US Elections 2012 Part II: The Conventions, Debates and Election results

[Vexx]

Basically, there's a false equivalency being asserted here, that both sides are the same. The Republicans have said out loud that they refuse to compromise on any issue. Meanwhile the Democrats have offered compromises, tried to negotiate, etc. since 2008. There's no resemblance at all to the compromise work between both parties that happened in the 1980s or mid-1990s.

When you have one person willing to compromise negotiating with someone who isn't willing to compromise, what do you think the outcome is going to be? It is almost like blaming the victim as well as the bully in a school setting when you label them both at fault (which.. often happens).

I self-identify as an Eisenhower or Teddy Roosevelt Republican and have watched the evolution of the GOP for the last 40 years. I don't see a party today that I'd call entirely sane and that's being as civil as I can about it.

I'm not sure if it's correct to compare the Republicans to Fascists.

I'm not equating them (yet) but the trends are so strong that I could do a rather long bullet list of the simliarities. The idea is to stop those trends before they are completely out of hand. I could also make a fair list of problems with the Democrats and their shift to the right and corporatism ... but ... one party at a time.

[Sumeragi]

Not sure how the topic of false equivalence is being brought up when it's the topic about how "liberals" in general are becoming more intolerant than before. Fortunately cool heads still are the main part of the Democrats.

[Terrestrial Dream]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I'm not equating them (yet) but the trends are so strong that I could do a rather long bullet list of the simliarities. The idea is to stop those trends before they are completely out of hand. I could also make a fair list of problems with the Democrats and their shift to the right and corporatism ... but ... one party at a time.

But doesn't this prove that two party system is a failure? Sure Republicans are more loony, but Democrats are not much better.

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

Actually, the National Socialists did. I can't say for Mussolini.

Took Mussolini about 6 years to grasp power apparently, so yeah Fascism in Italy took awhile till it got full control.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Terrestrial Dream

But doesn't this prove that two party system is a failure? Sure Republicans are more loony, but Democrats are not much better.

Actually? Yes, I think its been a failure for a long time. Its just now built up to critical mass point.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Terrestrial Dream

But doesn't this prove that two party system is a failure? Sure Republicans are more loony, but Democrats are not much better.

The Simpsons even punned this almost two decades ago. Kang or Kodos? Third party? Go ahead, throw your vote away!

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by GDB

The Simpsons even punned this almost two decades ago. Kang or Kodos? Third party? Go ahead, throw your vote away!

I use the Kodos/Kang analogy quite a bit though the last few elections it appears one of them is off their meds.

[Terrestrial Dream]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Actually? Yes, I think its been a failure for a long time. Its just now built up to critical mass point.

You know at this point Jefferson's thought regarding "the tree of liberty" doesn't sounds so crazy. But the problem is that the media already have divided the country in half I doubt there will be a unified voice in America.

Originally Posted by GDB

The Simpsons even punned this almost two decades ago. Kang or Kodos? Third party? Go ahead, throw your vote away!

Looking back now that is probably now the scariest Treehouse of Horror base on how accurate it was.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Actually? Yes, I think its been a failure for a long time. Its just now built up to critical mass point.

Looking at the situation here in Canada, even a 3 (or more) party system isnt that different; mnore party don't mean than all the party would have the same strenght, there always some major parties and some less importants.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Looking at the situation here in Canada, even a 3 (or more) party system isnt that different; mnore party don't mean than all the party would have the same strenght, there always some major parties and some less importants.

In most countries, they form alliances so that everyone usually gets a little of what they want (e.g. Greens+ChristianDems or whatever). I don't assert its a *solution*... just less bad

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

Not sure how the topic of false equivalence is being brought up when it's the topic about how "liberals" in general are becoming more intolerant than before. Fortunately cool heads still are the main part of the Democrats.

That's a reaction against what many perceived as the near-total capitulation of the Democratic Party to the Republicans, despite (previously) holding power in two of the three branches of the US government.

For example, Obamacare was pushed through only after gutting out many key provisions and basically bribing many conservative Democratic congressmen with pork barrel. The final plan resembled nothing like a universal healthcare plan and rather looked like what was once proposed by...the Republican Party. And immediately after the passage, the same Republican Party proceeded to condemn it as the worst excess of socialistic government, bringing about the triumph of the Tea Party movement in 2010, an election categorized by lukewarm turnout from much of the country and a certain party vanguard quality to the voting blocks. Only the partisans and the very angry people vote (who were not angry about the economy, but what they saw as an attack on "American values" -- values many Americans don't share).

This forced many Progressives to close ranks, especially as the sense of danger ramped up with the flood of SuperPAC money, intensification of violent rhetoric (I've never heard a liberal ask for the overthrow of government in Obama's tenure, but plenty of the right outright consider him illegitimate), forced and questionable electoral law changes, and aggressive anti-immigration, anti-abortion, anti-gay measures in Republican-dominated state legislatures. Compromise brought the far right out of the woodwork and into a dominant position far beyond their actual numbers, destroying the achievement of 2008; what do you expect the Left to do? Play nice; give up on democracy?

"You have a point, so do I, let's compromise" and "we have differing principles but I get where you're coming from" only work if the other side doesn't go "fuck you, socialist un-American Muslim pro-death panel scum."

