 PM
Gilded age economic history teaches that the busts of hard money laissez faire, while "many," are not "small".
At least Gilded Age politicians had the wherewithal to do something about it with the law.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 30, 2012, 10:53:07 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 29, 2012, 07:04:32 PM
I suspect we're at a period like the early seventies when the previous governing ideology is failing, and visibly so, in both the UK and the US. I think there'll be a transformation as profound as Thatcherism/Reaganism. I don't know what it'll be or who or when.
Europe is on the edge of an even more profound transformation almost regardless of what happens in the Eurozone crisis.
It will be interesting to see what comes out of all this - A Federal Europe perhaps.
one that is unlikely to be carried by the population of that "federal europe". 't wouldn't have the legitimacy to survive I think
Yes (obvious I'd come down on that side).
The way the US treats the constitution like a holy text (and many actually take holy texts seriously) should be gotten rid of. And the way American democracy works is....not great. AV FTW. Or at least they should copy Canada more.
And when Thatcher dies I'm so going on a pilgrimage to piss on her grave. Or I would be if half the country didn't also have that idea, or better, and so there'll be an around the clock police guard. <_<
Quote from: Tyr on July 31, 2012, 09:15:55 AM
Yes (obvious I'd come down on that side).
The way the US treats the constitution like a holy text (and many actually take holy texts seriously) should be gotten rid of. And the way American democracy works is....not great. AV FTW. Or at least they should copy Canada more.
And when Thatcher dies I'm so going on a pilgrimage to piss on her grave. Or I would be if half the country didn't also have that idea, or better, and so there'll be an around the clock police guard. <_<
I'll say it like I've said it a thousand times before - you're an idiot.
Quote from: garbon on July 31, 2012, 09:19:16 AM
I'll say it like I've said it a thousand times before - you're an idiot.
Nothing much more fun than watching a Brit make an ass of himself by completely misunderstanding the concept of a formal constitution, though.
Mongers is an idiot, but he's our village's idiot. We wouldn't be a proper village without him.
What about Jos then? :D
Quote from: Tyr on July 31, 2012, 09:15:55 AM
Yes (obvious I'd come down on that side).
The way the US treats the constitution like a holy text (and many actually take holy texts seriously) should be gotten rid of. And the way American democracy works is....not great. AV FTW. Or at least they should copy Canada more.
And when Thatcher dies I'm so going on a pilgrimage to piss on her grave. Or I would be if half the country didn't also have that idea, or better, and so there'll be an around the clock police guard. <_<
If only all those coal mines were still around :weep:
Quote from: garbon on July 31, 2012, 09:26:46 AM
What about Jos then? :D
He used to be a contender, but then he grew up. He may still say some dumb things, but all of us do that. I find only* mongers can be relied on to say something breathtakingly stupid in the majority of his posts.
*that's assuming, as I do, that Siegy's "dumb" comments are mostly deliberate trolls.
Quote from: Tyr on July 31, 2012, 09:15:55 AM
Yes (obvious I'd come down on that side).
The way the US treats the constitution like a holy text (and many actually take holy texts seriously) should be gotten rid of. And the way American democracy works is....not great. AV FTW. Or at least they should copy Canada more.
And when Thatcher dies I'm so going on a pilgrimage to piss on her grave. Or I would be if half the country didn't also have that idea, or better, and so there'll be an around the clock police guard. <_<
Even if AV wasn't a fundamentally stupid idea designed to enforce single party rule, how in the fuck would it work in a country with only two parties?
I know a lot of people have told you that you're stupid, Jos. They're right.
Quote from: Neil on July 31, 2012, 09:47:54 AM
Even if AV wasn't a fundamentally stupid idea designed to enforce single party rule, how in the fuck would it work in a country with only two parties?
I know a lot of people have told you that you're stupid, Jos. They're right.
It wouldn't. Getting rid of the two party system is a given.
And nope.
-You're stupid.
-No, I'm not!
Quote from: Tyr on July 31, 2012, 09:53:13 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 31, 2012, 09:47:54 AM
Even if AV wasn't a fundamentally stupid idea designed to enforce single party rule, how in the fuck would it work in a country with only two parties?
