On October 17 2012 10:43 Chargelot wrote: Romney continues to not understand basic mathematics. Obama continues to not understand what a debate is.
Everything is normal, continue with your life.
Obama's debate strategy is to basically make abstract thoughts and then call out Romney, and then make really esoteric statements. Romney's debate strategy is to continue to be unable to do addition
Romney continues to pretend that he will put the US at 3% unemployment (that's around where his "12 million jobs" claims would leave us) in 4 years using the power of reaganomics.
If anything, I liked it when they were both about to whip me out and have a fight for their manhood when Romney got full of himself.
Now it's boring, Romney portrays himself as doing something good and says that's different from Obama. Obama says him and Romney are doing similar things but obamas way is better....
On October 17 2012 10:43 Chargelot wrote: Romney continues to not understand basic mathematics. Obama continues to not understand what a debate is.
Everything is normal, continue with your life.
Obama's debate strategy is to basically make abstract thoughts and then call out Romney, and then make really esoteric statements. Romney's debate strategy is to continue to be unable to do addition
On October 17 2012 10:43 Chargelot wrote: Romney continues to not understand basic mathematics. Obama continues to not understand what a debate is.
Everything is normal, continue with your life.
Obama's debate strategy is to basically make abstract thoughts and then call out Romney, and then make really esoteric statements. Romney's debate strategy is to continue to be unable to do addition
LOL this is a clever use of both domain name and computer trickery!
I think he's a featured blogger, it's not done on an individual post basis but rather he's consistently posted good stuff, so he shows up in the featured blog bar.
On October 17 2012 14:50 Liquid`Jinro wrote: I think he's a featured blogger, it's not done on an individual post basis but rather he's consistently posted good stuff, so he shows up in the featured blog bar.
Just a suggestion, if I may - Let Featured Bloggers have the option to post blogs that will show up in the Featured section or not to show up in the Featured section.
Shady Sands is an absolutely top-notch writer and has shown that he has the ability to produce very high-quality blogs, but this particular one isn't deserving of a place in the Featured Blogs section, and I am sure Shady Sands agrees with me on this point.
This "debate" has one clear winner: Candy Crowley, she made an awesome job.
As a German/european i cannot believe that this is such a close race, i mean you have a Nobel Peace Prize winner on one side and a "well i´m rich so i know how to make a good economy" on the other side. In most of the democratic countries in the western world they would get destroyed for all the half - truth they tell all the time.
Besides i have a question to the Americans: How the hell can you accept an election system like this? I mean you vote for some guy that votes for you the president, but it doesn´t matters for the most because only a handful of states really matters and in these states if it´s 51% to 49% the winner takes it all. And well you can win with less votes. Am i missing something? Because in my opinion thats ridiculously stupid.
On October 17 2012 21:31 USvBleakill wrote: This "debate" has one clear winner: Candy Crowley, she made an awesome job.
As a German/european i cannot believe that this is such a close race, i mean you have a Nobel Peace Prize winner on one side and a "well i´m rich so i know how to make a good economy" on the other side. In most of the democratic countries in the western world they would get destroyed for all the half - truth they tell all the time.
Besides i have a question to the Americans: How the hell can you accept an election system like this? I mean you vote for some guy that votes for you the president, but it doesn´t matters for the most because only a handful of states really matters and in these states if it´s 51% to 49% the winner takes it all. And well you can win with less votes. Am i missing something? Because in my opinion thats ridiculously stupid.
Yes, the electoral college makes no sense to me either.
What ends up happening is that states which are closely contested end up receiving disproportionate amounts of federal aid over time, as that state becomes politically important no matter which party holds power. This fucks with everything from US agricultural policy (hello Iowa corn farmers!) to US policy towards Cuba (the Cuban emigre vote in Florida), as small clumps of voters in certain states wind up with outsized impacts on national politics.
On October 17 2012 21:31 USvBleakill wrote: Besides i have a question to the Americans: How the hell can you accept an election system like this? I mean you vote for some guy that votes for you the president, but it doesn´t matters for the most because only a handful of states really matters and in these states if it´s 51% to 49% the winner takes it all. And well you can win with less votes. Am i missing something? Because in my opinion thats ridiculously stupid.
Well, when the US was founded several hundred years ago, the electoral college was a great idea to give some representation to the smaller states, like Rhode Island and Delaware, so the larger states, such as Virginia, couldn't just vote in whomever they pleased. Of note, four of our first five presidents were from, Virginia, so take that as you will.
Nowadays, since the system is entrenched, no one's going to either harm themselves by outing the system or be a martyr and commit political suicide and attempt to get a bunch of other people to commit political suicide to remove it.
I feel bad for the poor bastards who played any debate drinking game with "take a shot every time Romney uses a list of points in an answer."
It´s just hard to understand how the republics gets away with so many things. If Angela Merkel (btw. she is very popular in germany at the moment and will most likely "win" the next election with her party) would say "i don´t care about 47% of the germans because they dont pay taxes and dont vote me" she would be political dead in a day.
