|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
It's not that they exist, it's the prevalence and influence within politics that is more unique. But yeah America doesn't have a monopoly on ignorance...Or crazy either, yet we are the only developed nation with a school shooting practically every week.
America clearly has some unique problems. Blind faith healing ain't gunna fixem'
|
Cantor sold out his constituents and no longer effectively represented their interests. It wasn't just on the issue of immigration. It was on a wide range of issues.
|
On June 13 2014 09:39 GreenHorizons wrote:It's not that they exist, it's the prevalence and influence within politics that is more unique. But yeah America doesn't have a monopoly on ignorance...Or crazy either, yet we are the only developed nation with a school shooting practically every week. America clearly has some unique problems. Blind faith healing ain't gunna fixem'
Yes, this. If it came of as 'bashing' I apologize. But you have to keep in mind that from a foreigners perspective stuff like the Louie Gohmert video that was posted a few pages ago looks just like insanity.
I just can't see how the fact that someone who would openly consider himself an atheist would have worse chances in almost everything that involves public opinion is compatible to the American believe in religious freedom(which should include the freedom to not be religious at all). This weird mix of christian conservatism and laissez-faire capitalism does not seem to be very 'American' at all, still it seems to become increasingly popular among US conservatives.
|
On June 13 2014 01:47 Livelovedie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2014 11:37 IgnE wrote:On June 12 2014 11:05 zlefin wrote:
While I agree that the "fringes" tend to get ignored; I'd say a 2 party system favors a bipolar distribution of influence around the 30 and 70 (out of 100) marks, and the moderates are at a less prominent point; rather than a unipolar one where the moderates are at the high point. That couldn't be further from the truth. Maybe if you said it was a 10-90 distribution it could be further. I disagree, the gap has been widening. http://news.yahoo.com/us-political-split-outgrows-voting-booth-040251977--election.html
Part of the political-media-industrial-complex narrative about a growing divide between people who support civil rights, gay rights, women's rights, etc. and those who don't. Just because a poll says that there is a growing divide on these media dictated issues doesn't mean that there is actually a gaping political divide in America. Of course you are supposed to think that this is true, that's the whole point. Get lathered up to defend a national healthcare law written by the insurance and medical industries, rather than actually push through true reforms. Get incensed about whether some guy in Nevada has a right to use grazing land or whether the BLM can force him off of it rather than seriously discuss private property rights in view of the rise of an increasingly dominant rentier class. Make jokes about global warming while attempting to commoditize carbon emissions rather than attempting to redefine the individual's and society's relationship to the commons of nature. All parties in America agree that the business of America is business and until that changes, the political landscape will continue to be one huge monopole with ridiculous manufactured arguments between ignorant people.
|
On June 13 2014 08:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote + discussion of optics for incoming House freshmen...a recently-elected candidate could feel sheepish if his only vote was having to put down moderate's ideas to alter it from within instead of replacing fresh. Is that not exactly meaningless? A vote based solely on the optics? A vote which is admittedly purely symbolic? So that the half-wits that elected them believe them? Without it actually having any meaning at all...? Not to mention the other 30+ votes they ALREADY had... Plenty of them had to be meaningless without the shield of 'optics'...? They could of voted 1000 times to repeal it and it wouldn't change whether they could/would signed on to reasonable legislation after or before... But their constituency is too dense to comprehend that. I can't believe it's even a contention whether the Tea Party supported meaningless votes... Come to think of it I'm pretty skeptical of this whole Earth going around the sun talk... I think it would be healthy to have a robust discussion where all viewpoints have an opportunity to contribute. Clearly the Science isn't settled. Show nested quote +Does the Earth go around the sun, or does the sun go around the Earth?
When asked that question, 1 in 4 Americans surveyed answered incorrectly. Yes, 1 in 4. In other words, a quarter of Americans do not understand one of the most fundamental principles of basic science. SourceAfter all we can't ignore 25% of the electorate!?....
Also from your article:
Here’s the thing, though: Americans actually fared better than Europeans who took similar quizzes — at least when it came to the sun and Earth question. Only 66 percent of European Union residents answered that one correctly.
