|
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. |
United States41989 Posts
On August 05 2016 00:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 23:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 04 2016 23:38 doc_biceps wrote:On August 04 2016 23:27 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Well, if you think it all doesn't matter, take Obama presidency, and Bush presidency, and compare.
I can guarantee you that if Gore had won in 2000, the world and the US would be a much, much better place today.
Of course we are talking teams, not one individual, but that's not really good news because while Clinton's team is basically the same bunch that worked for Obama, Trump's team seems to be made of lunatics who were probably not even interviewed. I don't think it doesn't matter, I just think it matters less then what is promoted. But thats probably due to my missing understanding of how the voting-system in the US is so heavily focused on the soon to be president. Additionally the points you mentioned earlier (taxation etc) aren't secrets, it is part of the campaign and the program of the party. If the people vote for it, isn't it what they want, because they think it is the best for them? I don't follow your logic. People voted for Hitler, they thought it was good for them and it wasn't. Right? On top of that I guess you have your opinion, so knowing that Trump promises a horrifying program, why do you hope he will win? (That is unless you think his program is great, then I understand). Finally, as a german citizen, you will be affected by American government decisions. If America hadn't recovered fairly well from the economic crisis, we would be much much worse off in Europe right now. Considering both Trump's foreign policy and economic program is a cluster fuck of bad ideas and ignorance, you can be more or less certain that Germany will be better of with anyone else who kind of has a clue about what they are doing. Hitler won because there were a lot of parties in the running. Having more than two parties means that you're guaranteed that the minority of the population gets to dictate to the majority of the population.
Hitler won because he had a large body of popular support which was growing and fragile German state had previously been reliant on an increasingly senile figurehead who refused to allow himself to be replaced by a constitutional monarchy in the form of the Kaiser's son because of his loyalty to the deposed Kaiser. Hindenburg served as chancellor from 1925 to his death in 1934 and was the only man with the stature and authority to preserve the German constitution. Throughout the early 30s the big German political question was "what the fuck do we do when Hindenburg finally dies" to which Hindenburg himself basically answered "you're fucked, also I'm vetoing any attempt to prepare for it".
|
United States41989 Posts
On August 05 2016 00:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:
(Also any talk of Hitler and democracy is moot because he never won any election)
This is a popular misconception that attempts to absolve democracy and the German people of responsibility for Hitler. Hitler had more than enough of a democratic mandate to take office, there was no other candidate with anything like his degree of popular support. He won a plurality of the vote and was the natural successor. He was appointed but he was not appointed because the establishment wanted him, he was appointed because the establishment recognized he was inevitable due to his electoral success.
We all like democracy and we all hate Hitler but that doesn't mean we can whitewash history to separate the two. Applying a false standard of 50% of the vote and saying that falling short of that means the election was not won is absurd. If any other multiparty democracy had an election with the 1933 results we'd all agree that the party with the Nazi's share of the vote won.
|
On August 05 2016 00:41 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 23:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 04 2016 23:41 KwarK wrote:On August 04 2016 08:43 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2016 08:43 LegalLord wrote:
At this rate the Democratic Party has a solid chance of taking back Congress. I'm really hoping the Republican Party finds a way to reform soon, because I really don't like the Dems much and I wish there was another choice that is at least somewhat reasonable. What's the difference between a reasonable republican party and Hillary ? Nothing, which is a totally reasonable tactic after a long period of domination by one party. The Labour Party pulled it off in the UK really well in the late 90s. There was a perception that Labour were bad on the economy and would raise taxes so in the run up to the '97 election Labour just announced that the Conservative tax and spending plans were fine and that they would be using those. At which point the Conservatives are forced to somehow win against their own plans as "the issues" or win on name recognition alone while being unpopular and associated with everything that had gone wrong for the past two decades. Shamelessly stealing ground from the winning party is a very viable tactic. Have you read Clinton's platform, and do you know about "moderate republican"'s (we talk Paul Ryan, for example?) programs? I mean, taxation, healthcare, affordable education, environment... Those are areas in which Clinton's platform and most of her positions in the past are 180° opposite of a Paul Ryan or even a Kasich. Paul Ryan is moderate in temperment, but I'm pretty sure he's not moderate politically. If I remember correctly, he was brought on as Romney's running mate to win over the Tea Party, who are themselves not at all moderate. At the time, he was considered the most conservative VP pick (Nate Silver figured since 1900.) Now, he wasn't ideologically pure enough for them, so he has since been spit out. But I don't think that makes him swing to right of centre- only that he's a practical man and moderate in temperament.
