Sure there aren't constant, major changes, but that's a feature not a bug.
Which government are you comparing it to where there are constant major changes? Sometimes I get the impression that American politics is all about defining bugs as features because that's the way it's always been.
I wasn't really comparing to another country I was responding to claims that our legislator is (functionally, not just right now) broken.
Legislation not being super duper easy to pass is a feature, it's one of the big things about our government! We're actually in a position where there's a nonzero chance the Republicans, who are acting out in historical levels of bad faith, win control of all three branches of government, and the whole thing falls apart though. This is not the norm.
That's as much on the voters as anyone else though, and not really the fault of our government as a system.
OK. Your legislature currently allows for 41 senators to torpedo any legislation or appointment they want to. This is broken because it breaks the link between power and responsibility - Democrats are blamed for a bad economy but they can't fix it because of the filibuster.
This is not a recent change. This has been the case for the last 36 years. The only thing that's different is the willingness of the senators to use the filibuster for everything and its dog. Accordingly, the Senate has been broken for at least 36 years. (I'm using '75 as the cutoff because that appears to be the last major revision to the rules.) The fact that it was not exploited as much doesn't make it retroactively fixed, it just means that the flaws of the system are not exposed until people start playing hardball.
I live in Canada where legislation is super-duper easy to pass and despite the fact that God-Emperor Harper has just started his four-year reign, we have not seen abortion banned, gay marriage repealed, Medicare axed or the death penalty brought back. Maybe the Republicans would find out that there are disadvantaged to being blamed for everything that goes wrong when they don't have anyone else to pin it on.
Okay so you agree with me that this is a recent phenomena because in the past legislators didn't act like children? I'm not sure what you're trying to argue.
I agree the filibuster is a little silly but again, it has never been abused like this before. The onus is on the electorate to do something about it, it's not a problem with how the government was set up.
Now FPtP voting (winner take all) makes it harder to fix the mess we're in now, but if more than a minority of the population voted all our problems would miraculously seem much less dark. Representative Republic kind of doesn't work when you're not interested in being represented, and one way or another things will change.
If Obama is reelected, it will prove this move into crazy town DOES NOT work. If the Republicans get elected, after a repeat of the Bush years things will swing back Democratic with a vengeance.
I'm desperately trying to move to Canada (at least your conservatives pretty much only fuck up your own country) or somewhere else so I'm probably not who you should pick to defend the American system though: I agree it has a lot of flaws.
Sure there aren't constant, major changes, but that's a feature not a bug.
Which government are you comparing it to where there are constant major changes? Sometimes I get the impression that American politics is all about defining bugs as features because that's the way it's always been.
I wasn't really comparing to another country I was responding to claims that our legislator is (functionally, not just right now) broken.
Legislation not being super duper easy to pass is a feature, it's one of the big things about our government! We're actually in a position where there's a nonzero chance the Republicans, who are acting out in historical levels of bad faith, win control of all three branches of government, and the whole thing falls apart though. This is not the norm.
That's as much on the voters as anyone else though, and not really the fault of our government as a system.
OK. Your legislature currently allows for 41 senators to torpedo any legislation or appointment they want to. This is broken because it breaks the link between power and responsibility - Democrats are blamed for a bad economy but they can't fix it because of the filibuster.
This is not a recent change. This has been the case for the last 36 years. The only thing that's different is the willingness of the senators to use the filibuster for everything and its dog. Accordingly, the Senate has been broken for at least 36 years. (I'm using '75 as the cutoff because that appears to be the last major revision to the rules.) The fact that it was not exploited as much doesn't make it retroactively fixed, it just means that the flaws of the system are not exposed until people start playing hardball.
I live in Canada where legislation is super-duper easy to pass and despite the fact that God-Emperor Harper has just started his four-year reign, we have not seen abortion banned, gay marriage repealed, Medicare axed or the death penalty brought back. Maybe the Republicans would find out that there are disadvantaged to being blamed for everything that goes wrong when they don't have anyone else to pin it on.
You had your government abolished, despite being the great all-white north. That doesn't really seem like "success" to me.
Sure there aren't constant, major changes, but that's a feature not a bug.
Which government are you comparing it to where there are constant major changes? Sometimes I get the impression that American politics is all about defining bugs as features because that's the way it's always been.
I wasn't really comparing to another country I was responding to claims that our legislator is (functionally, not just right now) broken.
Legislation not being super duper easy to pass is a feature, it's one of the big things about our government! We're actually in a position where there's a nonzero chance the Republicans, who are acting out in historical levels of bad faith, win control of all three branches of government, and the whole thing falls apart though. This is not the norm.
That's as much on the voters as anyone else though, and not really the fault of our government as a system.
OK. Your legislature currently allows for 41 senators to torpedo any legislation or appointment they want to. This is broken because it breaks the link between power and responsibility - Democrats are blamed for a bad economy but they can't fix it because of the filibuster.
This is not a recent change. This has been the case for the last 36 years. The only thing that's different is the willingness of the senators to use the filibuster for everything and its dog. Accordingly, the Senate has been broken for at least 36 years. (I'm using '75 as the cutoff because that appears to be the last major revision to the rules.) The fact that it was not exploited as much doesn't make it retroactively fixed, it just means that the flaws of the system are not exposed until people start playing hardball.
I live in Canada where legislation is super-duper easy to pass and despite the fact that God-Emperor Harper has just started his four-year reign, we have not seen abortion banned, gay marriage repealed, Medicare axed or the death penalty brought back. Maybe the Republicans would find out that there are disadvantaged to being blamed for everything that goes wrong when they don't have anyone else to pin it on.
Okay so you agree with me that this is a recent phenomena because in the past legislators didn't act like children? I'm not sure what you're trying to argue.
