If the U.S. has another civil war?

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

I have to show this to my wife. She has advocated this very thing for years. BTW, are the they accurate? Is Marlboro really a contributor to the Obama political war chest?

I don't think these are accurate.

Here's Obama's top contributors to his 08 campaign: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/co...&cid=n00009638

[Penguin]

@Gammel: here is the scientific explanation about the American two-party-system:

This is why Americans must seem bipolar to Germans, voting in Bush, then Clinton, then Bush, then Obama. To Germans this seems like going from completely wrong, to completely right, to completely wrong, and then back to completely right. To Americans though, it is just wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

source: http://www.andgoodis.com/2010/11/03/...-care-as-much/

copied from the great blog "and good is" - this is from an American who lived for a while in Germany, so he has a kind of a "Bill Brysonesk" view.
He also has a great blog about Germany, playing with many sterotypes about both nations: http://nothingforungood.com/


Personally I think that the Americans have quite a pragmatic attitude when voting on the state/local level. They seem less partisan than in the federal election and consider the candidate and his issues more than the name of his party. So outsiders/independents have more chances than for example in Germany, where the candidates get appointed by the parties. A disadvantage is that the candidates have to get the resources required for a campaign by themselves.

[Gammelpreusse]

Originally Posted by August

Well I agree with that but you misunderstood me. I was not talking about the validity of RKBA in the modern world. That is a debate worthy of it's own thread (there are several floating around here already). I was only talking about what it takes to create a Constitutional Amendment.

Indeed, and I did not want to start a debate over this. It merely served as an example where the conditions may have changed from the days 300 years ago to the presence.

Unlike regular laws which are based on a constitution and draw their authority from same, changing the constitution itself should always require the support of a significant majority of the nation, and then it still shouldn't be able to be changed too quickly. Such weighty and potentially dangerous actions must be given enough time to be fully digested and understood before we go leaping into the frying pan.

Again, fully agreed. However, I do not see that as a contradiction to what I wrote. That a careful analyzis and lots of intelligent debate has to go before any changes to a constitution is a given. And I did not even say that needs to be done in the first place, I merely wanted to know if the present system is still good as it is and does not require any kind of improvement. Based on my observation that may be warranted, but these may be flawed and I merely liked to know your take on it to get a broader picture without making any suggestions before that.

Actually I wasn't expecting an answer from you. My take is that a good enough replacement for the present system has not yet emerged.

*nods* I'll keep that in mind.

Then the answer would be "most definitely". In the absence of a proven better system I would oppose risking the destruction of our "pretty good" system because history is filled with examples of imperfect but workable systems that ended up being replaced by ones that are far worse.

Hm, one problem I see with that is...how can you prove a system working without trying it in the first place? Because history is also filled with examples of systems that actually did work better then the ones before. It requires boldness, idealism and a certain bravery, however, to bring that in place. Actually, the American revolution itself is living prove of that, but that was 300 years ago and I have a hard time thinking that civilization reached it's apex at that time and nothing can be improved from then on. That would be a sad state of affair for today's generations.

[Gammelpreusse]

Originally Posted by Penguin

@Gammel: here is the scientific explanation about the American two-party-system:






source: http://www.andgoodis.com/2010/11/03/...-care-as-much/

copied from the great blog "and good is" - this is from an American who lived for a while in Germany, so he has a kind of a "Bill Brysonesk" view.
He also has a great blog about Germany, playing with many sterotypes about both nations: http://nothingforungood.com/


Personally I think that the Americans have quite a pragmatic attitude when voting on the state/local level. They seem less partisan than in the federal election and consider the candidate and his issues more than the name of his party. So outsiders/independents have more chances than for example in Germany, where the candidates get appointed by the parties. A disadvantage is that the candidates have to get the resources required for a campaign by themselves.

LOL!!!
I take that one in good humor. I have to admit those graphs mirror impressions of the American parties from a German POV a bit, even though even the democratic party is more right wing in purely political terms then the CDU/FDP. But I do not think that does America justice, as the societies these two parties operate in are fundamentally different then, for example, Saudi Arabia. The US is not the Bible Belt alone, after all.

[August]

Originally Posted by Penguin

@Gammel: here is the scientific explanation about the American two-party-system:

Unfortunately it's not very accurate. For example:

...which we call “primaries”. Here only Republicans vote to determine their candidate, and Democrats vote separately to determine their candidate.