So what's their excuse?
|
On June 13 2014 10:10 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2014 01:47 Livelovedie wrote:On June 12 2014 11:37 IgnE wrote:On June 12 2014 11:05 zlefin wrote:
While I agree that the "fringes" tend to get ignored; I'd say a 2 party system favors a bipolar distribution of influence around the 30 and 70 (out of 100) marks, and the moderates are at a less prominent point; rather than a unipolar one where the moderates are at the high point. That couldn't be further from the truth. Maybe if you said it was a 10-90 distribution it could be further. I disagree, the gap has been widening. http://news.yahoo.com/us-political-split-outgrows-voting-booth-040251977--election.html Part of the political-media-industrial-complex narrative about a growing divide between people who support civil rights, gay rights, women's rights, etc. and those who don't. Just because a poll says that there is a growing divide on these media dictated issues doesn't mean that there is actually a gaping political divide in America. Of course you are supposed to think that this is true, that's the whole point. Get lathered up to defend a national healthcare law written by the insurance and medical industries, rather than actually push through true reforms. Get incensed about whether some guy in Nevada has a right to use grazing land or whether the BLM can force him off of it rather than seriously discuss private property rights in view of the rise of an increasingly dominant rentier class. Make jokes about global warming while attempting to commoditize carbon emissions rather than attempting to redefine the individual's and society's relationship to the commons of nature. All parties in America agree that the business of America is business and until that changes, the political landscape will continue to be one huge monopole with ridiculous manufactured arguments between ignorant people.
Both parties are capitalist parties, that doesn't mean that they are drifting towards each other in view. There hasn't ever really been a significant socialist sentiment in the US so I'm not sure what you're arguing exactly. In order for the parties to be getting closer together you would have to show me how the republicans have gotten more liberal and the democrats have gotten more conservative, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Gay rights has split to being an issue that divides the parties, climate change has split from a concern amongst everybody to one based on party lines, healthcare has changed from that of an industry dominated by the AMA and the insurance companies to a more egalitarian healthcare system. Just because democrats haven't gone as far to reimagine the environments relation to them or that the insurance companies haven't gotten nationalized doesn't mean that there isn't a gap growing.
|
On June 13 2014 13:25 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2014 08:53 GreenHorizons wrote: discussion of optics for incoming House freshmen...a recently-elected candidate could feel sheepish if his only vote was having to put down moderate's ideas to alter it from within instead of replacing fresh. Is that not exactly meaningless? A vote based solely on the optics? A vote which is admittedly purely symbolic? So that the half-wits that elected them believe them? Without it actually having any meaning at all...? Not to mention the other 30+ votes they ALREADY had... Plenty of them had to be meaningless without the shield of 'optics'...? They could of voted 1000 times to repeal it and it wouldn't change whether they could/would signed on to reasonable legislation after or before... But their constituency is too dense to comprehend that. I can't believe it's even a contention whether the Tea Party supported meaningless votes... Come to think of it I'm pretty skeptical of this whole Earth going around the sun talk... I think it would be healthy to have a robust discussion where all viewpoints have an opportunity to contribute. Clearly the Science isn't settled. Does the Earth go around the sun, or does the sun go around the Earth?
When asked that question, 1 in 4 Americans surveyed answered incorrectly. Yes, 1 in 4. In other words, a quarter of Americans do not understand one of the most fundamental principles of basic science. SourceAfter all we can't ignore 25% of the electorate!?.... Also from your article: Show nested quote +Here’s the thing, though: Americans actually fared better than Europeans who took similar quizzes — at least when it came to the sun and Earth question. Only 66 percent of European Union residents answered that one correctly. So what's their excuse?
I think European countries are different enough to warrant looking into the numbers by country. The same would be pretty interesting by state and party for that matter.
I have a feeling just like in the US it is certain areas bringing down/up the average. I also have a feeling the places where religion has more political influence tend to have less faith in science.
I looked to see what I could find statistically, this was it. It's not apples to apples exactly but it shows it a bit. But to be fair it looks like religion causes political problems all over the world...