Thats very interesting. He doesnt seem that way in any interviews and commentaries I ever see. But I dont really focus on Ryan anyways so I wouldnt know. He really appears (in those clips I have seen of him) like a good guy though.
|
Paul Ryan is an extremely conservative Republican who is forced to act otherwise by virtue of his speakership.
|
On August 05 2016 00:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2016 00:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 04 2016 23:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 04 2016 23:38 doc_biceps wrote:On August 04 2016 23:27 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Well, if you think it all doesn't matter, take Obama presidency, and Bush presidency, and compare.
I can guarantee you that if Gore had won in 2000, the world and the US would be a much, much better place today.
Of course we are talking teams, not one individual, but that's not really good news because while Clinton's team is basically the same bunch that worked for Obama, Trump's team seems to be made of lunatics who were probably not even interviewed. I don't think it doesn't matter, I just think it matters less then what is promoted. But thats probably due to my missing understanding of how the voting-system in the US is so heavily focused on the soon to be president. Additionally the points you mentioned earlier (taxation etc) aren't secrets, it is part of the campaign and the program of the party. If the people vote for it, isn't it what they want, because they think it is the best for them? I don't follow your logic. People voted for Hitler, they thought it was good for them and it wasn't. Right? On top of that I guess you have your opinion, so knowing that Trump promises a horrifying program, why do you hope he will win? (That is unless you think his program is great, then I understand). Finally, as a german citizen, you will be affected by American government decisions. If America hadn't recovered fairly well from the economic crisis, we would be much much worse off in Europe right now. Considering both Trump's foreign policy and economic program is a cluster fuck of bad ideas and ignorance, you can be more or less certain that Germany will be better of with anyone else who kind of has a clue about what they are doing. Hitler won because there were a lot of parties in the running. Having more than two parties means that you're guaranteed that the minority of the population gets to dictate to the majority of the population. Seems like you have it backwards. Having more than two parties with a proportional electoral system means a minority will never have power unless they compromise with enough other minorities that they can collectively represent more than 50% of the (voting) population. Having two parties means that two minority groups provide the only feasible choices for the entire voting population. (Also any talk of Hitler and democracy is moot because he never won any election)
Marshal Law, death camps, and a world war was brought into play because someone had 33% of the votes. 70% of the country disagreed but had to take it because that is what happens in a multiparty system where a group only needs 20-30 percent of the population to agree with you as opposed to the 50-60 percent two party systems require.
For the most part, it guarantees that even less voices are heard.
|
On August 05 2016 00:55 TMagpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2016 00:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 05 2016 00:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 04 2016 23:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 04 2016 23:38 doc_biceps wrote:On August 04 2016 23:27 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Well, if you think it all doesn't matter, take Obama presidency, and Bush presidency, and compare.
I can guarantee you that if Gore had won in 2000, the world and the US would be a much, much better place today.
Of course we are talking teams, not one individual, but that's not really good news because while Clinton's team is basically the same bunch that worked for Obama, Trump's team seems to be made of lunatics who were probably not even interviewed. I don't think it doesn't matter, I just think it matters less then what is promoted. But thats probably due to my missing understanding of how the voting-system in the US is so heavily focused on the soon to be president. Additionally the points you mentioned earlier (taxation etc) aren't secrets, it is part of the campaign and the program of the party. If the people vote for it, isn't it what they want, because they think it is the best for them? I don't follow your logic. People voted for Hitler, they thought it was good for them and it wasn't. Right? On top of that I guess you have your opinion, so knowing that Trump promises a horrifying program, why do you hope he will win? (That is unless you think his program is great, then I understand). Finally, as a german citizen, you will be affected by American government decisions. If America hadn't recovered fairly well from the economic crisis, we would be much much worse off in Europe right now. Considering both Trump's foreign policy and economic program is a cluster fuck of bad ideas and ignorance, you can be more or less certain that Germany will be better of with anyone else who kind of has a clue about what they are doing. Hitler won because there were a lot of parties in the running. Having more than two parties means that you're guaranteed that the minority of the population gets to dictate to the majority of the population. Seems like you have it backwards. Having more than two parties with a proportional electoral system means a minority will never have power unless they compromise with enough other minorities that they can collectively represent more than 50% of the (voting) population. Having two parties means that two minority groups provide the only feasible choices for the entire voting population. (Also any talk of Hitler and democracy is moot because he never won any election) Marshal Law, death camps, and a world war was brought into play because someone had 33% of the votes. 70% of the country disagreed but had to take it because that is what happens in a multiparty system where a group only needs 20-30 percent of the population to agree with you as opposed to the 50-60 percent two party systems require. For the most part, it guarantees that even less voices are heard.
Offering more valid political choices guarantess that less voices are heard. Now I've heard everything...
|
fewer voices required for martial law
|
On August 05 2016 00:55 TMagpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2016 00:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 05 2016 00:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 04 2016 23:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 04 2016 23:38 doc_biceps wrote:On August 04 2016 23:27 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Well, if you think it all doesn't matter, take Obama presidency, and Bush presidency, and compare.