I know a lot of people have told you that you're stupid, Jos. They're right.
It wouldn't. Getting rid of the two party system is a given.
What's your mechanism for that? Will your solution involve coal mines?
I think AV would automatically lead to the end of two party politics.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 31, 2012, 10:15:30 AM
I think AV would automatically lead to the end of two party politics.
I've no idea but wiki states that the US already has it for local elections in many US locales (including where I lived). I think most winning candidates are still out of the two parties.
Also, looks like attempts to bring it to a state level are usually roundly defeated.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 31, 2012, 10:15:30 AM
I think AV would automatically lead to the end of two party politics.
Why? Everyone already identifies as a Democrat or Republican, and those are the parties that always win just about everything. Also, there is no real party other than those two, as all the other parties are insane.
Quote from: Neil on July 31, 2012, 10:24:48 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 31, 2012, 10:15:30 AM
I think AV would automatically lead to the end of two party politics.
Why? Everyone already identifies as a Democrat or Republican, and those are the parties that always win just about everything. Also, there is no real party other than those two, as all the other parties are insane.
Maybe we'd get new ones if people thought there was a chance they could win. We could have: Neilists.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 31, 2012, 10:15:30 AM
I think AV would automatically lead to the end of two party politics.
Possibly, but only over a fair amount of time. The two-party system is pretty ingrained in funding, regulation of elections, and the minds of the voters.
Quote from: Neil on July 31, 2012, 10:24:48 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 31, 2012, 10:15:30 AM
I think AV would automatically lead to the end of two party politics.
Why? Everyone already identifies as a Democrat or Republican, and those are the parties that always win just about everything. Also, there is no real party other than those two, as all the other parties are insane.
I agree with the point you're making, but FWIW the most recent poll I've seen has 40% of Americans calling themselves Independent, compared to 31% Democrat and 27% Republican. I'd say a good chunk of that 40% would be de facto Democrat or Republican (e.g., Seedy calls himself an Independent but we know which party he favors), but it is an interesting trend.
Quote from: grumbler on July 31, 2012, 10:31:39 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 31, 2012, 10:15:30 AM
I think AV would automatically lead to the end of two party politics.
Possibly, but only over a fair amount of time. The two-party system is pretty ingrained in funding, regulation of elections, and the minds of the voters.
I'm not sure about that. I think that there is a large number of voters who would be willing to vote for a minor party as a top pick, if they knew they wouldn't be wasting their vote. It could quickly snowball from there. I can think of a couple of voter factions in today's politics that are very much in a tenuous marriage of convenience with their current big tent party.
I think open primaries is the way to go, with the top two facing off whichever party they are from. I know this is being tried in some states.
Quote from: DGuller on July 31, 2012, 11:03:14 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 31, 2012, 10:31:39 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 31, 2012, 10:15:30 AM
I think AV would automatically lead to the end of two party politics.
Possibly, but only over a fair amount of time. The two-party system is pretty ingrained in funding, regulation of elections, and the minds of the voters.
I'm not sure about that. I think that there is a large number of voters who would be willing to vote for a minor party as a top pick, if they knew they wouldn't be wasting their vote. It could quickly snowball from there. I can think of a couple of voter factions in today's politics that are very much in a tenuous marriage of convenience with their current big tent party.
I think grumbler is right if you look beyond the top spot. Voters may be open to a moderate unaffiliated candidate like Ross Perot (that can bring their own funding to the table, but how are you going to get 51 senators? Look at the candidate Romney was in Massachusetts: pro choice, rolled out obamacare, etc. If the Republican Party accepts people like him in liberal states, and you have quasi republicans in the South of the US running as democrats, there just isn't much room for another party.
Quote from: DGuller on July 31, 2012, 11:03:14 AM
I'm not sure about that. I think that there is a large number of voters who would be willing to vote for a minor party as a top pick, if they knew they wouldn't be wasting their vote. It could quickly snowball from there. I can think of a couple of voter factions in today's politics that are very much in a tenuous marriage of convenience with their current big tent party.