And 95% of the debate are just about Economy and jobs. Arab Spring, Nukes at Iran, € Euro crisis, Global Warming (!!!) bahhh who cares i give you more Jobs with reducing the taxes for rich people wuhuu.
i´m sorry i don´t want to insult somebody but americans looking a little "dumb" in politics.
TL:DR You're missing that the electoral college is functionally unchangeable. It's bad, but nothing can be done because of the power of small and/or swing states to stop any amendment removing it.
I know what you mean, in any democratic process it´s tough to change things that are this "old".
Everyone i asked (i have some friends in NY) says "well most of the US hates the elecetion college and want it to be changed" but, i never never read something like "5.000 students protest against the... 20.000 Texan Democratic Party member protest against the election college because their votes are meaningless...".
Is this a mentality thing or is there just no report by german speaking newspapers?
On October 17 2012 23:27 USvBleakill wrote: It´s just hard to understand how the republics gets away with so many things. If Angela Merkel (btw. she is very popular in germany at the moment and will most likely "win" the next election with her party) would say "i don´t care about 47% of the germans because they dont pay taxes and dont vote me" she would be political dead in a day.
And 95% of the debate are just about Economy and jobs. Arab Spring, Nukes at Iran, € Euro crisis, Global Warming (!!!) bahhh who cares i give you more Jobs with reducing the taxes for rich people wuhuu.
i´m sorry i don´t want to insult somebody but americans looking a little "dumb" in politics.
To be honest, in Europe at least, american politics is known to be the epitome of superficiality. Your 47% example is indeed pretty impressive. Someone saying that in France would be dead politically in a matter of hours.
TL:DR You're missing that the electoral college is functionally unchangeable. It's bad, but nothing can be done because of the power of small and/or swing states to stop any amendment removing it.
I know what you mean, in any democratic process it´s tough to change things that are this "old".
Everyone i asked (i have some friends in NY) says "well most of the US hates the elecetion college and want it to be changed" but, i never never read something like "5.000 students protest against the... 20.000 Texan Democratic Party member protest against the election college because their votes are meaningless...".
Is this a mentality thing or is there just no report by german speaking newspapers?
Maybe texas democrats and such are protesting, I don't know. I don't hear about it, but even if they are it's irrelevant because of something I didn't think of before. The people who make the decisions in texas are republicans. The republicans hold a majority in both state houses, and there's no reason to think they'd lose them. And those republicans don't want Texas democrat's votes to count, because it's bad for their party. The same is true of new york or california democrats not wanting their republican votes to count. In short, people dislike the electoral college itself, but there are enough people in power who get more power from it who may not like it in the general sense but like their power that it can't be changed. The answer to you question is basically I don't know and it's irrelevant anyway.
for a country that claims to be the best democracy in the world it sounds... well sad.
Am i understanding you right that you are saying "the americans dont protest because it´s irrelevant as long the people with power don´t want it?"
I'll see your criticism of american politics and raise you one Berlusconi. Seriously, wtf is with that guy. But yeah, our political system can be bad sometimes.
On October 17 2012 23:27 USvBleakill wrote: It´s just hard to understand how the republics gets away with so many things. If Angela Merkel (btw. she is very popular in germany at the moment and will most likely "win" the next election with her party) would say "i don´t care about 47% of the germans because they dont pay taxes and dont vote me" she would be political dead in a day.
And 95% of the debate are just about Economy and jobs. Arab Spring, Nukes at Iran, € Euro crisis, Global Warming (!!!) bahhh who cares i give you more Jobs with reducing the taxes for rich people wuhuu.
i´m sorry i don´t want to insult somebody but americans looking a little "dumb" in politics.
To be honest, in Europe at least, american politics is known to be the epitome of superficiality. Your 47% example is indeed pretty impressive. Someone saying that in France would be dead politically in a matter of hours.
I'll see your criticism of american politics and raise you one Berlusconi. Seriously, wtf is with that guy. But yeah, our political system can be bad sometimes.
Well at least Berlusconi owns his own media and the left sucks in Italy since 90's. Like Prodi was decent but the left is to divided to govern and when you've a center-left far-left coalition in a parlementiary system it fails hard (Berlusconi won multiple times because he never had an unified coalition behind an opponent). Still it's a shame for Italy imo but i'm not the judge . The problem for you imo is that both democrats and republican sucks (not Berlusconi's lvl maybe because sex isn't allowed :D) and since they're 100% sure they'll win the election at some point none have them have any interest to change the system.
but yeah the cultural gap is pretty huge, our former president Chirac had a bazillion love affair, everyone knew it and nobody gave a shit about it, Clinton got in pretty big problem for Monica... :D
On October 17 2012 10:43 Chargelot wrote: Romney continues to not understand basic mathematics. Obama continues to not understand what a debate is.
Everything is normal, continue with your life.
Obama's debate strategy is to basically make abstract thoughts and then call out Romney, and then make really esoteric statements. Romney's debate strategy is to continue to be unable to do addition
On October 17 2012 14:50 Liquid`Jinro wrote: I think he's a featured blogger, it's not done on an individual post basis but rather he's consistently posted good stuff, so he shows up in the featured blog bar.
Just a suggestion, if I may - Let Featured Bloggers have the option to post blogs that will show up in the Featured section or not to show up in the Featured section.