I can guarantee you that if Gore had won in 2000, the world and the US would be a much, much better place today.
Of course we are talking teams, not one individual, but that's not really good news because while Clinton's team is basically the same bunch that worked for Obama, Trump's team seems to be made of lunatics who were probably not even interviewed. I don't think it doesn't matter, I just think it matters less then what is promoted. But thats probably due to my missing understanding of how the voting-system in the US is so heavily focused on the soon to be president. Additionally the points you mentioned earlier (taxation etc) aren't secrets, it is part of the campaign and the program of the party. If the people vote for it, isn't it what they want, because they think it is the best for them? I don't follow your logic. People voted for Hitler, they thought it was good for them and it wasn't. Right? On top of that I guess you have your opinion, so knowing that Trump promises a horrifying program, why do you hope he will win? (That is unless you think his program is great, then I understand). Finally, as a german citizen, you will be affected by American government decisions. If America hadn't recovered fairly well from the economic crisis, we would be much much worse off in Europe right now. Considering both Trump's foreign policy and economic program is a cluster fuck of bad ideas and ignorance, you can be more or less certain that Germany will be better of with anyone else who kind of has a clue about what they are doing. Hitler won because there were a lot of parties in the running. Having more than two parties means that you're guaranteed that the minority of the population gets to dictate to the majority of the population. Seems like you have it backwards. Having more than two parties with a proportional electoral system means a minority will never have power unless they compromise with enough other minorities that they can collectively represent more than 50% of the (voting) population. Having two parties means that two minority groups provide the only feasible choices for the entire voting population. (Also any talk of Hitler and democracy is moot because he never won any election) Marshal Law, death camps, and a world war was brought into play because someone had 33% of the votes. 70% of the country disagreed but had to take it because that is what happens in a multiparty system where a group only needs 20-30 percent of the population to agree with you as opposed to the 50-60 percent two party systems require. For the most part, it guarantees that even less voices are heard.
No, just no. You don't just need 20-30. you need 51%. And your not going to get to that 51% without working together with other parties who will resist if you decide to go off the deep end.
|
United States41989 Posts
On August 05 2016 01:17 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2016 00:55 TMagpie wrote:On August 05 2016 00:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 05 2016 00:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 04 2016 23:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 04 2016 23:38 doc_biceps wrote:On August 04 2016 23:27 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Well, if you think it all doesn't matter, take Obama presidency, and Bush presidency, and compare.
I can guarantee you that if Gore had won in 2000, the world and the US would be a much, much better place today.
Of course we are talking teams, not one individual, but that's not really good news because while Clinton's team is basically the same bunch that worked for Obama, Trump's team seems to be made of lunatics who were probably not even interviewed. I don't think it doesn't matter, I just think it matters less then what is promoted. But thats probably due to my missing understanding of how the voting-system in the US is so heavily focused on the soon to be president. Additionally the points you mentioned earlier (taxation etc) aren't secrets, it is part of the campaign and the program of the party. If the people vote for it, isn't it what they want, because they think it is the best for them? I don't follow your logic. People voted for Hitler, they thought it was good for them and it wasn't. Right? On top of that I guess you have your opinion, so knowing that Trump promises a horrifying program, why do you hope he will win? (That is unless you think his program is great, then I understand). Finally, as a german citizen, you will be affected by American government decisions. If America hadn't recovered fairly well from the economic crisis, we would be much much worse off in Europe right now. Considering both Trump's foreign policy and economic program is a cluster fuck of bad ideas and ignorance, you can be more or less certain that Germany will be better of with anyone else who kind of has a clue about what they are doing. Hitler won because there were a lot of parties in the running. Having more than two parties means that you're guaranteed that the minority of the population gets to dictate to the majority of the population. Seems like you have it backwards. Having more than two parties with a proportional electoral system means a minority will never have power unless they compromise with enough other minorities that they can collectively represent more than 50% of the (voting) population. Having two parties means that two minority groups provide the only feasible choices for the entire voting population. (Also any talk of Hitler and democracy is moot because he never won any election) Marshal Law, death camps, and a world war was brought into play because someone had 33% of the votes. 70% of the country disagreed but had to take it because that is what happens in a multiparty system where a group only needs 20-30 percent of the population to agree with you as opposed to the 50-60 percent two party systems require. For the most part, it guarantees that even less voices are heard. No, just no. You don't just need 20-30. you need 51%. And your not going to get to that 51% without working together with other parties who will resist if you decide to go off the deep end.
Depends. Many FPTP systems reward a plurality of the vote with a majority of the power. A party can very easily get 51% of the votes in the legislative with 30% of the votes in the election which is why it's important to understand the framework being operated in before making these kind of statements.