I agree the filibuster is a little silly but again, it has never been abused like this before. The onus is on the electorate to do something about it, it's not a problem with how the government was set up.
Now FPtP voting (winner take all) makes it harder to fix the mess we're in now, but if more than a minority of the population voted all our problems would miraculously seem much less dark.
OK, we try example B. So let's say in 2012 Congress passes a law that says that:
1) The President can arrest anyone who poses a threat to the United States and keep them detained indefinitely without trial
2) The President decides who poses a threat to the United States
And so we continue merrily on our way, and Obama leaves office without incident, and a few successors do as well.
Then in 2040, after President Palin loses her re-election campaign, she decides to immediately arrest the President-Elect as well as the entire Democratic congressional delegation.
Was this a broken law in 2012, or was it not broken until 2040?
Sure there aren't constant, major changes, but that's a feature not a bug.
Which government are you comparing it to where there are constant major changes? Sometimes I get the impression that American politics is all about defining bugs as features because that's the way it's always been.
I wasn't really comparing to another country I was responding to claims that our legislator is (functionally, not just right now) broken.
Legislation not being super duper easy to pass is a feature, it's one of the big things about our government! We're actually in a position where there's a nonzero chance the Republicans, who are acting out in historical levels of bad faith, win control of all three branches of government, and the whole thing falls apart though. This is not the norm.
That's as much on the voters as anyone else though, and not really the fault of our government as a system.
OK. Your legislature currently allows for 41 senators to torpedo any legislation or appointment they want to. This is broken because it breaks the link between power and responsibility - Democrats are blamed for a bad economy but they can't fix it because of the filibuster.
This is not a recent change. This has been the case for the last 36 years. The only thing that's different is the willingness of the senators to use the filibuster for everything and its dog. Accordingly, the Senate has been broken for at least 36 years. (I'm using '75 as the cutoff because that appears to be the last major revision to the rules.) The fact that it was not exploited as much doesn't make it retroactively fixed, it just means that the flaws of the system are not exposed until people start playing hardball.
I live in Canada where legislation is super-duper easy to pass and despite the fact that God-Emperor Harper has just started his four-year reign, we have not seen abortion banned, gay marriage repealed, Medicare axed or the death penalty brought back. Maybe the Republicans would find out that there are disadvantaged to being blamed for everything that goes wrong when they don't have anyone else to pin it on.
You had your government abolished, despite being the great all-white north. That doesn't really seem like "success" to me.
?
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Sure there aren't constant, major changes, but that's a feature not a bug.
Which government are you comparing it to where there are constant major changes? Sometimes I get the impression that American politics is all about defining bugs as features because that's the way it's always been.
I wasn't really comparing to another country I was responding to claims that our legislator is (functionally, not just right now) broken.
Legislation not being super duper easy to pass is a feature, it's one of the big things about our government! We're actually in a position where there's a nonzero chance the Republicans, who are acting out in historical levels of bad faith, win control of all three branches of government, and the whole thing falls apart though. This is not the norm.
That's as much on the voters as anyone else though, and not really the fault of our government as a system.
OK. Your legislature currently allows for 41 senators to torpedo any legislation or appointment they want to. This is broken because it breaks the link between power and responsibility - Democrats are blamed for a bad economy but they can't fix it because of the filibuster.
This is not a recent change. This has been the case for the last 36 years. The only thing that's different is the willingness of the senators to use the filibuster for everything and its dog. Accordingly, the Senate has been broken for at least 36 years. (I'm using '75 as the cutoff because that appears to be the last major revision to the rules.) The fact that it was not exploited as much doesn't make it retroactively fixed, it just means that the flaws of the system are not exposed until people start playing hardball.
I live in Canada where legislation is super-duper easy to pass and despite the fact that God-Emperor Harper has just started his four-year reign, we have not seen abortion banned, gay marriage repealed, Medicare axed or the death penalty brought back. Maybe the Republicans would find out that there are disadvantaged to being blamed for everything that goes wrong when they don't have anyone else to pin it on.
Okay so you agree with me that this is a recent phenomena because in the past legislators didn't act like children? I'm not sure what you're trying to argue.
I agree the filibuster is a little silly but again, it has never been abused like this before. The onus is on the electorate to do something about it, it's not a problem with how the government was set up.
Now FPtP voting (winner take all) makes it harder to fix the mess we're in now, but if more than a minority of the population voted all our problems would miraculously seem much less dark.
OK, we try example B. So let's say in 2012 Congress passes a law that says that:
1) The President can arrest anyone who poses a threat to the United States and keep them detained indefinitely without trial
2) The President decides who poses a threat to the United States
And so we continue merrily on our way, and Obama leaves office without incident, and a few successors do as well.
Then in 2040, after President Palin loses her re-election campaign, she decides to immediately arrest the President-Elect as well as the entire Democratic congressional delegation.
Was this a broken law in 2012, or was it not broken until 2040?
I'm sorry, what does this have to do with anything?
What does this have to do with the pros and cons of Westminster vs American democracy at all?
I'm sorry, what does this have to do with anything?
What does this have to do with the pros and cons of Westminster vs American democracy at all?
American democracy has a fairly significant "con" because it allows the minority party to obstruct the majority party. We are apparently fighting over whether this became a problem a) when the rules were made or b) when the rules were abused. I vote for a).
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Right, and David Cameron's back tracked on all the shitty economic polices Gordon Brown and Tony Blair started has he?
Shifting to Westminster style does nothing to fix the fundamental problem of bad politicians and suicide cult Republicans.
How is it better for Prime Minister Boehner to enact that law and use it against Nancy Pelosi before the next election?
I'm sorry, what does this have to do with anything?
