|
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. |
On February 26 2015 20:03 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2015 19:24 Micro_Jackson wrote:On February 26 2015 17:20 coverpunch wrote:On February 26 2015 17:05 Micro_Jackson wrote:
On that topic i have a question: When somebody, politician, foxnews guy... says "America is the greatest country on earth" is he really taken seriusly? I mean idiots are everywhere but does the average, basic educated U.S. citicen really believe that the usa are "better" then (all) other countries?
You have to be a little careful, because I think you're using better in a way that implies Americans think they're superior than other people, or inversely, that Americans think other people are inferior. Which I don't think is the case at all and not what people mean when they call America the greatest country on Earth. But a poll: ![[image loading]](http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2014/07/FT_Greatest_Country.png) Yea but what is hard to understand for me is what the term "greatest" really means for them. I would understand it if it would be (selective) argument based like if i am talking to someone from Sweden and he says "Sweden is the greatest country on earth because we have the lowest criminal rate, the highst education standards and have the most awesome polititians" i would get it why he is saying that even if he focuses on facts he likes. For the US the image i always have in my head is the opening scene from The Newsroom but this has to be a cliché isnt it? I think the typical image is basically in the vein of referring to America as the world's sole superpower or describing the president as the most powerful man in the world. But you have this strange dichotomy where the United States clearly boasts the most powerful military in the world but it also sincerely thinks of itself as a peace-loving nation that is best positioned and most capable of bringing liberty and prosperity to all people. Although it is clearly changing from the polls that Americans see themselves living in a world of Great Powers again rather than a superpower without peers (it would be interesting to know who Americans think the other Great Powers are). Even the Newsroom's initial rant acknowledges this as a historical truth about America that could be restored. The image is more an America that has compromised itself and lost its way rather than permanently weakened itself as a result.
I don't think the people saying America isn't alone as the hands down greatest country are thinking about how 'powerful' the other countries are?
Most people are probably imagining what their quality of life would be in that country.
So, my guess is the people who said 'one of' were basically thinking that their life wouldn't be significantly better or worse in at least 1 other country. At least that's why I would of answered that way.
|
For changing American voting system: first thing would be an education program to make the public more aware about alternate voting schemes, as well as the research on effects of voting schemes and arrow's impossibility theorem (iirc).
I'd also like to try secret ballots in the legislature sometime. A lot of what they do is grandstanding, but I've heard some say that when the cameras aren't present they tend to be much more reasonable. We do use secret balloting for things like juries in the court system, and people's personal votes, and the basis for it (letting them do the right thing without fear of reprisal) still applies for legislators. So trying it and seeing if it works out well/poorly in practice is worth doing, at least for a few state legislatures (might as well use that laboratory of democracy)
|
On February 26 2015 20:57 zlefin wrote:
For changing American voting system: first thing would be an education program to make the public more aware about alternate voting schemes, as well as the research on effects of voting schemes and arrow's impossibility theorem (iirc).
I'd also like to try secret ballots in the legislature sometime. A lot of what they do is grandstanding, but I've heard some say that when the cameras aren't present they tend to be much more reasonable. We do use secret balloting for things like juries in the court system, and people's personal votes, and the basis for it (letting them do the right thing without fear of reprisal) still applies for legislators. So trying it and seeing if it works out well/poorly in practice is worth doing, at least for a few state legislatures (might as well use that laboratory of democracy)
Except at that point you lose all the ability for the people to see if their representative is actually living up to his promises.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
arrow's theorem has some restrictive conditions and takes place in the world of formalized preference functions and frictionless political process where voters translate their preference to actual choice directly. it does say something to the effect that collective decisionmaking in a one stage election is limited even if we correct all the flaws about political knowledge and process, but i think the big problems in the real world is still lack of voter knowledge and agency problems like the influence of lobbyists on politicians directly.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/arrows-theorem/#TheCon
|
On February 26 2015 21:38 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2015 20:57 zlefin wrote:
For changing American voting system: first thing would be an education program to make the public more aware about alternate voting schemes, as well as the research on effects of voting schemes and arrow's impossibility theorem (iirc).