[ganbaru]

Vexx, that's if they have some power, if a party don't have any deputy even if they have a few % of the total of the vote they can't influence much the decision.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Vexx, that's if they have some power, if a party don't have any deputy even if they have a few % of the total of the vote they can't influence much the decision.

Oh... well, I thought that was the whole point of an alliance. The major party can't get enough votes to rule on their own so they make deals with the smaller parties. Ignore the small party too long and they "secede" forcing new elections.

[DonQuigleone]

The positive aspect of a parliamentary system is that there's less opportunity for gridlock. There is only one chamber, and that chamber holds absolute power. You can't get a situation where two different parties dominate the different organs.

The executive power and legislative power is held by the same group of people. If the executive loses it's legislative majority, the government falls and a new election ensues. In the American system, the executive hobbles on until the end of it's term.

[Netto Azure]

@Irenicus: My thoughts exactly. The appearance of "Intolerance" over the past four years is a manifestation of frustration by the more Progressive faction of the Democratic Party. Many were willing to allow the Administration a free hand in dealing with Republicans, but the unusually straight Party line votes before 2010 elections certainly signaled that it was futile to even do so in the first place. So they "closed ranks" and are now appearing to be a lot more vocal in their opposition with "negotiating" for a middle ground.

Originally Posted by Vexx

Oh... well, I thought that was the whole point of an alliance. The major party can't get enough votes to rule on their own so they make deals with the smaller parties. Ignore the small party too long and they "secede" forcing new elections.

It's a trade off between the Multi-party and Two party system. It's much easier to prevent vote splitting and actually have a stable governing majority in a two party system than having collapsing governments when a coalition partner pulls out under a multi-party system.

Although the Filibuster in the Senate does certainly throw a wrench at the idea of the two party system majority if the minority could just as easily hold the government to a grinding halt. (in secrecy at times)

Edit: Oops, forgot to differentiate between Parliamentary and Presidential systems. Oh well DonQuigleone already pointed it out.

[DonQuigleone]

I have to echo what others have said earlier about drawing a false equivalence between the two parties. The Democrats are not saints, they're a political party much like any other. In terms of political parties all over the world they are unremarkable. But they do apply themselves to the job of governing, even if you might disagree with some (or even many) of their choices.

The Republicans are currently a bunch of demagogic crazies. And if they're not crazy, they're just corrupt. They're policies are not based on reality. It's entirely "truthiness".

I would classify the Democrats as being similar to the Conservatives in the UK, or Christian Democrats in Germany, parties whose precise policies I may not agree with, who may or may not be weak or incompetent, but who are at least grounded in reality.

If there was a credible equivalent to the Canadian NDP or British Liberal Democrats I might vote for them instead, but the Democrats aren't a half bad alternative, they're certainly not the almost anti-christ like figures certain elements of their opposition make them out to be. And it least they hold true to the principles of modern democratic government (separation of church & state, regulated capitalism, democratic governance), principles that used to be popular in the Republican Party too...

[Sumeragi]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

The positive aspect of a parliamentary system is that there's less opportunity for gridlock. There is only one chamber, and that chamber holds absolute power. You can't get a situation where two different parties dominate the different organs.

Japan begs to differ.

[Netto Azure]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

Japan begs to differ.

Doesn't their government collapse quite a lot over the past 2 decades?

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Netto Azure

Doesn't their government collapse quite a lot over the past 2 decades?

Japan's system is actually rather interesting. The government didn't collapse; it's just that the Japanese people don't have loyalties to parties like America does. So if they think the prime minster is disappointing then they change their votes. They had a strong leader once who unified the nation, but after he retired there was no replacements from either political side.

Japan's democracy is healthier than America's. Votes had to be earned.

[Vexx]

As another example of the "no, it really isn't the same" -- this happened today, the analysis reflects on the innate differences between the two sides:

http://www.politicususa.com/16-year-...president.html

Originally Posted by extract

Alyssa’s tweet is but a microcosm of what’s wrong with the modern day conservative movement. It’s indicative of what President Clinton said in his DNC speech, “I may often disagree with Republicans, but I never hated them, unlike the hatred displayed by extreme right wing activists towards President Obama.” The relentless hate directed at this President has been out of control from the beginning, led by Sarah Palin during the 2008 election and now being carried out by birther adjacent Mitt Romney, whose constant lies about Obama are meant to drive exactly the kind of racial animus displayed in Alyssa’s tweet.

The violence is also aimed at citizens who support this President. I have first hand experience with this – having been told by a white male Republican dressed in khakis and a button down shirt that he hoped I died with the President for being a “ni**er lover”. On another occasion, as I was crossing the street to enter the Obama headquarters in 2008, a pick up truck with McCain Palin sticker on it picked up speed and swerved toward me so that I had to run to avoid being hit. That was four years ago.

I can also relate personal incidents against me and those of my relatives who signaled their support of Obama, mostly verbal ("n**ger lover" "you're going to hell") but also physical intimidation of them and vandalism of their car. They live in Texas.

[monir]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I use the Kodos/Kang analogy quite a bit though the last few elections it appears one of them is off their meds.

I wonder when they will start exchanging "long protein string" by locking lips.

And speaking of meds... has this been posted yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ud3pK5Wa90

Apologies ahead if this is a duplicate but it's still worth the repeat.