In the 1983 British general election the success of the SDP Liberal alliance in splintering the Labour vote left Thatcher with 42.4% of the vote and 61% of the seats. She actually got a lower proportion of the vote than in her initial victory in 1979, 42.4% from 43.9% but went from 52% of the seats, a narrow majority, to 61%, an extremely dominant majority. FPTP is fun. The public turned against her and the system rewarded her with absolute political power.
|
On August 05 2016 01:17 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2016 00:55 TMagpie wrote:On August 05 2016 00:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 05 2016 00:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 04 2016 23:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 04 2016 23:38 doc_biceps wrote:On August 04 2016 23:27 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Well, if you think it all doesn't matter, take Obama presidency, and Bush presidency, and compare.
I can guarantee you that if Gore had won in 2000, the world and the US would be a much, much better place today.
Of course we are talking teams, not one individual, but that's not really good news because while Clinton's team is basically the same bunch that worked for Obama, Trump's team seems to be made of lunatics who were probably not even interviewed. I don't think it doesn't matter, I just think it matters less then what is promoted. But thats probably due to my missing understanding of how the voting-system in the US is so heavily focused on the soon to be president. Additionally the points you mentioned earlier (taxation etc) aren't secrets, it is part of the campaign and the program of the party. If the people vote for it, isn't it what they want, because they think it is the best for them? I don't follow your logic. People voted for Hitler, they thought it was good for them and it wasn't. Right? On top of that I guess you have your opinion, so knowing that Trump promises a horrifying program, why do you hope he will win? (That is unless you think his program is great, then I understand). Finally, as a german citizen, you will be affected by American government decisions. If America hadn't recovered fairly well from the economic crisis, we would be much much worse off in Europe right now. Considering both Trump's foreign policy and economic program is a cluster fuck of bad ideas and ignorance, you can be more or less certain that Germany will be better of with anyone else who kind of has a clue about what they are doing. Hitler won because there were a lot of parties in the running. Having more than two parties means that you're guaranteed that the minority of the population gets to dictate to the majority of the population. Seems like you have it backwards. Having more than two parties with a proportional electoral system means a minority will never have power unless they compromise with enough other minorities that they can collectively represent more than 50% of the (voting) population. Having two parties means that two minority groups provide the only feasible choices for the entire voting population. (Also any talk of Hitler and democracy is moot because he never won any election) Marshal Law, death camps, and a world war was brought into play because someone had 33% of the votes. 70% of the country disagreed but had to take it because that is what happens in a multiparty system where a group only needs 20-30 percent of the population to agree with you as opposed to the 50-60 percent two party systems require. For the most part, it guarantees that even less voices are heard. No, just no. You don't just need 20-30. you need 51%. And your not going to get to that 51% without working together with other parties who will resist if you decide to go off the deep end.
Which is exactly why the liberal parties in the US joined together to form the Democratic Party, to do what you are already describing. Same with the GOP. Voters even get a say what exactly the make up of that coalition can be through local and midterm elections.
|
On August 05 2016 00:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2016 00:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:
(Also any talk of Hitler and democracy is moot because he never won any election) This is a popular misconception that attempts to absolve democracy and the German people of responsibility for Hitler. Hitler had more than enough of a democratic mandate to take office, there was no other candidate with anything like his degree of popular support. He won a plurality of the vote and was the natural successor. He was appointed but he was not appointed because the establishment wanted him, he was appointed because the establishment recognized he was inevitable due to his electoral success. We all like democracy and we all hate Hitler but that doesn't mean we can whitewash history to separate the two. Applying a false standard of 50% of the vote and saying that falling short of that means the election was not won is absurd. If any other multiparty democracy had an election with the 1933 results we'd all agree that the party with the Nazi's share of the vote won.
Well, fair enough, he had the plurality to take office and won the election.
But with barely a third of seats, in a more reasonable political environment he would've required the support of multiple parties for anything to get done...or actually lose office to a coalition of his opposition.
Important distinction, because the election results didn't even come close to giving the Nazi party dictatorial power.
|
On August 05 2016 01:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2016 01:17 Gorsameth wrote:On August 05 2016 00:55 TMagpie wrote:On August 05 2016 00:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 05 2016 00:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 04 2016 23:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 04 2016 23:38 doc_biceps wrote:On August 04 2016 23:27 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Well, if you think it all doesn't matter, take Obama presidency, and Bush presidency, and compare.
I can guarantee you that if Gore had won in 2000, the world and the US would be a much, much better place today.