I'd also like to try secret ballots in the legislature sometime. A lot of what they do is grandstanding, but I've heard some say that when the cameras aren't present they tend to be much more reasonable. We do use secret balloting for things like juries in the court system, and people's personal votes, and the basis for it (letting them do the right thing without fear of reprisal) still applies for legislators. So trying it and seeing if it works out well/poorly in practice is worth doing, at least for a few state legislatures (might as well use that laboratory of democracy) Except at that point you lose all the ability for the people to see if their representative is actually living up to his promises.
irrelevant to the question, which is how well it would work in practice. It's well documented that things in practice don't always work out as you'd guess.
Also, it's not about promises, it's about making good decisions with the cases at hand.
|
It's a bit sad when meaningful discussion is side-railed by anti-US immigration rants and arguments about American exceptionalism, which is nothing more than a Republican punchline.
Back to point, education is absolutely the way to revolutionize the American political system. Awareness of other political systems, as well as intelligent discourse revealing the base problems with our own two-party system, is absolutely critical. I think adopting a more international approach to the civics curriculum in American K-12 education would be a positive step forward.
Ultimately I'd like to see a political system in which there are no parties, but simply representatives affiliated with their constituents, rather than pawns affiliated to a political party. It would likely require a great deal of federal funding and oversight, to completely revolutionize modern campaigning and to shift that responsibility from the candidates themselves to a more accountable body, likely in the form of a private, government-funded institution.
Objective studies of the voting habits of incumbent candidates, of the political and business track records of new candidates, and absent any of the degrading and universally insulting attack ads which do nothing but perpetuate the dichotomous nature of the two-party system. Educate the people and force them to elect an official on the basis of his or her true qualifications.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
parties are generated spontaneously from people wanting to and gaining from working together, so if you don't want parties it'll take some very restrictive policy on political association which is most definitely unconstitutional
|
When I think of the word "great" I think of it along the lines of significant, important, notable. By that definition, which I'm pretty sure would be the most accepted one when it refers to something like a nation in formal discussion, I think America easily takes the "greatest" title above other great nations. That's not to say it's the "best" at everything or anything, which Is a totally different concept and surely can't be placed on any single nation.
Obviously some people on fox probably just mean Americas número uno in every possible way.
|
On February 26 2015 10:41 KwarK wrote:
Anyone still interested in arguing about immigration should know that I, as a legal immigrant in the US for over a year now, am still waiting on a colossally backlogged green card system. For family related visas you can't work until the GC unless you get an expedited exemption which, if English isn't your first language and you're not especially resourceful, isn't the easiest thing to get and has its own fee (in addition to the thousand or so they want for the GC). I'm now over their internal estimate for how long it should take and USCIS has, at my request, given itself a request for information about the hold up. The explanation for the delay should take about 30 days to arrive, assuming it's not delayed. No health insurance throughout this time and earlier today I did some research into my credit and found a bunch of the jobs I applied for had been checking my US credit history which explains how I walked out of an interview with a verbal job offer and subsequently didn't get the job.
Don't go to the US. If you do, go illegally. Shit will be just as hard for you but you'll save a lot of money and effort.
Government in-efficiency is absolutely no excuse to break the law. You obviously lack a basic understanding of civic responsibility and should have your legal status revoked and be immediately shipped back to whatever hole you came from. People that think like you are exactly what is wrong with the immigration system, and if we purged people like you from it, there probably wouldn't be such a backlog.
I both can't believe that I missed the three pages of anti-republican b.s. and not very sad that I missed it. So much ignorance on display.
The simple fact is the government should be forcibly shut down. Anyone that doesn't think that the current lawlessness of the person that occupies the white house is exactly why our framers gave Congress the power of the purse is grossly ignorant. Armageddon was predicted from the last government shut down, and guess what, most American's, by their own admission, didn't even notice it.
But besides the theoretical aspect of shutting the government down, the current DHS scenario is simply political maneuvering. Over 95% of DHS employees have been designated as "essential" government works, meaning they will still be working should the DHS, or government as a whole, shut down.
