EPTTownhall debate LR thread - Page 3
| Blogs > Shady Sands |
|
Heh_
Singapore2712 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18864 Posts
On October 18 2012 06:06 Heh_ wrote: I have no idea how many sarcasm detectors are broken in this thread, but I was being (relatively) serious. Singapore's political system may not be optimal, but it's certainly not dysfunctional. It is silly to juxtapose political considerations that are potentially exclusive to the dynamics of Singapore over top the political dysfunction of the United States. I mean, do I really need the list the differences between the two nations? Suggesting that the US take a note out of Singapore's book really ought to be nothing more than a joke. | ||
|
Chargelot
2275 Posts
On October 18 2012 06:06 Heh_ wrote: I have no idea how many sarcasm detectors are broken in this thread, but I was being (relatively) serious. Singapore's political system may not be optimal, but it's certainly not dysfunctional. But if it were to fail, there wouldn't be much of an alternative with a single party system. You'd be stuck with the same dysfunctional oppressive government party for a few decades until revolution came to save the day. | ||
|
Heh_
Singapore2712 Posts
| ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
On October 18 2012 07:05 Heh_ wrote: Yeah, Singapore is not the US. But when I see the Democrats and Republicans arguing for the sake of arguing, I wanna facepalm. At least in a one-party system you actually get decisions made. And it has worked exceedingly well. If the government started to suck, I'm pretty sure better opposition candidates will appear. The current opposition mostly sucks, with the exception of 1 or 2. Here I'll answer your post straight-up. The effectiveness of a government is less a function of what form it takes than a function of things like per capita GDP, geographic size, and ethnic diversity. Put bluntly, large, poor, diverse nations are difficult for any political system to rule effectively--just look at how fucked up India, Russia, and China have been throughout their histories. Look at how those nations have taken every good political idea and ideal (democracy, communism, free markets) and fumbled it to a degree. Now look at nations like Dubai, Qatar, Liechtenstein, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, Luxembourg. All nations with hugely varying systems of government (everything from Islamic emirates to military dictatorship-->democracy to technocracies) but who all have more or less "made it" to the First World. All of these nations had one major advantage: it is easy for a enlightened group of folks to make a good impact on their country, because it was so damn small, and in the case of 4 of those 6 (all but Sing and Luxembourg) the country was ethnically homogeneous. In this regard, the US is actually doing pretty damn well compared to other large, ethnically heterogeneous states. Of course, this is because the US has the unique advantage in that everyone who lives here came here because they wanted to or were born to parents that did. This is a huge. And even so, the US still had a (extremely) bloody civil war and institutionalized corruption (machine politics) for most of its history. But that's still a whole lot better than what other large mixed-up states have been through. Why does the US behave this way? There are a multitude of reasons, but one stands out to me (based on my observations as a Chinese kid growing up here). Many of the quirks of US politics: the electoral college; the Senate with non-proportionate representation; the completely separate Executive branch from the Legislature--represent, by accident or design, advantages for national, as opposed to provincial, political parties. In no state in the United States will you find Republicans outnumbering Democrats by a ratio higher than 65-35, or vice versa. This is what keeps America from falling apart. (And yes, I know, even with all these advantages for national parties the current 2-party system didn't come into play until after the Civil War.) Why that digression? Because it illustrates why the US has its political inefficiencies: they're necessary to avoid the far more dangerous phenomena of armed dissension and secession. Given how much animosity the average American holds towards Washington DC, and how powerful corporations are here, I can assure you that were the US try to become as "efficient" as Singapore, all we would see is a United States as corrupt as China and as divided as Russia. | ||
|
Heh_
Singapore2712 Posts
| ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
5/5 OP, excellent analysis. | ||
|
Micro_Jackson
Germany2002 Posts
Well yea i missed that but i have an excuse: Some years ago i met a college football coach and the first thing he showed was "heil Hitler" with an extended arm to the sky and a smile on his face. I was shocked that he was really thinking Hitler is still alive and leading germany. After that i talked with some of his players and their knowledge of this time were just incredible poor. My favorite sentence of this conversation was: "I thought most of the germans who are living now likes the holocaust". !?!.... so excuse me if i miss some sarcasm because i have some bad experience with the US history knowledge. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8117 Posts
On October 17 2012 19:29 Temerarious Trout wrote: What do you think about Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate? Please don't, thanks. ~the rest of the world | ||
|
HowitZer
United States1610 Posts
On October 18 2012 18:07 Biff The Understudy wrote: Please don't, thanks. ~the rest of the world Why would I care about what someone from France thinks about who our president should be? Do you care who I think your president should be? | ||
|
Temerarious Trout
174 Posts
On October 18 2012 18:07 Biff The Understudy wrote: Please don't, thanks. ~the rest of the world Could you be more specific as to why? | ||
|
levelping
Singapore759 Posts