Neil has a point though that currently our minority picks are pretty crappy. Unless big names quickly ran as their own groups - would there be that big an interest in minority parties?
Quote from: garbon on July 31, 2012, 11:20:01 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 31, 2012, 11:03:14 AM
I'm not sure about that. I think that there is a large number of voters who would be willing to vote for a minor party as a top pick, if they knew they wouldn't be wasting their vote. It could quickly snowball from there. I can think of a couple of voter factions in today's politics that are very much in a tenuous marriage of convenience with their current big tent party.
Neil has a point though that currently our minority picks are pretty crappy. Unless big names quickly ran as their own groups - would there be that big an interest in minority parties?
And what would the incentive be for such a big name to do so when the road to the White House is paved through the two established parties supported, as Grumbler pointed out, by tradition, funding and regulation. It would take a big effort to overcome those obstacles. So if a person has a real shot at the White House why would they encumber themselves with those problems.
That is why the alternative options are often/always poor - they are the ones that never had a real shot in the first place.
Quote from: garbon on July 31, 2012, 11:20:01 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 31, 2012, 11:03:14 AM
I'm not sure about that. I think that there is a large number of voters who would be willing to vote for a minor party as a top pick, if they knew they wouldn't be wasting their vote. It could quickly snowball from there. I can think of a couple of voter factions in today's politics that are very much in a tenuous marriage of convenience with their current big tent party.
Neil has a point though that currently our minority picks are pretty crappy. Unless big names quickly ran as their own groups - would there be that big an interest in minority parties?
It's a chicken and the egg thing. Our current minority parties are doomed to fail, because FPTP system is designed that way. Therefore they don't really attract anyone. With the IRV, real factions like libertarians have a viable alternative to just taking what crumbs Republicans would give them.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 31, 2012, 11:19:16 AM
I think grumbler is right if you look beyond the top spot. Voters may be open to a moderate unaffiliated candidate like Ross Perot (that can bring their own funding to the table, but how are you going to get 51 senators?
By coalition or caucusing.
Quote from: DGuller on July 31, 2012, 11:03:14 AM
I'm not sure about that. I think that there is a large number of voters who would be willing to vote for a minor party as a top pick, if they knew they wouldn't be wasting their vote. It could quickly snowball from there. I can think of a couple of voter factions in today's politics that are very much in a tenuous marriage of convenience with their current big tent party.
There are, indeed, a large number of voters who are willing to cast a vote for a minor party. I don't think "wasting their vote" stops them.
The problem, as I see it, is that these third-party candidates don't get the funding to compete on a level larger than, say, the county level. There are voters willing to waste their votes, but not funders willing to waste their money. That, and the blocks the two parties can put in the path of any serious third party in terms of registration requirements and the like, will take some time for a credible third party to overcome.
Quote from: grumbler on July 31, 2012, 11:34:57 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 31, 2012, 11:03:14 AM
I'm not sure about that. I think that there is a large number of voters who would be willing to vote for a minor party as a top pick, if they knew they wouldn't be wasting their vote. It could quickly snowball from there. I can think of a couple of voter factions in today's politics that are very much in a tenuous marriage of convenience with their current big tent party.
There are, indeed, a large number of voters who are willing to cast a vote for a minor party. I don't think "wasting their vote" stops them.
The problem, as I see it, is that these third-party candidates don't get the funding to compete on a level larger than, say, the county level. There are voters willing to waste their votes, but not funders willing to waste their money. That, and the blocks the two parties can put in the path of any serious third party in terms of registration requirements and the like, will take some time for a credible third party to overcome.
Again, it's chicken and the egg. Third parties are doomed, so no one really bothers to get themselves invested. After the first election with IRV, where suddenly a large chunk of the votes go outside the top two parties, viable alternatives platforms can quickly appear. In the Northeast, I can see a number of purged Republicans running on the "Lucid Republicans" party line and dropping the main GOP candidates to the third spot.
Quote from: DGuller on July 31, 2012, 11:28:49 AM
With the IRV, real factions like libertarians have a viable alternative to just taking what crumbs Republicans would give them.