What does this have to do with the pros and cons of Westminster vs American democracy at all?
American democracy has a fairly significant "con" because it allows the minority party to obstruct the majority party. We are apparently fighting over whether this became a problem a) when the rules were made or b) when the rules were abused. I vote for a).
It's easy to forget that the people who set up the system really had no idea how popular democracy was going to shake out (actually, most of them appear to have believed it would descend relatively quickly into mob rule.) And so our system of government is set up to put a massive number of roadblocks between the will of the people (as expressed at the ballot box) and meaningful public policy.
What we have learned in the 200 odd years hence is that people are much better at managing their own affairs than the founding fathers thought, and that a system that bow more easily to public pressure don't produce bad outcomes. What we're left with is a system that responds more slowly to public demand and enables a minority party to exert influence far out of proportion to their representation.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Right, and David Cameron's back tracked on all the shitty economic polices Gordon Brown and Tony Blair started has he?
Shifting to Westminster style does nothing to fix the fundamental problem of bad politicians and suicide cult Republicans.
How is it better for Prime Minister Boehner to enact that law and use it against Nancy Pelosi before the next election?
because then the boehner administration produces a clear policy result whose impacts can be laid at his feet and approved or disapproved of in the next election.
As opposed to now, where it's really difficult for even an experienced observer to determine who in congress is responsible for what portion of a policy (unless you have a detailed understanding of how, say, conference committees function), and very easy for politicians to avoid blame (which is probably one of the reasons lobbying is such a problem.)
The health care issue is an instructive example. In the United States almost every presidential candidate since truman has, in one way or another, run on a platform of providing health care to every american. There has consistently been public support for this position for at least thirty years. And yet we have never until this year enacted legislation which actually attempts to make appropriate policy. Why?
Because in the mess that is our legislative process, it's really difficult to determine who is responsible for crafting, changing and even supporting ('he voted for it before he voted against it!') a particular policy. Things pass, fail or die in committee for reasons that are frequently inscrutable. When an election rolls around everybody deflects responsibility, and our staggered system of elections means that the people responsible frequently aren't even up for re-election for 2-4 more years.
In a parlimentary system, a victories like the dems won in 2006/2008 or the republicans won in 2002 (iirc, one of those years) would've produced broad mandates to actually enact policy. Maybe that policy would've sucked, maybe we would've liked it, but either way we'd have had something to directly consider that the public could address in the next election.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Who's responsible for the mess with health care not being reformed (as much as we would have liked)? Rush Limbaugh, he's not even an elected official, but he's responsible for more than any current Republican elected official. He's certainly more powerful than any of them.
If one of them is president, we'll have a president who is subservient to a shock jock.
Sure there aren't constant, major changes, but that's a feature not a bug.
Which government are you comparing it to where there are constant major changes? Sometimes I get the impression that American politics is all about defining bugs as features because that's the way it's always been.
I wasn't really comparing to another country I was responding to claims that our legislator is (functionally, not just right now) broken.
Legislation not being super duper easy to pass is a feature, it's one of the big things about our government! We're actually in a position where there's a nonzero chance the Republicans, who are acting out in historical levels of bad faith, win control of all three branches of government, and the whole thing falls apart though. This is not the norm.
That's as much on the voters as anyone else though, and not really the fault of our government as a system.
OK. Your legislature currently allows for 41 senators to torpedo any legislation or appointment they want to. This is broken because it breaks the link between power and responsibility - Democrats are blamed for a bad economy but they can't fix it because of the filibuster.
This is not a recent change. This has been the case for the last 36 years. The only thing that's different is the willingness of the senators to use the filibuster for everything and its dog. Accordingly, the Senate has been broken for at least 36 years. (I'm using '75 as the cutoff because that appears to be the last major revision to the rules.) The fact that it was not exploited as much doesn't make it retroactively fixed, it just means that the flaws of the system are not exposed until people start playing hardball.
I live in Canada where legislation is super-duper easy to pass and despite the fact that God-Emperor Harper has just started his four-year reign, we have not seen abortion banned, gay marriage repealed, Medicare axed or the death penalty brought back. Maybe the Republicans would find out that there are disadvantaged to being blamed for everything that goes wrong when they don't have anyone else to pin it on.
Okay so you agree with me that this is a recent phenomena because in the past legislators didn't act like children? I'm not sure what you're trying to argue.
Uh no. All that's changed is that someone started exploiting the huge obvious flaws in the system.
What you are doing here is like pretending there's not a hole in your wall just cause no one came through it yet.
I agree the filibuster is a little silly but again, it has never been abused like this before. The onus is on the electorate to do something about it, it's not a problem with how the government was set up.
And yet again, we get back to the problem that the US system, via the fucking filibuster, makes it almost impossible for this to happen. How can the electorate do anything about it when the system makes it impossible for them to know wtf is going on?
I mean, shit, you people can't even figure out who gets to start killing foreigners with your army.
shryke on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
It's not that difficult to know what's going on.
Congress has the authority to start wars. They voted to give Bush the power to invade Iraq. The War Powers Act allows the President, as Commander-In-Chief, to commit to military action for a limited time. At the end of this time the Congress can cut funding and force the conflict to an end if it so chooses.
These are all things I learned in AP US Government in eleventh grade and available for others to learn online. You know what, actually:
That's a bit simplified, it doesn't go into the meat of committee work or the veto process, but in general that's how it works. Also available online is a record of every single vote your Congressman or Senator has ever made and the context.
I would agree that the filibuster is a broken system. I would agree that there are "holes in the wall". But what's the better option, close the holes or blow up the wall and build a new one?
Uh no. All that's changed is that someone started exploiting the huge obvious flaws in the system.
What you are doing here is like pretending there's not a hole in your wall just cause no one came through it yet.
