EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3695
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11977 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46402 Posts
On June 27 2022 23:09 Simberto wrote: In the US system, two party is sadly a basically immutable law. How do other countries do it? Other governments that have more than two parties that are all represented... How do their constituents get over the "Us vs. Them" dichotomy and mindset? Why haven't their 3 or 4 or 5 parties joined forces and consolidated into 2 larger, more popular, factions? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On June 27 2022 23:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: How do other countries do it? Other governments that have more than two parties that are all represented... How do their constituents get over the "Us vs. Them" dichotomy and mindset? Why haven't their 3 or 4 or 5 parties joined forces and consolidated into 2 larger, more popular, factions? They have coalition-forming drama instead. Ours are prebuilt. Shame at least one of these prebuilt coalitions has given up on serving its constituency though. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11977 Posts
On June 27 2022 23:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: How do other countries do it? Other governments that have more than two parties that are all represented... How do their constituents get over the "Us vs. Them" dichotomy and mindset? Why haven't their 3 or 4 or 5 parties joined forces and consolidated into 2 larger, more popular, factions? Because the system works differently. Here in Germany, a party gets representatives proportional to their total amount of votes, as long as they have more than 5% (to prevent thousands of microparties like Weimar). (Some stuff is a bit more complex, but that is the core) That means that votes work, but parties also need to work with other parties. There are natural coalition that happen often, but as votes shift, the parties need to negotiate with most of the other parties at some point to keep in power. This keeps them from totally pissing off everyone else, and leads to a much more positive political climate. For example, the current Landesparlamente (state parliament) coalitions are: SPD, Green, Left (*2) SPD, CDU (*1) SPD, Green (*1) SPD, CDU, Green (*1) SPD, Green, FDP(*1) CDU, Green (*1) CDU, FDP (*1) CDU, SPD, FDP (*1) CDU, Green, FDP (*1) CDU, Green, SPD (*1) CSU, Free Voters (*1) Left, SPD, Green (*1) Green, CDU (*1) SPD (*1) Our national parliament currently works with a majority of SPD, Green, FDP. This means that basically every party is in a coalition with basically every other party somewhere. (Except for the AfD because they are rightwing nuts and no one wants to talk to them) They cannot completely fraction society like they can in the US and paint the other guy as the devil, because they still need to be able to work with them. And since every vote matters, people don't have to vote tactically. More votes for your party = More power for that party. Coalitions usually negotiate power based on how many votes the parties have. And there is nothing to gain for the parties to merge, because they don't need to win an FPTP race to get any power. FPTP is the core mechanic which enforces a two party system in the US. | ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
On June 28 2022 00:06 LegalLord wrote: Voting may not in and of itself be a pointless activity, but voting for the Democrats is. Not like the decades of 90% loyalty of "people of color" to the Dems have bought them anything even remotely worthy of that loyalty. Much better to vote for people who wants to revert the civil rights gains and who refuse to admit theres a racial issue in the US. Very smart. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11977 Posts
On June 28 2022 00:32 Erasme wrote: Much better to vote for people who wants to revert the civil rights gains and who refuse to admit theres a racial issue in the US. Very smart. Yeah, the problem in the US is that you don't have a good option to vote for. Democrats are not a good choice, republicans are just singularly bad and should really be completely unelectable by any sane person. "Loyalty to the democrats" is not about being loyal to the democrats. It is about being loyal to voting against republicans. Which sadly means voting democrats. | ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
Djabanete
United States2786 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24342 Posts
In my radicalization work I find it's a popular trigger point for folks. Some event or whatever happens where they realize they can't. They or someone they care about gets added to the groups of people being abused and/or they can't enjoy their individualized comfort they carved out despite being in an oppressed group knowing it's predicated on such immense suffering of innocent people. Capitalism and US indoctrination provide a slew of coping mechanisms to alleviate the stress this causes but what we're seeing in the radicalization of primarily (but not exclusively) young women after this abortion ruling is its deteriorating capacity to adequately subdue it. | ||
|
Djabanete
United States2786 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States44286 Posts
On June 27 2022 11:58 Falling wrote: I mean the religious liberty question always goes back to the core disagreement in the abortion debate- when does a human become a human. There are limits to religious freedoms. For instance, I suspect no matter how ancient the religion, nor how fervently the beliefs are held by the adherents, the government will not allow human sacrifice. Killing a human is off the table as a religious practice in the US. So from the pro-life worldview, it is a human life being killed- no religious liberty argument comes into play. Whereas, if no human is being killed as from the pro-choice worldview, a religious argument could be made. Making it a religious liberty argument gets you no further ahead in what is being disagreed upon- each already assumes its own premise. You could found a hundred new religions in 2022, all with abortion as its central tenet, and it's still the age old question underneath the question: when does a new human come into being. It's the un-resolvable disagreement at the heart of the debate. A refusal to donate organs has never been considered killing. An abortion is a refusal to donate organs. | ||
| ||