In most states anyone can register as a Republican or Democrat and vote in their primary then turn right around and vote for the opposition candidate in the general election.

As a matter of fact in such states as Massachusetts and Rhode Island I have seen organized attempts to influence primary outcomes by having large numbers of ones own supporters vote in the opponents primary for the weakest, most easily beatable candidate. They're pretty successful too.

[Growler]

Lads & lasses, if anyone is going to be in Gettysburg, we must totally arrange a SubSim Meet (LITE). I know I'm less than an hour from the battlefield, and I think others may be fairly close as well.

Do it on Jul 4, and get an added bonus - the roar of cannon fire and musketry.

(Though, in truth, is can be dreadfully, belligerently, inhumanly, beastly hot in July in Gettysburg - makes you appreciate the lads fighting in woolen uniforms without an air-conditioned car or hotel waiting their return.

[August]

Originally Posted by Gammelpreusse

Hm, one problem I see with that is...how can you prove a system working without trying it in the first place? Because history is also filled with examples of systems that actually did work better then the ones before. It requires boldness, idealism and a certain bravery, however, to bring that in place. Actually, the American revolution itself is living prove of that, but that was 300 years ago and I have a hard time thinking that civilization reached it's apex at that time and nothing can be improved from then on.

There has to be a real need for change first. Tearing down a working system just to see if perhaps it could be improved is foolish.

Because every time you change a societies system of government you risk it's fragmentation and destruction, and the greater the change the greater the risk. Now I think this holds much truer for a large multi-cultural society like the US than it might in a more homogeneous society such as your average European country, but be that as it may I would not favor risking loosing what has worked for us for over two centuries without being pretty darn sure about what we're getting into. So far such a system worth that risk has not emerged from what I can see.

That would be a sad state of affair for today's generations

[old man rant]Too bad for them. Today's generations are mostly pampered whiners who grew up over indulged and over coddled, never learning the important things in life like self discipline and community spirit. There are exceptions of course but by and large the young adults of today are the last people I'd want to see implementing such major societal changes until they finally grow up (if that ever happens), lest they ruin for future generations what is to all accounts a pretty darn good thing we have going here. [/old man rant]

[Growler]

Originally Posted by August

[old man rant]Today's generations are mostly pampered whiners who grew up over indulged and over coddled, never learning the important things in life like self discipline and community spirit. There are exceptions of course but by and large the young adults of today are the last people I'd want to see implementing such major societal changes until they finally grow up (if that ever happens), lest they ruin for future generations what is to all accounts a pretty darn good thing we have going here. [/old man rant]

You need to meet my wife's youngest son - I think you'd be proud to know that he does the uniform, the service, and his own morality proud. He is a damned fine soldier with both the willingness to wear the uniform and the testicular fortitude (witnessed by me) to tell his unit's sar-major what's what. He's also called BS on his S-3 and S-4 (separate occasions at his last station, different unit) and wasn't hauled off for it because he was right and had fostered a relationship with the brass based on his professionalism and maturity.

It doesn't hurt that he's in a critical MOS at this point in time; an MOS that took him twice already to Iraq, but within which he has excelled - E-7 in seven years. He's the kind of troop I wish I had been smart enough to be when I was in.

No, not all of our youth are callow fools.

[Gammelpreusse]

Originally Posted by August

There has to be a real need for change first. Tearing down a working system just to see if perhaps it could be improved is foolish.

Because every time you change a societies system of government you risk it's fragmentation and destruction, and the greater the change the greater the risk. Now I think this holds much truer for a large multi-cultural society like the US than it might in a more homogeneous society such as your average European country, but be that as it may I would not favor risking loosing what has worked for us for over two centuries without being pretty darn sure about what we're getting into. So far such a system worth that risk has not emerged from what I can see.

That sounds rather pessimistic for a country that is renowned for optimism. I dunno, I think any country that goes from an attitude of "let's try to go forward and improve" to "let's try to preserve what we have and call it a day" has lost it's fire and is bound to fall back. That is a very personal opinion with no claim to universality, but worth pondering nevertheless.