I agree the filibuster is a little silly but again, it has never been abused like this before. The onus is on the electorate to do something about it, it's not a problem with how the government was set up.
And yet again, we get back to the problem that the US system, via the fucking filibuster, makes it almost impossible for this to happen. How can the electorate do anything about it when the system makes it impossible for them to know wtf is going on?.
Explain to me how the filibuster makes it impossible for people to vote. I agree the filibuster is stupid, but I think the bigger problem is that voters elected people who's goal it is to exploit the system rather than govern. This is a new thing!
And yet again, we get back to the problem that the US system, via the fucking filibuster, makes it almost impossible for this to happen. How can the electorate do anything about it when the system makes it impossible for them to know wtf is going on?.
Explain to me how the filibuster makes it impossible for people to vote. I agree the filibuster is stupid, but I think the bigger problem is that voters elected people who's goal it is to exploit the system rather than govern. This is a new thing!
I think that if you're relying on people to go against human nature and the incentives set before them as you seem to be doing, you're in Ayn Rand/Karl Marx territory of what-the-fuck.
Loren Michael on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Well, it seems the essential question has become: Would a Westminster style of government solve the US' problems.
I argue that it wouldn't because we'd have the same political class without the stop gaps the Federal system has which stop things like the Ryan budget and BBAs from going through (even if they do hold up good legislation at the same time).
Others put forth that it would because it would hold politicians more directly accountable and therefore lead to better government in the long run, even if we did have to put up with periods of bad government.
I'm not convinced that it would hold them more accountable because for me the essential problem is our low voter turnout and the voters who do turn out are misinformed in general and actively vote against their self-interest.
Well, it seems the essential question has become: Would a Westminster style of government solve the US' problems.
I argue that it wouldn't because we'd have the same political class without the stop gaps the Federal system has which stop things like the Ryan budget and BBAs from going through (even if they do hold up good legislation at the same time).
Others put forth that it would because it would hold politicians more directly accountable and therefore lead to better government in the long run, even if we did have to put up with periods of bad government.
I'm not convinced that it would hold them more accountable because for me the essential problem is our low voter turnout and the voters who do turn out are misinformed in general and actively vote against their self-interest.
I'm not sure how low voter turnout would make someone less accountable. It just makes them accountable to a select group of people. Do we have any information about the education/rationality of people who do vote as opposed to those who don't?
I agree with the the bulk of the rest of what you say though.
Who's responsible for the mess with health care not being reformed (as much as we would have liked)? Rush Limbaugh, he's not even an elected official, but he's responsible for more than any current Republican elected official. He's certainly more powerful than any of them.
If one of them is president, we'll have a president who is subservient to a shock jock.
Override makes an excellent point here about how "we" are intelligent, independent and enlightened, whereas "they" are brainless meatsacks who are easily influenced by anyone smoking a fine cigar and boasting about the plushness of his chair.
I really think he may have inadvertently hit on a primary cause for the paralysis (beneficial or otherwise) amongst our elected officials. Apparently we really do get the government we deserve.
As for incentives to vote, I think even the sub-humans who refer to themselves as "conservatives" might be more inclined to pay attention to the relevant issues if all the really important decisions weren't made thousands of miles away by people they never ever see.
Who's responsible for the mess with health care not being reformed (as much as we would have liked)? Rush Limbaugh, he's not even an elected official, but he's responsible for more than any current Republican elected official. He's certainly more powerful than any of them.
If one of them is president, we'll have a president who is subservient to a shock jock.
Override makes an excellent point here about how "we" are intelligent, independent and enlightened, whereas "they" are brainless meatsacks who are easily influenced by anyone smoking a fine cigar and boasting about the plushness of his chair.
I really think he may have inadvertently hit on a primary cause for the paralysis (beneficial or otherwise) amongst our elected officials. Apparently we really do get the government we deserve.
As for incentives to vote, I think even the sub-humans who refer to themselves as "conservatives" might be more inclined to pay attention to the relevant issues if all the really important decisions weren't made thousands of miles away by people they never ever see.
Wow, that's certainly... one interpretation of what I said. The other would be that Republican politicians are under ridiculous pressure to kiss King Rush's ring.
I also like how you're portraying the republican presidential candidates as victims, all of whom are self serving millionaires.
Excellent point, except I that was actually addressing the over-arching "us vs. them" rhetoric that is pretty definitive of the R vs D dynamic that keeps Washington from being a place of harmonious effectiveness.
Do you spend a lot of time listening to King Rush? Is he an originator of all Republican ideals, or is he just saying what a lot of people are thinking?
Excellent point, except I that was actually addressing the over-arching "us vs. them" rhetoric that is pretty definitive of the R vs D dynamic that keeps Washington from being a place of harmonious effectiveness.
Do you spend a lot of time listening to King Rush? Is he an originator of all Republican ideals, or is he just saying what a lot of people are thinking?
If a Republican politician, no matter how powerful, says something that Rush disagrees with, they will have to apologize within days or be shunned like they have a scarlet letter on them.
Off the top of my head, both Herman Caine and Newt Gingrich had to back the fuck up rhetorically after crossing Rush. I'm really genuinely curious how you translated what I said before into that ridiculous post of yours though.
Excellent point, except I that was actually addressing the over-arching "us vs. them" rhetoric that is pretty definitive of the R vs D dynamic that keeps Washington from being a place of harmonious effectiveness.
Do you spend a lot of time listening to King Rush? Is he an originator of all Republican ideals, or is he just saying what a lot of people are thinking?
I think this is a different us vs. them - "us" being the people, R or D, who pay attention to what's going on, and "them" being those who don't, but decide elections anyways. I think we'd be better off having an honest debate over what role the government should play in, say, health care, without having to conceal things that don't poll well with the "them".