Of course we are talking teams, not one individual, but that's not really good news because while Clinton's team is basically the same bunch that worked for Obama, Trump's team seems to be made of lunatics who were probably not even interviewed. I don't think it doesn't matter, I just think it matters less then what is promoted. But thats probably due to my missing understanding of how the voting-system in the US is so heavily focused on the soon to be president. Additionally the points you mentioned earlier (taxation etc) aren't secrets, it is part of the campaign and the program of the party. If the people vote for it, isn't it what they want, because they think it is the best for them? I don't follow your logic. People voted for Hitler, they thought it was good for them and it wasn't. Right? On top of that I guess you have your opinion, so knowing that Trump promises a horrifying program, why do you hope he will win? (That is unless you think his program is great, then I understand). Finally, as a german citizen, you will be affected by American government decisions. If America hadn't recovered fairly well from the economic crisis, we would be much much worse off in Europe right now. Considering both Trump's foreign policy and economic program is a cluster fuck of bad ideas and ignorance, you can be more or less certain that Germany will be better of with anyone else who kind of has a clue about what they are doing. Hitler won because there were a lot of parties in the running. Having more than two parties means that you're guaranteed that the minority of the population gets to dictate to the majority of the population. Seems like you have it backwards. Having more than two parties with a proportional electoral system means a minority will never have power unless they compromise with enough other minorities that they can collectively represent more than 50% of the (voting) population. Having two parties means that two minority groups provide the only feasible choices for the entire voting population. (Also any talk of Hitler and democracy is moot because he never won any election) Marshal Law, death camps, and a world war was brought into play because someone had 33% of the votes. 70% of the country disagreed but had to take it because that is what happens in a multiparty system where a group only needs 20-30 percent of the population to agree with you as opposed to the 50-60 percent two party systems require. For the most part, it guarantees that even less voices are heard. No, just no. You don't just need 20-30. you need 51%. And your not going to get to that 51% without working together with other parties who will resist if you decide to go off the deep end. Depends. Many FPTP systems reward a plurality of the vote with a majority of the power. A party can very easily get 51% of the votes in the legislative with 30% of the votes in the election which is why it's important to understand the framework being operated in before making these kind of statements. In the 1983 British general election the success of the SDP Liberal alliance in splintering the Labour vote left Thatcher with 42.4% of the vote and 61% of the seats. She actually got a lower proportion of the vote than in her initial victory in 1979, 42.4% from 43.9% but went from 52% of the seats, a narrow majority, to 61%, an extremely dominant majority. FPTP is fun. The public turned against her and the system rewarded her with absolute political power.
It's because FPTP dates back from a political era in which parties hardly existed though. A modern multi-party system should use proportional elections German-style, mixing national lists and local representatives.
|
On August 04 2016 23:58 doc_biceps wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 23:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I don't follow your logic. People voted for Hitler, they thought it was good for them and it wasn't. Right?
On top of that I guess you have your opinion, so knowing that Trump promises a horrifying program, why do you hope he will win? (That is unless you think his program is great, then I understand).
Finally, as a german citizen, you will be affected by American government decisions. If America hadn't recovered fairly well from the economic crisis, we would be much much worse off in Europe right now. Considering both Trump's foreign policy and economic program is a cluster fuck of bad ideas and ignorance, you can be more or less certain that Germany will be better of with anyone else who kind of has a clue about what they are doing. People voted for Hitler because they wanted the things he promised ("Make Germany great again!"). Example: The nazis created tons of jobs for "arians" by boosting weapon industry and putting "non-arian" people out of jobs. That must have been pretty good for the "arians" who voted for them. Of course it wasn't good for the rest of the people, but they probably didn't vote for him in the first place. (This is super complex and I actually didn't want to follow your Trump-Hitler comparison, because comparing anything with the 3rd Reich automatically goes into the wrong direction, so pls dont respond to this in any way  ). The issue is a key problematic of a democracy: allowing people to vote even if the thing they vote for might be bad in the end. Yes, I will be affected by American Government decisions but I really believe that those decisions are more influenced by the "government" which is not soley the president.
The majority of germans didn't vote for Hitler, but there was a growing sense of betrayal after the first world war because the people put into power when the kaiser fled had to sign the treaties that ensured german poverty, and they were also the cause for the german hyper-inflation as a result of Germany having to pay war-reparations. There were many who looked at the peace treaties even at the time and knew this wasn't a permanent peace, but merely a 20 year truce. The german kaiser and his staff had fled and shirked responsibility, and the people who'd been installed as a democratic government were seen as traitors to the german people, and because the war ended in an armistice before france and the other entente powers could enter germany the german people could look upon themselves as undefeated.
Germany at the time was operating on a barter system because of the hyper inflation, and some of their most prestigious projects like the autobahn were completed based on voluntary labor in exchange for stamps which could be traded for food and other necessities. The Nazi race theories didn't come into effect as government policy until later because Hitler was a proponent of eugenics and racial theory, and implementing those things took time. These theories took root in his mind early on in his life as he was a vagabond in austria making a living as a failed painter, and you can read about it in "mein kampf" (imagine that we have an actual book on the guy). Austria-hungary which was the cause of the first ww, had a diversity of population that he very much disliked because of how it was a constant source of friction and tension within the empire.