Shady Sands is an absolutely top-notch writer and has shown that he has the ability to produce very high-quality blogs, but this particular one isn't deserving of a place in the Featured Blogs section, and I am sure Shady Sands agrees with me on this point.
On October 17 2012 23:27 USvBleakill wrote: It´s just hard to understand how the republics gets away with so many things. If Angela Merkel (btw. she is very popular in germany at the moment and will most likely "win" the next election with her party) would say "i don´t care about 47% of the germans because they dont pay taxes and dont vote me" she would be political dead in a day.
And 95% of the debate are just about Economy and jobs. Arab Spring, Nukes at Iran, € Euro crisis, Global Warming (!!!) bahhh who cares i give you more Jobs with reducing the taxes for rich people wuhuu.
i´m sorry i don´t want to insult somebody but americans looking a little "dumb" in politics.
To be honest, in Europe at least, american politics is known to be the epitome of superficiality. Your 47% example is indeed pretty impressive. Someone saying that in France would be dead politically in a matter of hours.
Well, using France as an example isn't such a good idea. You guys almost voted for Sarkozy twice xD.
It's such a shame DSK didn't get his chance though, he looks more capable than both candidates in the previous french election.
Fuck political squabbles. Singapore: 1 party policy. Sure it has its flaws, but rather than picking fights just for the sake of arguing, it actually gets its job done. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Also ~95% of the opposition candidates really suck.
On October 18 2012 04:27 Heh_ wrote: Fuck political squabbles. Singapore: 1 party policy. Sure it has its flaws, but rather than picking fights just for the sake of arguing, it actually gets its job done. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Also ~95% of the opposition candidates really suck.
Fuck political squabbles. Germany: Fuhrerprinzip. Sure it has its flaws, but rather than picking fights just for the sake of arguing, Der Fuhrer actually gets his job done. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Every nation has the right to have as crazy or nonsensical a political system as it wants. Criticizing a country for its political system is about as productive as criticizing a man for his choice of religion. All that sort of criticism leads to is needless suffering.
Fuck political squabbles. Germany: Fuhrerprinzip. Sure it has its flaws, but rather than picking fights just for the sake of arguing, Der Fuhrer actually gets his job done. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
flaws? ain´t broke? You maybe mean little things like the second world war?
Obviously is critizing a political system that you don´t really understand meaningless, but from a political point of view i understand the people in north korea more then the americans.
Fuck political squabbles. Germany: Fuhrerprinzip. Sure it has its flaws, but rather than picking fights just for the sake of arguing, Der Fuhrer actually gets his job done. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
flaws? ain´t broke? You maybe mean little things like the second world war?
Obviously is critizing a political system that you don´t really understand meaningless, but from a political point of view i understand the people in north korea more then the americans.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
Yeah but, like, the rich are controlling the world and like the corporations are being all corporationy, and global warming. So Obama wins by default. Also, war on women in binders.
Fuck political squabbles. Germany: Fuhrerprinzip. Sure it has its flaws, but rather than picking fights just for the sake of arguing, Der Fuhrer actually gets his job done. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
flaws? ain´t broke? You maybe mean little things like the second world war?
Obviously is critizing a political system that you don´t really understand meaningless, but from a political point of view i understand the people in north korea more then the americans.
You should realign your sarcasm detector.
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.
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.
On October 17 2012 19:22 DKR wrote: Dear America, vote Obama, sincerely, the rest of the world.
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.
Fuck political squabbles. Germany: Fuhrerprinzip. Sure it has its flaws, but rather than picking fights just for the sake of arguing, Der Fuhrer actually gets his job done. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
flaws? ain´t broke? You maybe mean little things like the second world war?
Obviously is critizing a political system that you don´t really understand meaningless, but from a political point of view i understand the people in north korea more then the americans.
You should realign your sarcasm detector.
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)
Fuck political squabbles. Germany: Fuhrerprinzip. Sure it has its flaws, but rather than picking fights just for the sake of arguing, Der Fuhrer actually gets his job done. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
flaws? ain´t broke? You maybe mean little things like the second world war?
Obviously is critizing a political system that you don´t really understand meaningless, but from a political point of view i understand the people in north korea more then the americans.
You should realign your sarcasm detector.
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)
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
Obama looked to be the clear winner, in fact about 95% of people said he won. If Obama performs as well in the last debate this should be GG.
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.
On October 18 2012 18:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2012 19:29 Temerarious Trout wrote:
On October 17 2012 19:22 DKR wrote: Dear America, vote Obama, sincerely, the rest of the world.
What do you think about Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate?
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?
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 .
Political debates don't function like academic ones. They serve as the "spark notes" of a campaign. It's basically the only time two candidates are on the same stage talking about the same issues so voters are informed of the differences which arise between them.
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).
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.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Wlqai1T6fvA/UGYQHLvaGWI/AAAAAAAAAEY/B7Lud6LYIGA/s400/cbo+medicare+cut+image.png)
![[image loading]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8cJChpm5Nt0/UGYpYUVXxuI/AAAAAAAAAEw/2LPbgaU6D7w/s400/healthcare+home+benefits.png)