Excellent point, except I that was actually addressing the over-arching "us vs. them" rhetoric that is pretty definitive of the R vs D dynamic that keeps Washington from being a place of harmonious effectiveness.
Do you spend a lot of time listening to King Rush? Is he an originator of all Republican ideals, or is he just saying what a lot of people are thinking?
Yup! Totally equal! Its both D's and R's faults! Equal! EQUAL! EQUUUUUUUAAAAAAAALLLLL!!!!!
I SWEAR TO MOTHER-FUCKING GOD...
IF ONE MORE GOD DAMN PERSON FALSE EQUIVACATES...
I WILL BE THE SPICEY MEAT IN YOUR DEFEAT SANDWICH
AND THE SPREAD WILL BE YOUR SAUCEY SHAME
TOPPED WITH PICKLES OF REGRET
I HAVE FURY!
Woah... I was channeling Fawful for a minute there.
Look pal, it isn't a bad thing to call a spade a spade, and when one side is actively scheming against democracy it is OKAY to point this out. I swear to God, it is -OKAY-. Man, I'm getting a short fuse when it comes to this stuff. As for Rush, oh no, he's huge in Conservative circles. He's like their Jon Stewart.
I'm not going to get lured into a false equivalency thing here. Yes it's us vs them in the current political sphere. No both sides are not the same.
Republicans are completely unwilling to compromise on just about anything. All the prominent party go to guys (and at least one gal) signed Grover Norquist's ridiculous no new taxes pledge.
When you on one hand say "deficit is out of hand!" and then deny the possibility of raising taxes on anyone, regardless of any facts, you're not arguing in good faith.
Look pal, it isn't a bad thing to call a spade a spade, and when one side is actively scheming against democracy it is OKAY to point this out. I swear to God, it is -OKAY-. Man, I'm getting a short fuse when it comes to this stuff. As for Rush, oh no, he's huge in Conservative circles. He's like their Jon Stewart.
Jon Stewart? Heck no, Rush is many, many times more popular than Jon Stewart and I've never seen a Democratic politician apologize to Stewart or reverse course on a policy decision because he told them to
override367 on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Especially when a vast majority actually wants taxes to go up, even the people who will have to pay them.
Rush does as well, but he has something like 20 million listeners
He's not really pro-republican so much as he is pro-riling his listeners up (which lines up with the GOP most of the time). The GOP realigns itself to him periodically.
override367 on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Jon Stewart's a comedian, he's Mark Twain for the modern age.
Anyone expecting any more from him is a silly goose.
Well, it seems the essential question has become: Would a Westminster style of government solve the US' problems.
I argue that it wouldn't because we'd have the same political class without the stop gaps the Federal system has which stop things like the Ryan budget and BBAs from going through (even if they do hold up good legislation at the same time).
Others put forth that it would because it would hold politicians more directly accountable and therefore lead to better government in the long run, even if we did have to put up with periods of bad government.
I'm not convinced that it would hold them more accountable because for me the essential problem is our low voter turnout and the voters who do turn out are misinformed in general and actively vote against their self-interest.
Also, looking at the gap between "generic republican" and any given republican candidate, it would probably make things worse by allowing people to vote for the general conservatism they think they support without having to look at what an actual conservative platform is.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Do you spend a lot of time listening to King Rush? Is he an originator of all Republican ideals, or is he just saying what a lot of people are thinking?
In Rush's case I believe it's that he's saying things that get adopted into thought by people.
It's not that he originates ideas, but if your ideas don't sufficiently line up with his good luck getting public office under the banner of the GOP (unless you're a long time congresscritter from the pre-newscorp days in a safe district, they'll just call you a RINO and move on).
Him and Fox News play off of each other pretty well, indirectly.
Uh no. All that's changed is that someone started exploiting the huge obvious flaws in the system.
What you are doing here is like pretending there's not a hole in your wall just cause no one came through it yet.
I agree the filibuster is a little silly but again, it has never been abused like this before. The onus is on the electorate to do something about it, it's not a problem with how the government was set up.
And yet again, we get back to the problem that the US system, via the fucking filibuster, makes it almost impossible for this to happen. How can the electorate do anything about it when the system makes it impossible for them to know wtf is going on?.
Explain to me how the filibuster makes it impossible for people to vote. I agree the filibuster is stupid, but I think the bigger problem is that voters elected people who's goal it is to exploit the system rather than govern. This is a new thing!
No, it's not. Again, you are acting like the flaws in the system weren't there before. They were, people just used them less. It's been steadily on the rise.
And the filibuster makes it impossible for people to figure out who's to blame for what.
How many voters were aware of the holds on Obama's appointments? What percentage do you think?
How can the public vote if they don't know wtf is going on. And the more needlessly complex and opaque the system, the more this is an issue.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
That has nothing to do with the federal system itself and everything to do with information spread.
Congress has the authority to start wars. They voted to give Bush the power to invade Iraq. The War Powers Act allows the President, as Commander-In-Chief, to commit to military action for a limited time. At the end of this time the Congress can cut funding and force the conflict to an end if it so chooses.
Yeah, and how has this worked out? How many "police actions", "drone strikes" or whatever other euphemisms you want to use have there been without any declaration of war?
These are all things I learned in AP US Government in eleventh grade and available for others to learn online. You know what, actually:
That's a bit simplified, it doesn't go into the meat of committee work or the veto process, but in general that's how it works. Also available online is a record of every single vote your Congressman or Senator has ever made and the context.