Jew's were being tied to the Bolshevik's in a big way on an international level at the time, and it was easy to believe such lies that the jew's were all-powerful because the zionists at the time. People who had the american and british prime-ministers as their friends and personal confidant's were actively propagating this myth while fundraising globally to get money into Palestine so they could fund their own state.
Hitler played on this emotional subtext, and was successful for a combination of reasons, and despite this he was still a minority party when he rose to power, but they made him chancellor because the majority party needed the nazi's to get a majority government, and they thought they could control him.
It is intellectually dishonest to compare Trump with Hitler. Trump is not in any way close to being a Hitler and he's not even a promonent of facism. His comments on illegal mexican immigrants and his stance on muslim immigration is not in any way comparable to the bar-room fantasy that was German nazism (ideals about racial purity, eugenics-theories and idealistic imagery of the german as the ubermench).
He is talking about controversial things, and he's trying to look into problems that the democrats are too cowardly to touch while the spotlight turns to them.
The CNN just posts a poll putting Hillary in the lead while excluding the 18-34 demographic, and that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how the media is actively shilling against a democratically elected republican candidate, and they'll keep on spreading misinformation.
There's evidence that the Clinton campaign has been coordinating with the Super PAC known as Correct the Record (illegal according to federal law).
and you're worried that some guy running for president has a controversial opinion on how America should deal with Illegal mexican immigrants and syrian refugees?
That's peanuts compared to Clinton.
Obama said he wanted to shut down Guantanamo, and its still there.
You think Hillary won't bar syrian and muslim refugees citing security reasons once she is in office?
"Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice??"
|
I feel like the party that Trump is running under had a big part in why Obama couldn't shut down Guantanamo.
|
On August 05 2016 01:38 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 23:58 doc_biceps wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 04 2016 23:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I don't follow your logic. People voted for Hitler, they thought it was good for them and it wasn't. Right?
On top of that I guess you have your opinion, so knowing that Trump promises a horrifying program, why do you hope he will win? (That is unless you think his program is great, then I understand).
Finally, as a german citizen, you will be affected by American government decisions. If America hadn't recovered fairly well from the economic crisis, we would be much much worse off in Europe right now. Considering both Trump's foreign policy and economic program is a cluster fuck of bad ideas and ignorance, you can be more or less certain that Germany will be better of with anyone else who kind of has a clue about what they are doing. People voted for Hitler because they wanted the things he promised ("Make Germany great again!"). Example: The nazis created tons of jobs for "arians" by boosting weapon industry and putting "non-arian" people out of jobs. That must have been pretty good for the "arians" who voted for them. Of course it wasn't good for the rest of the people, but they probably didn't vote for him in the first place. (This is super complex and I actually didn't want to follow your Trump-Hitler comparison, because comparing anything with the 3rd Reich automatically goes into the wrong direction, so pls dont respond to this in any way ). The issue is a key problematic of a democracy: allowing people to vote even if the thing they vote for might be bad in the end. Yes, I will be affected by American Government decisions but I really believe that those decisions are more influenced by the "government" which is not soley the president. The CNN just posts a poll putting Hillary in the lead while excluding the 18-34 demographic, and that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how the media is actively shilling against a democratically elected republican candidate, and they'll keep on spreading misinformation.
This is not an accurate representation of reality.
A total of 1,003 adults were interviewed by telephone nationwide by live interviewers calling both landline and cell phones.
Among the entire sample, 28% described themselves as Democrats, 24% described themselves as Republicans, and 48%
described themselves as independents or members of another party.
All respondents were asked questions concerning basic demographics, and the entire sample was weighted to reflect
national Census figures for gender, race, age, education, region of country, and telephone usage.
Crosstabs on the following pages only include results for subgroups with enough unweighted cases to produce a sampling
error of +/- 8.5 percentage points or less. Some subgroups represent too small a share of the national population to produce
crosstabs with an acceptable sampling error. Interviews were conducted among these subgroups, but results for groups
with a sampling error larger than +/-8.5 percentage points are not displayed and instead are denoted with "NA".
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/08/01/2016.post-dem.convention.pdf
|
Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, I'll vote for the one who straight out disagrees with me instead of voting for the one who might be lying when she says she agrees with me.
Why is that making sense to some people? I just don't understand.
|
United States41989 Posts
Congress won't allow Obama to put the people currently in Guantanamo anywhere on the mainland and despite what your survivalist uncle may post on facebook from his trailer in the mountains Obama has not signed an executive order giving him absolute power.
|
On August 05 2016 01:37 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2016 01:20 KwarK wrote:On August 05 2016 01:17 Gorsameth wrote:On August 05 2016 00:55 TMagpie wrote:On August 05 2016 00:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 05 2016 00:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 04 2016 23:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 04 2016 23:38 doc_biceps wrote:On August 04 2016 23:27 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Well, if you think it all doesn't matter, take Obama presidency, and Bush presidency, and compare.