[old man rant]Too bad for them. Today's generations are mostly pampered whiners who grew up over indulged and over coddled, never learning the important things in life like self discipline and community spirit. There are exceptions of course but by and large the young adults of today are the last people I'd want to see implementing such major societal changes until they finally grow up (if that ever happens), lest they ruin for future generations what is to all accounts a pretty darn good thing we have going here. [/old man rant]

I have a lot of respect for the old and their life experiences. But don't you think that is a bit too much cynicism? Maybe exactly that attitude is part of the problems today? I mean I do not know your story and your life experiences, but to be honest, we have such people thinking in these ways as well, and I vowed to myself to always try to keep the idealism that I acquired in my youth, no matter what life throws at me. The world becomes a sad place to live in otherwise and it really is about personal attitude. I should stress I do not mean that as an attack, as I am very sure you have very real reasons for your stance here, but if you lose your hope for a better future, then what do you have left?

I recon this may be a bit too philosophical for the topic of this thread.

[Takeda Shingen]

I usually counter the disdain from the baby boomer generation by gently reminding them that they were the ones driving the bus for the last 20 years. I then sarcastically tell them that I hope they are enjoying their social security and standard of living.

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Gammelpreusse

LOL!!!
I take that one in good humor. I have to admit those graphs mirror impressions of the American parties from a German POV a bit, even though even the democratic party is more right wing in purely political terms then the CDU/FDP. But I do not think that does America justice, as the societies these two parties operate in are fundamentally different then, for example, Saudi Arabia. The US is not the Bible Belt alone, after all.

Yes, that's why i put a huge smiley under the quote. But as in every satire there is some truth in it. Here is a german blog, by an American who explains many stuff very detailed - but also still has a humorous attitude. http://usaerklaert.wordpress.com/ Especially the stuff about elections & the political system is very interesting, he tries to clear out many misconceptions people have about the USA.

The american party system is not 100% comparible to ours. For example if you take a look who voted for the desegregation in the 60's you'll find ouit that this was supported by a majority of the Republicans, while many Democrats were against it - you may want to look up "Southern Democrats". There we have a connection to the original theme of this thread again

Originally Posted by August

Unfortunately it's not very accurate. For example:

In most states anyone can register as a Republican or Democrat and vote in their primary then turn right around and vote for the opposition candidate in the general election.

As a matter of fact in such states as Massachusetts and Rhode Island I have seen organized attempts to influence primary outcomes by having large numbers of ones own supporters vote in the opponents primary for the weakest, most easily beatable candidate. They're pretty successful too.

Yes, maybe the writer didn't make it clear that the registration is only for the party primaries - but I think he assumes that even us from the Old World know that the general elections are free.

Isn't it that in the majority of states you are only allowed to vote in the party elections when you are registered for them? So RI and MA would be an exception.

But this raises another question about the states where you have to be registered: Do the parties check if you are already registered for another party? If not, you would have the same chance to influence the primaries like in your examples.


slight OT, but it was mentioned before: a gun debate thread would be interesting (haven't seen one since I am here)
<-- pro-gun leftie

[TheDarkWraith]

Originally Posted by Penguin

slight OT, but it was mentioned before: a gun debate thread would be interesting (haven't seen one since I am here)
<-- pro-gun leftie

there's only one thing that needs to be said about guns - if goverment tries to take them away prepare for civil war unlike any you've ever seen

[August]

Originally Posted by Gammelpreusse

... if you lose your hope for a better future, then what do you have left?

Well to put it simply I just don't buy the theory that we must dismantle our system of government in order to improve our future. In fact to me it sounds like a sure way of threatening that future. The way to improve peoples lives then make the system we have work like it is supposed to work.

[TheDarkWraith]

Originally Posted by August

The way to improve peoples lives then make the system we have work like it is supposed to work.

and that's never going to happen until we remove every senate and house member from capitol hill and replace them with people that aren't in it for money but rather for the people. The Supreme court bench needs an overhaul also.
Supreme court decisions letting corporations be 'people' and yet not held responsible for their actions and unlimited campaign finance contributions from corporations to politicians gets us nowhere better (in fact it just makes things worse).

[August]

Originally Posted by Penguin

Do the parties check if you are already registered for another party? If not, you would have the same chance to influence the primaries like in your examples.

No you have to be registered in Mass and RI too. This tactic is mainly used when the one party has a clear primary front runner and their supporters can have a greater effect on his election by voting for the weakest opposition candidate. It's not illegal, just dirty.