No, it's not. That's the point! There's committees, obscure parliamentary rules, filibusters and all that other shit people don't know about. And those things are hugely important in how laws get made. All these things are the reason people don't know wtf is going on. That schoolhouse rock bullshit is part of the problem. They try and pass off the US government as simple and straightforward and it's not. They build up these ideas and people are left wondering why they elected the Democrats in 2008 and they didn't do anything. It's so simple after all!
Shit, just start a thread about "Is Obama good?" and you'll see tons of people who follow politics daily on this very forum who have no fucking idea how half the stuff in his first 2 years went down.
The entire Health Care Reform thing was a hugely confusing clusterfuck of obscure rules and strange holds that was almost impossible to understand even for the people following it. What chance does the general public have of understand what's going on?
And if the public can't understand what's going on, how can they vote to reflect their wishes?
I would agree that the filibuster is a broken system. I would agree that there are "holes in the wall". But what's the better option, close the holes or blow up the wall and build a new one?
You aren't talking about fixing the wall though, you are saying it's the people coming through the hole that are the problem.
The problem isn't the current crop of politicians, it's that the system is fundamentally broken. It encourages and rewards the type of bullshit behaviour you are seeing right now.
Fuck, the entire GOP strategy since Obama was elected is built on exploiting the opacity of US governmental workings.
Explain to me how the filibuster makes it impossible for people to vote. I agree the filibuster is stupid, but I think the bigger problem is that voters elected people who's goal it is to exploit the system rather than govern. This is a new thing!
No, it's not. Again, you are acting like the flaws in the system weren't there before. They were, people just used them less. It's been steadily on the rise.
And the filibuster makes it impossible for people to figure out who's to blame for what.
How many voters were aware of the holds on Obama's appointments? What percentage do you think?
How can the public vote if they don't know wtf is going on. And the more needlessly complex and opaque the system, the more this is an issue.
Exactly. If the only thing that makes government work is a gentlemen's agreement in an un-representative chunk of the legislature, something's wrong with the system.
People have better shit to do than figure out how their fucked-up government works. The setup of the US political system make it extremely difficult to assign blame with a minimal understanding of the system, and the ridiculously convoluted and esoteric aspects don't give incentive to better understand it.
Yup! Totally equal! Its both D's and R's faults! Equal! EQUAL! EQUUUUUUUAAAAAAAALLLLL!!!!!
I SWEAR TO MOTHER-FUCKING GOD...
IF ONE MORE GOD DAMN PERSON FALSE EQUIVACATES...
I WILL BE THE SPICEY MEAT IN YOUR DEFEAT SANDWICH
AND THE SPREAD WILL BE YOUR SAUCEY SHAME
TOPPED WITH PICKLES OF REGRET
I HAVE FURY!
You sound pretty angry. Are you one of them there Teabaggers I keep hearing about? Couldn't resist.
Anyway, if you and I disagree vehemently on a political topic, and we are each allowed to elect a representative to the government, then it is to be expected that we will each elect a person who most closely adheres to our own beliefs and shows the least sign of compromising those ideals, yes? By virtue of human nature, we will each cling to whatever evidence we find compelling in order to prove that our side is the "right" side. So as the populace becomes more ideologically polarized, it stands to reason that our elected bodies will experience a similar polarization.
I think that the real "answer" is to make the electorate feel less detached (bonus points to me for not saying 'disenfranchised') from the political process by draining power away from the massive anonymous bureaucracy and bringing it back home to the states where it is both more manageable and accountable.
In Rush's case I believe it's that he's saying things that get adopted into thought by people.
It is the weirdest thing.
It does sound weird. As though Rush is able to express original and/or unpopular opinions in such a way as to cause them to become popular by sheer force of will or perhaps charisma. Which gets us back to how his fans must be mindless automatons. Because there is no way so many people could just agree with what he says, right? I mean he's barely even human.
I agree, in principle, with all the people saying that the Senate is stupid, undemocratic, and should be heavily reformed or abolished. I would even go so far as to say that intellectually I prefer a European-style parliamentary government.
But on the other hand, I look at Europe and see them doing massive, economy-destroying austerity nonsense. Meanwhile our own system of gridlock has basically stopped any form of austerity at the national level. So maybe our government isn't so bad, after all.
Posts
Okay so you agree with me that this is a recent phenomena because in the past legislators didn't act like children? I'm not sure what you're trying to argue.
I agree the filibuster is a little silly but again, it has never been abused like this before. The onus is on the electorate to do something about it, it's not a problem with how the government was set up.
Now FPtP voting (winner take all) makes it harder to fix the mess we're in now, but if more than a minority of the population voted all our problems would miraculously seem much less dark. Representative Republic kind of doesn't work when you're not interested in being represented, and one way or another things will change.
If Obama is reelected, it will prove this move into crazy town DOES NOT work. If the Republicans get elected, after a repeat of the Bush years things will swing back Democratic with a vengeance.
I'm desperately trying to move to Canada (at least your conservatives pretty much only fuck up your own country) or somewhere else so I'm probably not who you should pick to defend the American system though: I agree it has a lot of flaws.
You had your government abolished, despite being the great all-white north. That doesn't really seem like "success" to me.
OK, we try example B. So let's say in 2012 Congress passes a law that says that:
1) The President can arrest anyone who poses a threat to the United States and keep them detained indefinitely without trial
2) The President decides who poses a threat to the United States
And so we continue merrily on our way, and Obama leaves office without incident, and a few successors do as well.
Then in 2040, after President Palin loses her re-election campaign, she decides to immediately arrest the President-Elect as well as the entire Democratic congressional delegation.
Was this a broken law in 2012, or was it not broken until 2040?
?
I'm sorry, what does this have to do with anything?
What does this have to do with the pros and cons of Westminster vs American democracy at all?
