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

[Kokukirin]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

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.

Japan's democracy allowed the Liberal Democratic Party to stay in power for almost as long as it existed. When the LDP finally lost grip, their politics descended into chaos. That is hardly a sign of healthy democracy to me.

[Sumeragi]

My mentioning of Japan was the example of a parliamentary government which has a two-chamber legislative, thus resulting in the same kind of gridlock that the US Congress face (although on a smaller scale).

[ganbaru]

Depending of the situation a two-chamber legislative might not end like in the US, if one of them's usefullness is almost simbolic, like the senate in Canada.

[sa547]

At the dinner table, although I'm politically-neutral at the moment (and I don't say about my political affiliation publicly), the rest of the household is largely right-wing: they don't just hate Aquino (for purported corruption and other conspiracies), but also hate Obama and the DNC that I'll not be surprised should they emigrate to the US and place their bets on the Republicans, believing that such a regime would improve their lot.

They still think that a president is a superman, a king or a demigod who could do anything.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

Japan begs to differ.

Japan is in an interesting case, though it's not quite the same as the US. In Japan the parties have held stable power, but leadership has not been stable.

Parliamentary democracies are not immune from dysfunction. There are two ways, as I see it, that parliamentary democracies can go wrong:

1. Dysfunctional parties and an impatient electorate. The parties in Japan are dysfunctional, and to add to that the electorate has no patience. Hence the government is just a revolving door. If they gave a single leader a bit more time they might actually get something done. Alas, the Japanese electorate, and the parties which obey their whims, has overly high expectations.

2. Fractured voter base: You can see this in Belgium and Israel, the voter base is so fractured between two many incompatible parties, that it's impossible for a strong parliamentary majority to form, and governments are overly dependent on coalitions, often on coalition partners that are an unhinged fringe. This means that the moderate majority will have to cater to the desires of fringe extremists.

That's assuming the parties can even form a coalition. Look at Belgium...


In the American presidential system you have the problem of 3 different government organs, any of which can completely shutdown any legislative action. Look at the first 2 years of Obama's term, the lack of a supermajority in Senate basically shut down almost all meaningful action.

[ganbaru]

Romney Tromps On Troops
http://blog.thephoenix.com/BLOGS/tal...on-troops.aspx

[aohige]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

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

I disagree.
America's democracy and its due process is far more healthy by definition than Japan's.

That's not the same as saying America's state of affairs is more healthy, because it isn't.
But the democratic process of US is works far more ideally than Japan's.

A nation full of uninterested political zombies is not a healthy democracy.

America, as divided as it may be, actually have heated debates on important issues that gets huge number of its population interested.
The same cannot, ABSOLUTELY CANNOT be said about Japan. Vast majority of Japanese don't even heed attention to issues.

When I say my people are deadpan, trust me, I mean it.

[Sumeragi]

In a sense I feel that the pre-WW2 situation had more vitality than the current situation, and we're talking about the young officers starting rebellions to overthrow the old corrupted elites that ran Japan and still continues to run Japan.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Romney Tromps On Troops
http://blog.thephoenix.com/BLOGS/tal...on-troops.aspx

Is it going to matter? Aren't they going to vote Republican anyway?

[GDB]

Since the higher ups in the military brainwash new recruits, yes.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Is it going to matter? Aren't they going to vote Republican anyway?

I think the general break down is 60/30 Republican/Democrat, though that changes all the time (and some branches of the armed forces are more conservative than others while some are more liberal), and with the ending of "Don't Ask" mixed with the war(s) being toned down and the troops being shipped back I expect there will be a shift (it's unclear which way, but I would expect more Independents than members of the 2 parties). (And, of course, the Death of Bin Laden certainly affects the armed forces morale.)

[Vexx]

Aye, the military somewhat reflects the country. Since the Vietnam war, more Veterans break Dem than Repub because they see the Repubs smashing the GI Bill, VA medical care, and treatment of current service members. In service members are well aware of the Republican dismal asset support of the military during 2000-2008. Under-armored, burning through assets without paying for them or replacing them, etc.

About the only hold the GOP has on some of the military at the moment is religious zealotry. There is a rather dangerous faction of Dominionists running about (particularly bad in the Air Force and its Academy) though they're starting to get caught for breaking laws and regulations.

[Anh_Minh]

Turning the question into "of the 60% of the military that vote Republican, aren't too many of them the kind who won't change their vote no matter what to matter?". If they didn't break after what W Bush did to them, are they going to care about a small gaffe by Romney?

[ganbaru]

Mitt Romney On Obamacare: 'I'm Not Getting Rid Of All Of Health Care Reform'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1868385.html
At the end, I wouldn't be surprised if he don't even know what is is positioin on anything .

[cors8]

Of course, no mention of how he was going to PAY for the parts he would keep.

[Vexx]

Just to illuminate to our non-USA posters that tricky minefield of "state's rights" versus federal domain, several states are challenging the DOMA (the misnamed "Defense of Marriage Act") that Congress passed as unconstitutional in that the regulation of marriage is a state's domain. They assert the federal law is illegal basically.

In jurisprudence, normally the federals set the minimum standards to protect the rights of citizens and the state may exceed them. The feds telling state's to restrict rights? Well, several states are calling bullshit on it legally.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...ng-battlefield

[Ithekro]

When it comes to Federal vs. State, the Tenth Amendment is the proper counter...one way or the other.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

When it comes to Federal vs. State, the Tenth Amendment is the proper counter...one way or the other.

Agreed, the specifics of one of the lawsuits is that the feds are asserting a widowed partner owes estate taxes that are not required of a male-female marriage widower. Basically, the feds are trying to pretend they weren't married despite the state certifying they were.

I use the "minimum bar" analogy because of the 1960s civil right debate - which cemented the idea that the feds defined a minimum bar of citizen rights, though the states could set a higher bar (not a lower bar). So for example, my state's definition of free speech is set to a higher bar than the federal level (in regard to sexual expression or what is "obscene").

[Urzu 7]

I just heard of this documentary called "2016 Obama's America", which is an anti-Obama movie. Has anyone seen it? I don't like the anti-Obama crowd because I think they are over the top with their criticisms and views very often, so I'd like to know, how much of the documentary makes vaild points and how much of it is points that are not so good or just bad? How much of it is where the speculation and supposing is stretching things or is baseless, questionable, or goes over the edge?

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

I just heard of this documentary called "2016 Obama's America", which is an anti-Obama movie. Has anyone seen it? I don't like the anti-Obama crowd because I think they are over the top with their criticisms and views very often, so I'd like to know, how much of the documentary makes vaild points and how much of it is points that are not so good or just bad? How much of it is where the speculation and supposing is stretching things or is baseless, questionable, or goes over the edge?

It's a movie; that's all I need to know to pass judgement. If you want facts you have to do your own research, films are for spoon feeding. This applies to both GOP and Dems.

Frankly the anti-Obama stuff just isn't convincing. His only crime is governing as a moderate Republican wile calling himself a Democrat.