Concerning the multi-party system, I find it humorous that many of the very people that rail against the Tea Party are the same people advocating a multi-party system. The Tea Party is, in reality, a de facto third party. You can see this played out by the fact that many won't fall lock step in line with the RINOs in the Republican leadership. Sure they both have R by their names at the ballots, but the similarities really stop there. You people want to see a multi-party system in action, this is what it is. Essentially, the RINOs, the majority coalition partner, is having a hard time getting their junior coalition partner, the Tea Party, to sell out their constituency and vote for the clean funding bill for the DHS. Multi-party system in action. Personally, I hope the Tea Party continues to stand up for what is right, even if the government shuts down.
|
On February 27 2015 00:45 hannahbelle wrote:
Concerning the multi-party system, I find it humorous that many of the very people that rail against the Tea Party are the same people advocating a multi-party system. The Tea Party is, in reality, a de jure third party. You can see this played out by the fact that many won't fall lock step in line with the RINOs in the Republican leadership. Sure they both have R by their names at the ballots, but the similarities really stop there. You people want to see a multi-party system in action, this is what it is. Essentially, the RINOs, the majority coalition partner, is having a hard time getting their junior coalition partner, the Tea Party, to sell out their constituency and vote for the clean funding bill for the DHS. Multi-party system in action. Personally, I hope the Tea Party continues to stand up for what is right, even if the government shuts down.
People hate the Tea Party because they are bat-shit insane to put it plainly.
The reason people complain is because this insanity forces more normal Republicans to pretend to be crazy in order to win the primary which then kills any chance they have of winning the national vote.
In a multi-party system the Tea Party would be its own party indeed, which means moderate republicans don't have to bend over backwards to please them and would give them an actual shot at winning the independent vote.
Your argument just shows how little you understand the workings of a multi party system.
No one would bother working with the Tea Party if they were on their own. The same way extremist parties in other countries get side-lined and end up having no real political power over the sane majority.
Instead you now have them holding the government hostage, yet again.
|
On February 27 2015 00:55 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 00:45 hannahbelle wrote:
Concerning the multi-party system, I find it humorous that many of the very people that rail against the Tea Party are the same people advocating a multi-party system. The Tea Party is, in reality, a de jure third party. You can see this played out by the fact that many won't fall lock step in line with the RINOs in the Republican leadership. Sure they both have R by their names at the ballots, but the similarities really stop there. You people want to see a multi-party system in action, this is what it is. Essentially, the RINOs, the majority coalition partner, is having a hard time getting their junior coalition partner, the Tea Party, to sell out their constituency and vote for the clean funding bill for the DHS. Multi-party system in action. Personally, I hope the Tea Party continues to stand up for what is right, even if the government shuts down. People hate the Tea Party because they are bat-shit insane to put it plainly. The reason people complain is because this insanity forces more normal Republicans to pretend to be crazy in order to win the primary which then kills any chance they have of winning the national vote. In a multi-party system the Tea Party would be its own party indeed, which means moderate republicans don't have to bend over backwards to please them and would give them an actual shot at winning the independent vote. Your argument just shows how little you understand the workings of a multi party system. No one would bother working with the Tea Party if they were on their own. The same way extremist parties in other countries get side-lined and end up having no real political power over the sane majority. Instead you now have them holding the government hostage, yet again.
I think your comment shows your own ignorance about how much support the Tea Party has. I know you guys like to bury your head in the sand, but the Tea Party isn't like a 4-5% vote fringe party in a typical multi-party election. It has widespread support among conservatives. Just look at how much money that the big-money RINO factions led by Karl Rove had to spend to defeat many of the Tea Party candidates in the last election cycle. You guys try your best to marginalize the Tea Party and make people think its a lunatic fringe, but it has a significant base of grass-roots support. The poll numbers continually support this. I mean, really, do some basic research before just spouting your nonsensical opinion.
If you actually did any real research you would know that the number of Tea Party candidates that have lost the general election is rather small. It is just that their failures are always trumpeted widely by both the liberal media and the RINO Republicans. You heard vastly more about Christine O'Donnell's loss in Deleware than you did Eric Cantor's humiliation in Virginia, for instance. People continue to support the Tea Party in large measure because it is the only conservative option available since the Republican party has been sold out by its moderate and Chamber of Commerce Republicans. Anymore, you can't distinguish between a moderate Republican and a communist, oops I mean Democrat.
|
go read again. find where i use the word fringe, then think of a better reply
|
On February 27 2015 00:55 Gorsameth wrote:
The same way extremist parties in other countries get side-lined and end up having no real political power over the sane majority.