American democracy has a fairly significant "con" because it allows the minority party to obstruct the majority party. We are apparently fighting over whether this became a problem a) when the rules were made or b) when the rules were abused. I vote for a).
Shifting to Westminster style does nothing to fix the fundamental problem of bad politicians and suicide cult Republicans.
How is it better for Prime Minister Boehner to enact that law and use it against Nancy Pelosi before the next election?
It's easy to forget that the people who set up the system really had no idea how popular democracy was going to shake out (actually, most of them appear to have believed it would descend relatively quickly into mob rule.) And so our system of government is set up to put a massive number of roadblocks between the will of the people (as expressed at the ballot box) and meaningful public policy.
What we have learned in the 200 odd years hence is that people are much better at managing their own affairs than the founding fathers thought, and that a system that bow more easily to public pressure don't produce bad outcomes. What we're left with is a system that responds more slowly to public demand and enables a minority party to exert influence far out of proportion to their representation.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
If he hasn't backtracked it's because he (or enough of his party) doesn't want to, not because Labour has a de facto veto.
Smacking the Senate with a sphere of annihilation won't solve all problems forever, but it will solve one.
because then the boehner administration produces a clear policy result whose impacts can be laid at his feet and approved or disapproved of in the next election.
As opposed to now, where it's really difficult for even an experienced observer to determine who in congress is responsible for what portion of a policy (unless you have a detailed understanding of how, say, conference committees function), and very easy for politicians to avoid blame (which is probably one of the reasons lobbying is such a problem.)
The health care issue is an instructive example. In the United States almost every presidential candidate since truman has, in one way or another, run on a platform of providing health care to every american. There has consistently been public support for this position for at least thirty years. And yet we have never until this year enacted legislation which actually attempts to make appropriate policy. Why?
Because in the mess that is our legislative process, it's really difficult to determine who is responsible for crafting, changing and even supporting ('he voted for it before he voted against it!') a particular policy. Things pass, fail or die in committee for reasons that are frequently inscrutable. When an election rolls around everybody deflects responsibility, and our staggered system of elections means that the people responsible frequently aren't even up for re-election for 2-4 more years.
In a parlimentary system, a victories like the dems won in 2006/2008 or the republicans won in 2002 (iirc, one of those years) would've produced broad mandates to actually enact policy. Maybe that policy would've sucked, maybe we would've liked it, but either way we'd have had something to directly consider that the public could address in the next election.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
If one of them is president, we'll have a president who is subservient to a shock jock.
Uh no. All that's changed is that someone started exploiting the huge obvious flaws in the system.
What you are doing here is like pretending there's not a hole in your wall just cause no one came through it yet.
And yet again, we get back to the problem that the US system, via the fucking filibuster, makes it almost impossible for this to happen. How can the electorate do anything about it when the system makes it impossible for them to know wtf is going on?
I mean, shit, you people can't even figure out who gets to start killing foreigners with your army.
Congress has the authority to start wars. They voted to give Bush the power to invade Iraq. The War Powers Act allows the President, as Commander-In-Chief, to commit to military action for a limited time. At the end of this time the Congress can cut funding and force the conflict to an end if it so chooses.
These are all things I learned in AP US Government in eleventh grade and available for others to learn online. You know what, actually:
That's a bit simplified, it doesn't go into the meat of committee work or the veto process, but in general that's how it works. Also available online is a record of every single vote your Congressman or Senator has ever made and the context.
I would agree that the filibuster is a broken system. I would agree that there are "holes in the wall". But what's the better option, close the holes or blow up the wall and build a new one?
What the hell are you on about, I learned this in highschool
Explain to me how the filibuster makes it impossible for people to vote. I agree the filibuster is stupid, but I think the bigger problem is that voters elected people who's goal it is to exploit the system rather than govern. This is a new thing!
I think that if you're relying on people to go against human nature and the incentives set before them as you seem to be doing, you're in Ayn Rand/Karl Marx territory of what-the-fuck.
I argue that it wouldn't because we'd have the same political class without the stop gaps the Federal system has which stop things like the Ryan budget and BBAs from going through (even if they do hold up good legislation at the same time).
Others put forth that it would because it would hold politicians more directly accountable and therefore lead to better government in the long run, even if we did have to put up with periods of bad government.
I'm not convinced that it would hold them more accountable because for me the essential problem is our low voter turnout and the voters who do turn out are misinformed in general and actively vote against their self-interest.
I'm not sure how low voter turnout would make someone less accountable. It just makes them accountable to a select group of people. Do we have any information about the education/rationality of people who do vote as opposed to those who don't?
I agree with the the bulk of the rest of what you say though.
Override makes an excellent point here about how "we" are intelligent, independent and enlightened, whereas "they" are brainless meatsacks who are easily influenced by anyone smoking a fine cigar and boasting about the plushness of his chair.
I really think he may have inadvertently hit on a primary cause for the paralysis (beneficial or otherwise) amongst our elected officials. Apparently we really do get the government we deserve.
As for incentives to vote, I think even the sub-humans who refer to themselves as "conservatives" might be more inclined to pay attention to the relevant issues if all the really important decisions weren't made thousands of miles away by people they never ever see.
Wow, that's certainly... one interpretation of what I said. The other would be that Republican politicians are under ridiculous pressure to kiss King Rush's ring.
I also like how you're portraying the republican presidential candidates as victims, all of whom are self serving millionaires.
Do you spend a lot of time listening to King Rush? Is he an originator of all Republican ideals, or is he just saying what a lot of people are thinking?
If a Republican politician, no matter how powerful, says something that Rush disagrees with, they will have to apologize within days or be shunned like they have a scarlet letter on them.
Off the top of my head, both Herman Caine and Newt Gingrich had to back the fuck up rhetorically after crossing Rush. I'm really genuinely curious how you translated what I said before into that ridiculous post of yours though.