+ Show Spoiler +
Source
Source
EDIT: Thinking about the religious problems that have plagued Northern Ireland and the middle east I guess I should be happy that our religious fanatics mostly just want to ban abortion and teach Creationism as science...
|
On June 13 2014 13:50 Livelovedie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2014 10:10 IgnE wrote:On June 13 2014 01:47 Livelovedie wrote:On June 12 2014 11:37 IgnE wrote:On June 12 2014 11:05 zlefin wrote:
While I agree that the "fringes" tend to get ignored; I'd say a 2 party system favors a bipolar distribution of influence around the 30 and 70 (out of 100) marks, and the moderates are at a less prominent point; rather than a unipolar one where the moderates are at the high point. That couldn't be further from the truth. Maybe if you said it was a 10-90 distribution it could be further. I disagree, the gap has been widening. http://news.yahoo.com/us-political-split-outgrows-voting-booth-040251977--election.html Part of the political-media-industrial-complex narrative about a growing divide between people who support civil rights, gay rights, women's rights, etc. and those who don't. Just because a poll says that there is a growing divide on these media dictated issues doesn't mean that there is actually a gaping political divide in America. Of course you are supposed to think that this is true, that's the whole point. Get lathered up to defend a national healthcare law written by the insurance and medical industries, rather than actually push through true reforms. Get incensed about whether some guy in Nevada has a right to use grazing land or whether the BLM can force him off of it rather than seriously discuss private property rights in view of the rise of an increasingly dominant rentier class. Make jokes about global warming while attempting to commoditize carbon emissions rather than attempting to redefine the individual's and society's relationship to the commons of nature. All parties in America agree that the business of America is business and until that changes, the political landscape will continue to be one huge monopole with ridiculous manufactured arguments between ignorant people. Both parties are capitalist parties, that doesn't mean that they are drifting towards each other in view. There hasn't ever really been a significant socialist sentiment in the US so I'm not sure what you're arguing exactly. In order for the parties to be getting closer together you would have to show me how the republicans have gotten more liberal and the democrats have gotten more conservative, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Gay rights has split to being an issue that divides the parties, climate change has split from a concern amongst everybody to one based on party lines, healthcare has changed from that of an industry dominated by the AMA and the insurance companies to a more egalitarian healthcare system. Just because democrats haven't gone as far to reimagine the environments relation to them or that the insurance companies haven't gotten nationalized doesn't mean that there isn't a gap growing.
Actually there was a significant socialist political presence at the turn of the 20th century. It's notable for how many people don't realize how prevalent it was, or even give much thought to it at all. The two-party system seemingly extends back to the founding. Teddy Roosevelt rode some of that sentiment as a "Progressive" party candidate, painting a picture of himself as a trustbuster, despite busting fewer monopolies than his ostensibly conservative successor. Meanwhile people like Eugene Debs got jailed under the sedition act during WWI as a pretense for silencing his socialist rhetoric. FDR's programs in the 30s were the opening of a safety valve in direct response to political pressure from socialist and communist groups who were agitating for serious change. As usual, those sentiments were coopted and subverted by a capitalist agenda, but FDR did have to concede a lot of seemingly socialist programs, going so far as to create a federalized Tennessee Valley Authority, but largely trading some welfare now in exchange for maintaining the capitalist superstructure.
So no, you are wrong. There has been significant socialist sentiment in this country. The current perceived rift between the two parties is a media-driven political spectacle that increasingly bears little relation to reality. Saying something like the healthcare industry "used to be" dominated by the AMA and the insurance industries, as if now it weren't, seems to prove my point that there isn't actually any change going on. The surface looks different, but the underlying wealth and power structures remain unmoved.
|
Uh, people don't realize how prevalent it was because it was never mainstream or substantial as a movement in the US. Trust-busting and progressivism may take cues from socialist thought but they do not represent socialist government at all. Teddy Roosevelt was sympathetic to unions and hard on corporate owners, which was unusual and a sea change at the time, but he was not at all in favor of union ownership of the corporation or of unionized control of the state. FDR expanding the social net and government control is the same thing - it was a movement away from the social Darwinists of the Depression era who believed poor people deserved what they got, which might include unemployment, homelessness, and malnutrition (or even worse, that it was a kind of penance). But it was not a movement towards socialism by any stretch of the imagination.