I can guarantee you that if Gore had won in 2000, the world and the US would be a much, much better place today.
Of course we are talking teams, not one individual, but that's not really good news because while Clinton's team is basically the same bunch that worked for Obama, Trump's team seems to be made of lunatics who were probably not even interviewed. I don't think it doesn't matter, I just think it matters less then what is promoted. But thats probably due to my missing understanding of how the voting-system in the US is so heavily focused on the soon to be president. Additionally the points you mentioned earlier (taxation etc) aren't secrets, it is part of the campaign and the program of the party. If the people vote for it, isn't it what they want, because they think it is the best for them? I don't follow your logic. People voted for Hitler, they thought it was good for them and it wasn't. Right? On top of that I guess you have your opinion, so knowing that Trump promises a horrifying program, why do you hope he will win? (That is unless you think his program is great, then I understand). Finally, as a german citizen, you will be affected by American government decisions. If America hadn't recovered fairly well from the economic crisis, we would be much much worse off in Europe right now. Considering both Trump's foreign policy and economic program is a cluster fuck of bad ideas and ignorance, you can be more or less certain that Germany will be better of with anyone else who kind of has a clue about what they are doing. Hitler won because there were a lot of parties in the running. Having more than two parties means that you're guaranteed that the minority of the population gets to dictate to the majority of the population. Seems like you have it backwards. Having more than two parties with a proportional electoral system means a minority will never have power unless they compromise with enough other minorities that they can collectively represent more than 50% of the (voting) population. Having two parties means that two minority groups provide the only feasible choices for the entire voting population. (Also any talk of Hitler and democracy is moot because he never won any election) Marshal Law, death camps, and a world war was brought into play because someone had 33% of the votes. 70% of the country disagreed but had to take it because that is what happens in a multiparty system where a group only needs 20-30 percent of the population to agree with you as opposed to the 50-60 percent two party systems require. For the most part, it guarantees that even less voices are heard. No, just no. You don't just need 20-30. you need 51%. And your not going to get to that 51% without working together with other parties who will resist if you decide to go off the deep end. Depends. Many FPTP systems reward a plurality of the vote with a majority of the power. A party can very easily get 51% of the votes in the legislative with 30% of the votes in the election which is why it's important to understand the framework being operated in before making these kind of statements. In the 1983 British general election the success of the SDP Liberal alliance in splintering the Labour vote left Thatcher with 42.4% of the vote and 61% of the seats. She actually got a lower proportion of the vote than in her initial victory in 1979, 42.4% from 43.9% but went from 52% of the seats, a narrow majority, to 61%, an extremely dominant majority. FPTP is fun. The public turned against her and the system rewarded her with absolute political power. It's because FPTP dates back from a political era in which parties hardly existed though. A modern multi-party system should use proportional elections German-style, mixing national lists and local representatives.
Indeed. When europeans say "multi-party" they don't mean "For some reason there are more then 2 parties in FPTP for a short period of time until one of them disappears because FPTP is a two-party system at it's core. ", they mean "A system with proportional elections and multiple parties forming a coalition AFTER THE ELECTION to be able to have a majority, and specifically without any FPTP bullshit that deprives minority parties of any influence whatsoever on the legislative".
In Germany, if a party has 10% of the popular vote, they get ~10% of the seats in the Bundestag. In the US, if a party has 10% of the popular vote, they get nothing at all, and their voters should have voted democratic or republican, whichever is closer to what they actually want, because that way their votes would have done at least something, instead of being completely wasted.
Thus, in Germany, we can have a green party that is a) not insane and b) actually has political influence, because a relevant minority of the voters cares a lot about enviromental issues. In a FPTP system, those guys would have to vote SPD (one of our two bigger parties) instead, despite the fact that they don't really represent what they want.
Imagine if you had a seperate Tea Party, remainder of the republican party, democracts, and social democrat party (Bernie-Guys) on your ballot, you could vote for any of them, and know that that party would have a proportional say in government depending on how many votes they got. You could suddenly actually vote for what you want to vote for, instead of having to go with the lesser evil. This has the added advantage that "Just make the other guy look bad" is no longer a valid strategy, you have to look good yourself to be elected.
And it is possible to combine this with local representation. Just take a look at the German system.
FPTP is an archaic construct from a time when you couldn't really effectively communicate over long distances. In a modern world, it is an utterly ridiculous election system.
|
United States41989 Posts
On August 05 2016 02:03 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2016 01:37 OtherWorld wrote:On August 05 2016 01:20 KwarK wrote:On August 05 2016 01:17 Gorsameth wrote:On August 05 2016 00:55 TMagpie wrote:On August 05 2016 00:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 05 2016 00:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 04 2016 23:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 04 2016 23:38 doc_biceps wrote:On August 04 2016 23:27 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Well, if you think it all doesn't matter, take Obama presidency, and Bush presidency, and compare.