I think this is a different us vs. them - "us" being the people, R or D, who pay attention to what's going on, and "them" being those who don't, but decide elections anyways. I think we'd be better off having an honest debate over what role the government should play in, say, health care, without having to conceal things that don't poll well with the "them".
Yup! Totally equal! Its both D's and R's faults! Equal! EQUAL! EQUUUUUUUAAAAAAAALLLLL!!!!!
I SWEAR TO MOTHER-FUCKING GOD...
IF ONE MORE GOD DAMN PERSON FALSE EQUIVACATES...
I WILL BE THE SPICEY MEAT IN YOUR DEFEAT SANDWICH
AND THE SPREAD WILL BE YOUR SAUCEY SHAME
TOPPED WITH PICKLES OF REGRET
I HAVE FURY!
Woah... I was channeling Fawful for a minute there.
Look pal, it isn't a bad thing to call a spade a spade, and when one side is actively scheming against democracy it is OKAY to point this out. I swear to God, it is -OKAY-. Man, I'm getting a short fuse when it comes to this stuff. As for Rush, oh no, he's huge in Conservative circles. He's like their Jon Stewart.
Republicans are completely unwilling to compromise on just about anything. All the prominent party go to guys (and at least one gal) signed Grover Norquist's ridiculous no new taxes pledge.
When you on one hand say "deficit is out of hand!" and then deny the possibility of raising taxes on anyone, regardless of any facts, you're not arguing in good faith.
Jon Stewart? Heck no, Rush is many, many times more popular than Jon Stewart and I've never seen a Democratic politician apologize to Stewart or reverse course on a policy decision because he told them to
Rush does as well, but he has something like 20 million listeners
He's not really pro-republican so much as he is pro-riling his listeners up (which lines up with the GOP most of the time). The GOP realigns itself to him periodically.
Anyone expecting any more from him is a silly goose.
Also, looking at the gap between "generic republican" and any given republican candidate, it would probably make things worse by allowing people to vote for the general conservatism they think they support without having to look at what an actual conservative platform is.
In Rush's case I believe it's that he's saying things that get adopted into thought by people.
It is the weirdest thing.
Him and Fox News play off of each other pretty well, indirectly.
Did highschool talk about police actions and the Libyan totally-not-a-war?
No, it's not. Again, you are acting like the flaws in the system weren't there before. They were, people just used them less. It's been steadily on the rise.
And the filibuster makes it impossible for people to figure out who's to blame for what.
How many voters were aware of the holds on Obama's appointments? What percentage do you think?
How can the public vote if they don't know wtf is going on. And the more needlessly complex and opaque the system, the more this is an issue.
Yeah, and how has this worked out? How many "police actions", "drone strikes" or whatever other euphemisms you want to use have there been without any declaration of war?
No, it's not. That's the point! There's committees, obscure parliamentary rules, filibusters and all that other shit people don't know about. And those things are hugely important in how laws get made. All these things are the reason people don't know wtf is going on. That schoolhouse rock bullshit is part of the problem. They try and pass off the US government as simple and straightforward and it's not. They build up these ideas and people are left wondering why they elected the Democrats in 2008 and they didn't do anything. It's so simple after all!
Shit, just start a thread about "Is Obama good?" and you'll see tons of people who follow politics daily on this very forum who have no fucking idea how half the stuff in his first 2 years went down.
The entire Health Care Reform thing was a hugely confusing clusterfuck of obscure rules and strange holds that was almost impossible to understand even for the people following it. What chance does the general public have of understand what's going on?
And if the public can't understand what's going on, how can they vote to reflect their wishes?
You aren't talking about fixing the wall though, you are saying it's the people coming through the hole that are the problem.
The problem isn't the current crop of politicians, it's that the system is fundamentally broken. It encourages and rewards the type of bullshit behaviour you are seeing right now.
Fuck, the entire GOP strategy since Obama was elected is built on exploiting the opacity of US governmental workings.
Um, one is due to the other. The set up of the US federal government makes information spread incredibly difficult.
Like, again, you get it but you simply refuse to even notice that it's the system itself causing the issues you are noticing.
Exactly. If the only thing that makes government work is a gentlemen's agreement in an un-representative chunk of the legislature, something's wrong with the system.
People have better shit to do than figure out how their fucked-up government works. The setup of the US political system make it extremely difficult to assign blame with a minimal understanding of the system, and the ridiculously convoluted and esoteric aspects don't give incentive to better understand it.
You sound pretty angry. Are you one of them there Teabaggers I keep hearing about?
Couldn't resist.
Anyway, if you and I disagree vehemently on a political topic, and we are each allowed to elect a representative to the government, then it is to be expected that we will each elect a person who most closely adheres to our own beliefs and shows the least sign of compromising those ideals, yes? By virtue of human nature, we will each cling to whatever evidence we find compelling in order to prove that our side is the "right" side. So as the populace becomes more ideologically polarized, it stands to reason that our elected bodies will experience a similar polarization.
I think that the real "answer" is to make the electorate feel less detached (bonus points to me for not saying 'disenfranchised') from the political process by draining power away from the massive anonymous bureaucracy and bringing it back home to the states where it is both more manageable and accountable.
It does sound weird. As though Rush is able to express original and/or unpopular opinions in such a way as to cause them to become popular by sheer force of will or perhaps charisma. Which gets us back to how his fans must be mindless automatons. Because there is no way so many people could just agree with what he says, right? I mean he's barely even human.
But on the other hand, I look at Europe and see them doing massive, economy-destroying austerity nonsense. Meanwhile our own system of gridlock has basically stopped any form of austerity at the national level. So maybe our government isn't so bad, after all.