My post wasn't about viability. Libertarian parties are still disgusting even if electable.
Quote from: DGuller on July 31, 2012, 11:49:13 AM
After the first election with IRV, where suddenly a large chunk of the votes go outside the top two parties, viable alternatives platforms can quickly appear.
I don't see why this would happen though. At the first election that is.
Quote from: garbon on July 31, 2012, 10:26:05 AM
Maybe we'd get new ones if people thought there was a chance they could win. We could have: Neilists.
Neilism is unconstitutional. They'd be coming for your guns, and most of their punishments are cruel and/or unusual.
New parties need not come from the ground up. I'd imagine a lot of it will come from splits within the existing parties. The more leftwards democrats and rightwards democrats running against each other- telling their supporters to put them first but the other democrat as a decent second choice who their colleagues would be more than willing to work with should it come down to it.
The incentives exist in Westminster systems for minor parties because of the possibility of entering a coalition government. There are no incentives in the US system for minor parties except for expressing ideological purity/single interests. A Bernie Saunders or Whatshisname the Jew traitor have nothing to gain and everything to lose in terms of committee assignments and seniority by announcing themselves members of a third party and no longer caucusing with the Democrats.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 31, 2012, 07:50:08 PM
The incentives exist in Westminster systems for minor parties because of the possibility of entering a coalition government. There are no incentives in the US system for minor parties except for expressing ideological purity/single interests. A Bernie Saunders or Whatshisname the Jew traitor have nothing to gain and everything to lose in terms of committee assignments and seniority by announcing themselves members of a third party and no longer caucusing with the Democrats.
That can be overcome. Seniority rules, AFAIK, are just a tradition. Committee assignments, or just mutual recognition of seniority, could be part of an agreement between the two parties that want to caucus into 51+ Senate votes.
Quote from: DGuller on July 31, 2012, 08:21:09 PM
That can be overcome. Seniority rules, AFAIK, are just a tradition. Committee assignments, or just mutual recognition of seniority, could be part of an agreement between the two parties that want to caucus into 51+ Senate votes.
The two parties that want to what now?
You need to think about committee chairmanships. Right now majority party gets them all.
What worries me is that we have two parties, and which ever one has the majority controls most everything. Controls all the committees, controls if legisltation comes up for a vote, controls if an investigation of wrong doing can be brought to bear, just about everything. I feel that the minorit party should have more power.
Then I worry that we'll go for a long stretch with either party in power and that party will hold all the cards. That's worrisome. We've been lucky that, at least on the national level, the Dems and Repubs are pretty evenly balanced, trading places for the top spot every now and then.
We see one party rule at the State level in some states. In Massachusetts the last three Speakers of the House have been convicted of crimes, at least one of them in prison. Now the current Speaker may be under scrutiny as more Federal investigations hit the State for various issues. Frigging Mass system is broken, mainly because there's no one really holding the party in power to task, no strong counter balance.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 31, 2012, 08:36:36 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 31, 2012, 08:21:09 PM
That can be overcome. Seniority rules, AFAIK, are just a tradition. Committee assignments, or just mutual recognition of seniority, could be part of an agreement between the two parties that want to caucus into 51+ Senate votes.
The two parties that want to what now?
You need to think about committee chairmanships. Right now majority party gets them all.
:rolleyes: That's what I said. You need 51 seats in the Senate to be considered a majority, with all the perks attached. Obviously that's easy enough to accomplish with two parties, but with more parties, none of them may have that number. Therefore, you would need a couple of parties to caucus together, so that their combined numbers would have 51+ seats.
This concept is already in force now, with Lieberman and Vermont socialist being sort of like parties of their own caucusing with Democrats. While Democrats right now don't need to give Lieberman any chairmanships, you bet your ass Lieberman would chair something good if Democrats were one seat short of the Senate majority, regardless of his seniority.
I don't think you're right Yi, or you're confusing Euro systems with Westminster. This is the UK's first peacetime coalition in ninety years, and there weren't many before then. Similarly other Westminster countries like Canada and Australia have more of a history of one party governments. I don't think that's the incentive at all.