On October 18 2012 12:17 Heh_ wrote: Well, I guess your post answered me pretty comprehensively. Yeah there are political inefficiencies, but imo they've grown to such a huge size that it becomes really pointless. Yes, the 2-party system holds the power of the US in a balance, but there are many things that could be done better... I would like to chime in as a fellow Singaporean here. While our system has been good at getting stuff done, we've sacrificed a lot of other things along the way (like how a third or more of the people in this country aren't local). And even with the "getting stuff done" bit... I thinkthat the recent wave of issues have shown that no one party, even one as good as the PAP can operate alone and not get complacent/out of touch. As for America, I dunno. I watch the debates, I look at some of the blatantly bias coverage (not limited to fox, but fox really is bad), and I have to admit that with a system so dead locked there is no way the constitution can be amended to update or clear out some of the antiquitied systems that are in place. And the gutter politics... Just gets worse each year. The only thing that might help is to balance out society a bit more so people can understand each other and emphatize. Becuase st times the us seems to be a county with two liberal coasts and a swathe of conservatives in the middle and no one is talking meaningfully to each other. | ||
|
NrG.Bamboo
United States2756 Posts
On October 17 2012 19:29 Temerarious Trout wrote: What do you think about Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate? It's unfortunate that in some states (such as mine, Oklahoma) you can't even write in votes, and the ballot will only have the nominees from 2 parties. You're kind of forced into a shitty decision. | ||
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
On October 18 2012 17:16 USvBleakill wrote: Well yea i missed that but i have an excuse: Some years ago i met a college football coach and the first thing he showed was "heil Hitler" with an extended arm to the sky and a smile on his face. I was shocked that he was really thinking Hitler is still alive and leading germany. After that i talked with some of his players and their knowledge of this time were just incredible poor. My favorite sentence of this conversation was: "I thought most of the germans who are living now likes the holocaust". !?!.... so excuse me if i miss some sarcasm because i have some bad experience with the US history knowledge. Wait.... what? Wow.... what... I just...... wow. Wenn der Mensch spinnt, dann gibt er ein Zeichen. (When the man is nuts, then he'll give a sign) | ||
|
KosQ
Germany223 Posts
On October 19 2012 00:37 Fyrewolf wrote: Wait.... what? Wow.... what... I just...... wow. Wenn der Mensch spinnt, dann gibt er ein Zeichen. (When the man is nuts, then he'll give a sign) Haha had the same situation many times in Canada, always funny to be asked "Is Hitler still alive?" as a kid... To the OP - I watched the full debate and, from an outsiders point of view, I found it very amusing to watch.I'm not gonna get started on the 2-party system but how can you take a politician seriouly whose answer on economics consists of "I know what it takes to create jobs/lower the deficit/whatever". I broke out laughing when I realized hes just not going to tell us and keeps repeating the phrase. The whole rivalry between the candidates/parties denies any real solving of problems in my opinion - I don't think any candidate whose main concept is demoting the other party instead of solving issues would ever get many votes where I live... But then again, 2 different countries and therefor not compareable... Ok, I lost track of where I wanted to go with this, go Obama  | ||
|
EffervescentAureola
United States410 Posts
On a side note, the brunette girl in the blue shirt who asked Romney the question about gender inequality (where Romney talked about binders full of women) is seriously cute and attractive. Googled her, her name is Katherine Fenton. Towards the end of the debate, the kept showing a Hispanic girl in a white top with nice legs and long black hair and red lipstick. It was cute how she kept checking herself out when she was on camera in the background with Obama or Romney talking in the front. | ||
|
Klonere
Ireland4123 Posts
On October 18 2012 20:47 HowitZer wrote: Why would I care about what someone from France thinks about who our president should be? Do you care who I think your president should be? Because like it or not, the decision made in the White House, Congress etc can have absolutely titanic effects on the rest of the world. | ||
|
Micro_Jackson
Germany2002 Posts
On October 19 2012 09:23 Klonere wrote: Because like it or not, the decision made in the White House, Congress etc can have absolutely titanic effects on the rest of the world. The world is just afraid that someone like Sarah Palin or Paul Ryan is / was so close to control nuclear missiles. Deregulate the banks or i bring you doom wuuhuuu  . | ||
|
KurtistheTurtle
United States1966 Posts
My gripe is with the use of numbers. I understand it's a debate where they aren't allowed to take notes, but without good journalists or a debate format which can contextualize and explain numbers, don't use them! The reason why is that they're actually making moral arguments against each other about the role of gov't. Don't use numbers to make moral arguments, just make the moral arguments! $700 billion from health care (I'd dig up the kaiser family foundation report but it says the same thing). ![[image loading]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Wlqai1T6fvA/UGYQHLvaGWI/AAAAAAAAAEY/B7Lud6LYIGA/s400/cbo+medicare+cut+image.png) Where this number's going and how it will affect service for seniors is COMPLETELY open to interpretation...unless you read the law and know how the health care industry currently works. ![[image loading]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8cJChpm5Nt0/UGYpYUVXxuI/AAAAAAAAAEw/2LPbgaU6D7w/s400/healthcare+home+benefits.png) Or Twelve Million Jobs... | ||
| ||