EDIT: To be explicit, social democracy is not socialism.
Americans have always prospered so much from commerce and the exchange of goods and ideas that they've never been proper socialists or communists or isolationists. As for change, American bureaucracy and the reality of dealing with Republicans ensures that any big changes need to be glacial and gradual. That's not necessarily bad, as Americans generally look on with ambivalent feelings of optimism, bemusement, and horror when they see revolutions or economic meltdowns bringing governments to their knees or toppling them altogether.
|
Well we were isolationists for a long time up until WW1 and then after. But then Nazies happened and after that commies so we couldn't do that anymore.
|
|
|
Welcome to VA state politics.
RICHMOND — Republicans appear to have outmaneuvered Gov. Terry McAuliffe in a state budget standoff by persuading a Democratic senator to resign his seat, at least temporarily giving the GOP control of the chamber and possibly dooming the governor’s push to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.
Sen. Phillip P. Puckett (D-Russell) will announce his resignation Monday, effective immediately, paving the way to appoint his daughter to a judgeship and Puckett to the job of deputy director of the state tobacco commission, three people familiar with the plan said Sunday. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter.
The news prompted outrage among Democrats — and accusations that Republicans were trying to buy the Senate with job offers in order to thwart McAuliffe’s proposal to expand health coverage to 400,000 low-income Virginians.
Del. Scott A. Surovell (D-Fairfax) said Republicans were unable to win the policy argument about Medicaid expansion, so they have resorted to other means.
“It’s astounding to me. The House Republican caucus will do anything and everything to prevent low-income Virginians from getting health care. . . . They figure the only way they could win was to give a job to a state senator,” Surovell said. “At least they can’t offer Terry McAuliffe a job. I hope Terry continues to stand up to these bullies.”
Puckett, a senator since 1998, did not respond to calls seeking comment. Other Republicans denied that Puckett was offered the jobs in exchange for his resignation.
Virginia Democratic senator Puckett to resign, possibly dooming push to expand Medicaid
|
Looks like we're about to hand Iran legitimacy in the Middle East as a result of what's going on Iraq. It's hard to imagine a more catastrophic collapse of US influence in the Middle East than what has happened since the Arab Spring began.
|
On June 14 2014 00:41 xDaunt wrote:
Looks like we're about to hand Iran legitimacy in the Middle East as a result of what's going on Iraq. It's hard to imagine a more catastrophic collapse of US influence in the Middle East than what has happened since the Arab Spring began.
Mission Accomplished (tm)
|
Disentangling ourselves from foreign interests and a "catastrophic collapse of US influence" can look awfully alike. That you lack imagination surprises me little, xDaunt 
|
On June 14 2014 01:16 farvacola wrote:Disentangling ourselves from foreign interests and a "catastrophic collapse of US influence" can look awfully alike. That you lack imagination surprises me little, xDaunt
I'm all for our disentanglement in a responsible way. However, I do not like it when it's done in such a way that our geopolitical enemies (as opposed to our allies) fill the void. Obama's Middle East policy has been haphazard at best. I understand the political pressure he had to put the Iraq War to rest, but the level of his disengagement has been hazardous.
|
On June 13 2014 23:04 coverpunch wrote:
Uh, people don't realize how prevalent it was because it was never mainstream or substantial as a movement in the US. Trust-busting and progressivism may take cues from socialist thought but they do not represent socialist government at all. Teddy Roosevelt was sympathetic to unions and hard on corporate owners, which was unusual and a sea change at the time, but he was not at all in favor of union ownership of the corporation or of unionized control of the state. FDR expanding the social net and government control is the same thing - it was a movement away from the social Darwinists of the Depression era who believed poor people deserved what they got, which might include unemployment, homelessness, and malnutrition (or even worse, that it was a kind of penance). But it was not a movement towards socialism by any stretch of the imagination.