My point on PR, which I'm not totally sold on, is that aside from history and the system, there's no reason why Sununu and Palin are in the same party. With PR small parties have a chance.
In terms of strucure of US politics the problem is your system is designed for coalition, consensus, negotiation (like Europe) while your political culture is argumentative, partisan and confrontational (like Westminster). I don't know that PR or whatever else would change that because I think Anglo-American political culture is disputatious by nature.
I recall seeing something back during the AV debacle in the UK about past British governments which showed that though we haven't had much in the way of true coalitions of the years we have came very close indeed. Weak minorities far outnumbering strong ones.
And yeah, thats a big problem with the US system. It was designed assuming that the people in government would be good representatives of their communities working together for the betterment of the country, not true politicians in the nastiest sense of the word. The UK at least quite solidly recognises in the fundamentals of the system the idea that there is a government and an opposition (as undesirable as this may be).
Its strange really to compare American politics to British politics. Whereas in Britain we have a fight for the centre, both parties trying to become ever more mellow and least undesirable, in America you instead have the parties far more heading to the extremes (well, the republicans anyway). I guess the thing is that American politicians are far more individual and have to appeal to their party whilst British politicians are more collective and the party wants to appeal to the general population.
I'm not big on PR. I like the constituency link. I really believe AV to be the best and most representative voting system.
Quote from: Neil on July 31, 2012, 11:56:15 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 31, 2012, 10:26:05 AM
Maybe we'd get new ones if people thought there was a chance they could win. We could have: Neilists.
Neilism is unconstitutional. They'd be coming for your guns, and most of their punishments are cruel and/or unusual.
but the dreadnaughts make up for it, not?
Quote from: Tyr on August 01, 2012, 12:38:28 AM
I really believe AV to be the best and most representative voting system.
Or at least the one that would benefit Labour the most, and that's what's important to you.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 01, 2012, 04:15:27 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 31, 2012, 11:56:15 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 31, 2012, 10:26:05 AM
Maybe we'd get new ones if people thought there was a chance they could win. We could have: Neilists.
Neilism is unconstitutional. They'd be coming for your guns, and most of their punishments are cruel and/or unusual.
but the dreadnaughts make up for it, not?
Can you imagine the dreadnoughts I could build with the US military budget? Especially once I've forced socialized medicine on them and increased taxes so there's more money to play with?
Quote from: Neil on August 01, 2012, 07:39:00 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 01, 2012, 04:15:27 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 31, 2012, 11:56:15 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 31, 2012, 10:26:05 AM
Maybe we'd get new ones if people thought there was a chance they could win. We could have: Neilists.
Neilism is unconstitutional. They'd be coming for your guns, and most of their punishments are cruel and/or unusual.
but the dreadnaughts make up for it, not?
Can you imagine the dreadnoughts I could build with the US military budget? Especially once I've forced socialized medicine on them and increased taxes so there's more money to play with?
:cry: glorious
Quote from: Neil on July 31, 2012, 11:56:15 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 31, 2012, 10:26:05 AM
Maybe we'd get new ones if people thought there was a chance they could win. We could have: Neilists.
Neilism is unconstitutional. They'd be coming for your guns, and most of their punishments are cruel and/or unusual.
I don't have any guns.
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2012, 10:09:46 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 31, 2012, 11:56:15 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 31, 2012, 10:26:05 AM
Maybe we'd get new ones if people thought there was a chance they could win. We could have: Neilists.
Neilism is unconstitutional. They'd be coming for your guns, and most of their punishments are cruel and/or unusual.
I don't have any guns.
Unwise. Obama will just take your organs instead.
Quote from: The Brain on August 01, 2012, 12:52:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2012, 10:09:46 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 31, 2012, 11:56:15 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 31, 2012, 10:26:05 AM
Maybe we'd get new ones if people thought there was a chance they could win. We could have: Neilists.
Neilism is unconstitutional. They'd be coming for your guns, and most of their punishments are cruel and/or unusual.
I don't have any guns.
Unwise. Obama will just take your organs instead.
I already requested to be reviewed by a death panel.