Fringe, extremist. are you really going to play semantics?
|
On February 27 2015 01:25 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 00:55 Gorsameth wrote:
The same way extremist parties in other countries get side-lined and end up having no real political power over the sane majority.
Fringe, extremist. are you really going to play semantics?
how is it semantics? The Tea part holds an extreme position, the fact that they are not a fringe group just shows how many nut cases live in America.
|
Two prominent House committee chairs are “deeply disappointed” in Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler for refusing to testify before Congress as “the future of the Internet is at stake.” Wheeler’s refusal to go before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday comes on the eve of the FCC’s vote on new Internet regulations pertaining to net neutrality. The committee’s chairman, Representative Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah), and Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Fred Upton (R., Mich.) criticized Wheeler and the administration for lacking transparency on the issue. “So long as the chairman continues to insist on secrecy, we will continue calling for more transparency and accountability at the commission,” Chaffetz and Upton said in a statement. “Chairman Wheeler and the FCC are not above Congress.” The vote on the new Internet regulations is scheduled for Thursday. The FCC’s two Republican commissioners have asked Wheeler to delay the vote to allow more time for review. The changes would allow the commission to regulate the Internet like a public utility, setting new standards that require the provision of equal access to all online content.
Most transparent administration ever.
Source
|
weird how people care about "meaning" of "words", when there should be only your gut telling you those liberals are destroying the greatest nation on earth.....
and regarding true multiparty systems: you see a problem that unpure rinos are holding the awesome teaparty back, so wouldnt you agree that people should have an actual choice in the general election? if everything you believe to be true is actually true a tea party candidate would fare much better in a proportional election against his "rino" counter, and would thus have even more leverage in the government than before, and it would not be decided by interparty closed door negotiations, but by the will and vote of the people.
so why are you opposed to it?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the primary system is different from a true multiparty system and gives in-party disciplined/rabid radicals more power than they would have in a multiparty system.
|
On February 27 2015 01:27 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 01:25 hannahbelle wrote:On February 27 2015 00:55 Gorsameth wrote:
The same way extremist parties in other countries get side-lined and end up having no real political power over the sane majority.
Fringe, extremist. are you really going to play semantics? how is it semantics? The Tea part holds an extreme position, the fact that they are not a fringe group just shows how many nut cases live in America.
Let me break this down so you can understand the argument chain here. I made a post. You say my post is making an invalid comparison because you equate the Tea Party with extremist parties in a multi-party system. I say your post is ill informed, because the Tea Party's support would put it well above the typical vote threshold of a multi-party fringe party. You then reply that you didn't use the word fringe, and I reply that fringe and extremist are equivalent in this scenario. You then make a post that first denies that you are playing semantics and then make a statement that seemingly supports my claim of you playing semantics, but try to qualify it by making denigrating remarks about a large minority of Americans.
Congrats on your public educated critical reasoning skills.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
hannahbelle where did you go to school
|
On February 27 2015 01:37 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 01:27 Gorsameth wrote:On February 27 2015 01:25 hannahbelle wrote:On February 27 2015 00:55 Gorsameth wrote:
The same way extremist parties in other countries get side-lined and end up having no real political power over the sane majority.
Fringe, extremist. are you really going to play semantics? how is it semantics? The Tea part holds an extreme position, the fact that they are not a fringe group just shows how many nut cases live in America. Let me break this down so you can understand the argument chain here. I made a post. You say my post is making an invalid comparison because you equate the Tea Party with extremist parties in a multi-party system. I say your post is ill informed, because the Tea Party's support would put it well above the typical vote threshold of a multi-party fringe party. You then reply that you didn't use the word fringe, and I reply that fringe and extremist are equivalent in this scenario. You then make a post that first denies that you are playing semantics and then make a statement that seemingly supports my claim of you playing semantics, but try to qualify it by making denigrating remarks about a large minority of Americans. Congrats on your public educated critical reasoning skills.
In the Netherlands we have a pretty extreme party aswell, the usual stuff about throwing out all immigrants ect. They (shamefully) got 10% of the votes last election, I wouldnt call that fringe when it makes them the 3e biggest party in the country (25 and 27% for the 2 above them) and yet no party wants to work with them because they are an extremist party.
The 2 are not equivalent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