I can guarantee you that if Gore had won in 2000, the world and the US would be a much, much better place today.
Of course we are talking teams, not one individual, but that's not really good news because while Clinton's team is basically the same bunch that worked for Obama, Trump's team seems to be made of lunatics who were probably not even interviewed. I don't think it doesn't matter, I just think it matters less then what is promoted. But thats probably due to my missing understanding of how the voting-system in the US is so heavily focused on the soon to be president. Additionally the points you mentioned earlier (taxation etc) aren't secrets, it is part of the campaign and the program of the party. If the people vote for it, isn't it what they want, because they think it is the best for them? I don't follow your logic. People voted for Hitler, they thought it was good for them and it wasn't. Right? On top of that I guess you have your opinion, so knowing that Trump promises a horrifying program, why do you hope he will win? (That is unless you think his program is great, then I understand). Finally, as a german citizen, you will be affected by American government decisions. If America hadn't recovered fairly well from the economic crisis, we would be much much worse off in Europe right now. Considering both Trump's foreign policy and economic program is a cluster fuck of bad ideas and ignorance, you can be more or less certain that Germany will be better of with anyone else who kind of has a clue about what they are doing. Hitler won because there were a lot of parties in the running. Having more than two parties means that you're guaranteed that the minority of the population gets to dictate to the majority of the population. Seems like you have it backwards. Having more than two parties with a proportional electoral system means a minority will never have power unless they compromise with enough other minorities that they can collectively represent more than 50% of the (voting) population. Having two parties means that two minority groups provide the only feasible choices for the entire voting population. (Also any talk of Hitler and democracy is moot because he never won any election) Marshal Law, death camps, and a world war was brought into play because someone had 33% of the votes. 70% of the country disagreed but had to take it because that is what happens in a multiparty system where a group only needs 20-30 percent of the population to agree with you as opposed to the 50-60 percent two party systems require. For the most part, it guarantees that even less voices are heard. No, just no. You don't just need 20-30. you need 51%. And your not going to get to that 51% without working together with other parties who will resist if you decide to go off the deep end. Depends. Many FPTP systems reward a plurality of the vote with a majority of the power. A party can very easily get 51% of the votes in the legislative with 30% of the votes in the election which is why it's important to understand the framework being operated in before making these kind of statements. In the 1983 British general election the success of the SDP Liberal alliance in splintering the Labour vote left Thatcher with 42.4% of the vote and 61% of the seats. She actually got a lower proportion of the vote than in her initial victory in 1979, 42.4% from 43.9% but went from 52% of the seats, a narrow majority, to 61%, an extremely dominant majority. FPTP is fun. The public turned against her and the system rewarded her with absolute political power. It's because FPTP dates back from a political era in which parties hardly existed though. A modern multi-party system should use proportional elections German-style, mixing national lists and local representatives. Indeed. When europeans say "multi-party" they don't mean "For some reason there are more then 2 parties in FPTP for a short period of time until one of them disappears because FPTP is a two-party system at it's core. ", they mean "A system with proportional elections and multiple parties forming a coalition AFTER THE ELECTION to be able to have a majority, and specifically without any FPTP bullshit that deprives minority parties of any influence whatsoever on the legislative". In Germany, if a party has 10% of the popular vote, they get ~10% of the seats in the Bundestag. In the US, if a party has 10% of the popular vote, they get nothing at all, and their voters should have voted democratic or republican, whichever is closer to what they actually want, because that way their votes would have done at least something, instead of being completely wasted. Thus, in Germany, we can have a green party that is a) not insane and b) actually has political influence, because a relevant minority of the voters cares a lot about enviromental issues. In a FPTP system, those guys would have to vote SPD (one of our two bigger parties) instead, despite the fact that they don't really represent what they want. Imagine if you had a seperate Tea Party, remainder of the republican party, democracts, and social democrat party (Bernie-Guys) on your ballot, you could vote for any of them, and know that that party would have a proportional say in government depending on how many votes they got. You could suddenly actually vote for what you want to vote for, instead of having to go with the lesser evil. This has the added advantage that "Just make the other guy look bad" is no longer a valid strategy, you have to look good yourself to be elected. And it is possible to combine this with local representation. Just take a look at the German system. FPTP is an archaic construct from a time when you couldn't really effectively communicate over long distances. In a modern world, it is an utterly ridiculous election system.
It's fine though because I'm sure eventually the two dominant political parties in the US will see the need to end their monopoly on power and push through reform for the good of the people. It'll be like all those other times they put the common good of all the people, even those who don't support them, above their own self interest.
/s
|
In the US the citizens choose each member of the legislature. That there are only two parties representing them was crafted by the voters and not by some system that enforces it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