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2012, 12:59:19 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 01, 2012, 12:52:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2012, 10:09:46 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 31, 2012, 11:56:15 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 31, 2012, 10:26:05 AM
Maybe we'd get new ones if people thought there was a chance they could win. We could have: Neilists.
Neilism is unconstitutional. They'd be coming for your guns, and most of their punishments are cruel and/or unusual.
I don't have any guns.
Unwise. Obama will just take your organs instead.
I already requested to be reviewed by a death panel.
:console:
Quote from: The Brain on August 01, 2012, 12:52:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2012, 10:09:46 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 31, 2012, 11:56:15 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 31, 2012, 10:26:05 AM
Maybe we'd get new ones if people thought there was a chance they could win. We could have: Neilists.
Neilism is unconstitutional. They'd be coming for your guns, and most of their punishments are cruel and/or unusual.
I don't have any guns.
Unwise. Obama will just take your organs instead.
sucks if you like to play Bach
Quote from: Neil on August 01, 2012, 07:37:04 AM
Quote from: Tyr on August 01, 2012, 12:38:28 AM
I really believe AV to be the best and most representative voting system.
Or at least the one that would benefit Labour the most, and that's what's important to you.
Benefit the left in Britain the most certainly. And yes, that is important to me. Labour I don't really care about and as a party it would lead to their splitting.
Quote from: Tyr on August 01, 2012, 07:52:30 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 01, 2012, 07:37:04 AM
Quote from: Tyr on August 01, 2012, 12:38:28 AM
I really believe AV to be the best and most representative voting system.
Or at least the one that would benefit Labour the most, and that's what's important to you.
Benefit the left in Britain the most certainly. And yes, that is important to me. Labour I don't really care about and as a party it would lead to their splitting.
And that's why people should take your word for it, because the political left it bad for Britain. The political left stands for republicanism, solidarity with Europe and class warfare. Because of the bonds of affection that tie the former Empire together, it would be sad to see a guilotine in Piccadilly, and Euro-induced poverty in the mother country.
We need to preserve America, as the sole superpower.
All other powers that have ever existed have been faaaaaaaaaaaaaar worst.
Quote from: Siege on August 01, 2012, 08:25:56 PM
We need to preserve America, as the sole superpower.
All other powers that have ever existed have been faaaaaaaaaaaaaar worst.
That ship has sailed. The age of the superpowers is over.
Quote from: Neil on August 01, 2012, 08:30:05 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 01, 2012, 08:25:56 PM
We need to preserve America, as the sole superpower.
All other powers that have ever existed have been faaaaaaaaaaaaaar worst.
That ship has sailed. The age of the superpowers is over.
I didn;t waste my time reading that book, "The Rise of The Rest".
America still smokes everybody else, despite Obama.
Quote from: Siege on August 01, 2012, 08:32:32 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 01, 2012, 08:30:05 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 01, 2012, 08:25:56 PM
We need to preserve America, as the sole superpower.
All other powers that have ever existed have been faaaaaaaaaaaaaar worst.
That ship has sailed. The age of the superpowers is over.
I didn;t waste my time reading that book, "The Rise of The Rest".
America still smokes everybody else, despite Obama.
Not at all. America picks their fights very carefully now. Only the weakest countries are chosen for attack, whereas middling countries like Iran and North Korea are immune to the US.
Quote from: Neil on August 01, 2012, 08:47:45 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 01, 2012, 08:32:32 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 01, 2012, 08:30:05 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 01, 2012, 08:25:56 PM
We need to preserve America, as the sole superpower.
All other powers that have ever existed have been faaaaaaaaaaaaaar worst.
That ship has sailed. The age of the superpowers is over.
I didn;t waste my time reading that book, "The Rise of The Rest".
America still smokes everybody else, despite Obama.
Not at all. America picks their fights very carefully now. Only the weakest countries are chosen for attack, whereas middling countries like Iran and North Korea are immune to the US.
Because they are not perceived as existancionall threats.
American wars since WW2 have been war of choices, and we all know democracies suck at fighting war of choices. Still have been rather succesfull at it.
Any country that is an existential threat to the US is safe from US attack, because those countries have atomic weapons.