EDIT: To be explicit, social democracy is not socialism.
Americans have always prospered so much from commerce and the exchange of goods and ideas that they've never been proper socialists or communists or isolationists. As for change, American bureaucracy and the reality of dealing with Republicans ensures that any big changes need to be glacial and gradual. That's not necessarily bad, as Americans generally look on with ambivalent feelings of optimism, bemusement, and horror when they see revolutions or economic meltdowns bringing governments to their knees or toppling them altogether.
Of course it was movement towards socialism. It was just that the goal was not to achieve full socialism. But any implementation of any social program is movement towards socialism.
|
He was voted in (presumably) for being an outsider. Deer in the headlights isn't exactly surprising, and he'll soon start parroting common GOP/Teaparty narrative in those situations, instead of trying to bite-size his own complicated views. Either that, or he'll flounder in the general election...
|
On June 14 2014 01:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2014 01:16 farvacola wrote:Disentangling ourselves from foreign interests and a "catastrophic collapse of US influence" can look awfully alike. That you lack imagination surprises me little, xDaunt I'm all for our disentanglement in a responsible way. However, I do not like it when it's done in such a way that our geopolitical enemies (as opposed to our allies) fill the void. Obama's Middle East policy has been haphazard at best. I understand the political pressure he had to put the Iraq War to rest, but the level of his disengagement has been hazardous.
Who exactly is filling that void remains to be seen though.
Amid the rubble left in Iraq by the rampage of Islamist insurgents, one group seems poised to benefit: the Kurds. Baghdad's flailing response to the offensive launched by the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham opens the door to greater geographical reach for the Kurdish region, greater leverage over the central government, and a stronger possibility of becoming a big energy exporter in its own right.
The Islamist insurgents, known variously as ISIS and ISIL, continued their drive south toward the Iraqi capital on Thursday after having captured key northern cities, including Mosul. No less vigorous has been the Kurdish response: In sharp contrast to the Iraqi military forces, which evaporated despite outnumbering ISIS fighters, Kurdish military forces on Thursday took Kirkuk, an important city straddling the Arab and Kurdish parts of Iraq and the centerpiece of the northern oil industry. The Kurdish occupation, in a matter of hours, of a city that has been a bone of contention between Arabs and Kurds for centuries -- and especially during Saddam Hussein's rule of Iraq -- underscores how dramatically the ISIS offensive is redrawing the map of Iraq.
"This may be the end of Iraq as it was. The chances that Iraq can return to the centralized state that [Prime Minister Nouri] al-Maliki was trying to restore are minimal at this point," said Marina Ottaway, a Middle East specialist at the Wilson Center.
The contrast between robust security in Kurdish-ruled parts of the country and the security vacuum left by fleeing Iraqi troops could ultimately roll back decades of Iraqi history and put Kurdish leaders in Erbil in the catbird seat, especially when it comes to a contentious tug of war over energy resources.
"The strategic failure of Iraqi forces has really shifted the entire balance of power between the Kurdish Regional Government and Baghdad," said Ayham Kamel, Middle East director at the Eurasia Group, a risk consultancy. "It really allows the KRG to negotiate with Baghdad on entirely different terms" when it comes to a fight over the Kurds' right to export oil directly.
Revenge of the Kurds
|
On June 14 2014 01:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2014 01:16 farvacola wrote:Disentangling ourselves from foreign interests and a "catastrophic collapse of US influence" can look awfully alike. That you lack imagination surprises me little, xDaunt I'm all for our disentanglement in a responsible way. However, I do not like it when it's done in such a way that our geopolitical enemies (as opposed to our allies) fill the void. Obama's Middle East policy has been haphazard at best. I understand the political pressure he had to put the Iraq War to rest, but the level of his disengagement has been hazardous.
What makes you think Iran can "fill the void" any better than the US? Take a step back and take off your Obama-hating-goggles and look at Middle East history. It should be as ingrained in geopolitical strategy as "Never start a land war with Russia!" by now, "Never perform serious military operations in the Middle East."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/j1jjXTZ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/34NqrAb.jpg)
