|
unwantedplatypus posted:There are countries with governments that exist today that work far better than the american one what is this weird bullshit. What are you referring to? Parliamentary democracies? They aren't immune to this stuff either. Just because the policies in the short term look better than the policies coming out of the US doesn't mean that they can't undo all of that progress if the majority of the country demands it.
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2018 02:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 00:46 |
|
|
Volkerball posted:What are you referring to? Parliamentary democracies? They aren't immune to this stuff either. Just because the policies in the short term look better than the policies coming out of the US doesn't mean that they can't undo all of that progress if the majority of the country demands it. Yes, parliamentary democracies can do things.The US, a lot of the time, cannot. Because it seems virtually designed to avoid being able to do things. This may be a factor in how many US citizens view the entire concept of government. An effective form of government runs the risk that you might shoot yourself in the head, nationally. However the American system erodes faith in the idea that government or political action can be good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2018 23:09
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Yeah, it's a tough question. I wonder what the Romans or Greeks would tell you about their form of government back when their empires were falling apart. I imagine you could ask a Roman back then what the best government system in the world is, and they'd probably tell you that there was no better system than imperial or republican Rome, despite the fact that political assassinations and brutal crackdowns were an integral part of how the system operated. That for all the flaws, it's not like any of those tribes on the outskirts were doing anything to aspire towards. I feel like in a lot of ways, the American attitude towards American democracy is kind of the same way. That with the rapid collapse and atrocious human rights record of communism, the blatant injustice of the fascist monarchies and dictatorships of the world, and the long term stability of the US, that our system is viewed as the best anyone could expect to do. But if a time traveler from 1,000 years in the future came back and got to ask us this question, I don't think they would buy our arguments. The cracks in the American system are really starting to show, and it's clear that a new system of government that is capable of balancing the need for government to be accountable to people, an unquestionable dedication to the values of dignity, equality, and human rights, and the need for a government to be able to defend itself against internal challenges that threaten those values, a little better. I don't know the answer either, but I have a feeling it's a question a lot more people are going to be asking over the next decade or two. It could lead to an enlightenment, where people build upon the American system to capitalize on the strong points and fix its many flaws, or it could lead to a dark age, where nothing is able to replace the failed American experiment with its better, or even its equal. I'm hoping for the former, but I have nothing to contribute to prevent the latter. I'm glad you brought up values, even though I usually avoid talking about them. However often when I hear people itt or in USPol decrying decorum and calling for the gloves to come off, I wonder if they really understand what that means, and what kind of America they really hope to create through more aggressive tactics. For example if I were king-shithead of the Democratic party tasked with winning more elections and nothing else, the first thing I'd do is push through increased gerrymandering in states the party controls. Next to cement this structural advantage in Democratic states, I'd move to dismantle as many polling stations in rural districts as possible, to make it difficult for white Republican leaning persons to vote at all. The Republicans do it after all, why shouldn't Democrats? I would against these kinds of tactics not because it's dishonest or w/e. Rather the principle of popular sovereignty is one of my core values. Democrats should never enact such policies regardless of what Republicans do because they are fundamentally incompatible with the kind of America I want to create and live in. That doesn't mean I wouldn't support any means of gaming the system. For example if Democrats were in a position to make DC a state they should obviously do so, as it would immediately increase their power. This change however would enhance popular sovereignty by expanding the franchise, and so it would be harmonious with the principles I want Democrats to defend. One thing I've tried to show in this thread is that as bad as things sometimes seem right now, in the grand scheme of things, they aren't much worse than those we've always coped with. While seeing Proud Boys on the news is shocking, The United States is radically less violent today than it was 30 years ago, by virtually every metric. It's also less racist, misogynistic, and homophobic. That's not to say there haven't been worrying counter-trends in the last two years, however we absolutely still have the capacity to reverse them, and in fact in the very recent past we have overcome much worse. The trend towards polarization(and especially, Republican tactical radicalization) is however relatively new, and I don't think we can predict what the ultimate consequence will be. Donald Trump in 2016 made it clear that if he had lost, he would have denounced the election as stolen. That kind of behavior in other countries has sparked many riots, coups, and even civil wars. What will happen when he does it again in 2020? If it were in his power, what are the odds he'd actually try and overcome a legitimate loss through fraud or force? I hope it will not be in his power, and I hope he represents an insignificant blip on the longer trend-line, and not the real beginning of a movement. While I suspect his ideas represent an ephemeral movement that will disappear as soon as he leaves power, we have no choice but to treat his threats as serious and work hard to undermine them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 01:52
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Yes, parliamentary democracies can do things.The US, a lot of the time, cannot. Because it seems virtually designed to avoid being able to do things. This may be a factor in how many US citizens view the entire concept of government. Parliamentary democracies also have extremely dumb aspects like William III's mace being A Thing at all
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 22:46
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:Parliamentary democracies also have extremely dumb aspects like William III's mace being A Thing at all That's the best part, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 22:49
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:Parliamentary democracies also have extremely dumb aspects like William III's mace being A Thing at all Uh, no, being able to gently caress up the government by doing the mace dance is the best part of the british government. The worst part is the institutional child molestation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 22:53
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:Parliamentary democracies also have extremely dumb aspects like William III's mace being A Thing at all The US has stuff like this too: The Mace of the United States House of Representatives. It would not look out of place in Captian America's right hand. I honestly kind of like little bits of stupid ceremonial bric-a-brac in a institution like this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 07:09
|
|
|
The mace in the US parliantment is just a mace though, for the british parliament it's literally the source of parliament's legitimacy and if you take it out of the room it's not actually parliament anymore it's just a bunch of rich assholes arguing without authority to pass laws
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 07:59
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:The mace in the US parliantment is just a mace though, for the british parliament it's literally the source of parliament's legitimacy and if you take it out of the room it's not actually parliament anymore it's just a bunch of rich assholes arguing without authority to pass laws I'm pretty sure parliament wouldn't really gave a poo poo the mace vanished beyond them losing a giant gold mace they impress idiots with.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 08:18
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:I'm pretty sure parliament wouldn't really gave a poo poo the mace vanished beyond them losing a giant gold mace they impress idiots with. Oh yeah it wouldn't ACTUALLY matter that much, but even that it formally has that status is pretty loving different than the mace of the house of representatives which is even formally symbolic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 08:42
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:I'm pretty sure parliament wouldn't really gave a poo poo the mace vanished beyond them losing a giant gold mace they impress idiots with. Nnnnooo actually it would be a bit of a constitutional problem for the UK. I mean it's one that would be resolved, but it is literally the mechanism by which the british government derives de jure authority to govern. If you make it out of the chamber having done the mace dance you closed parliament. And currently the only thing stopping you doing that is an old lady with a sword.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 08:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Nnnnooo actually it would be a bit of a constitutional problem for the UK. It's an excuse for why people should listen to what they say, literally that's it. You're saying it yourself they would just make something else up. The only reason they haven't yet is no one cares to. The only time technicalities like that matter is if the people in charge get something out of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 08:47
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:It's an excuse for why people should listen to what they say, literally that's it. You're saying it yourself they would just make something else up. The only reason they haven't yet is no one cares to. Yes but that describes every law ever. The sovereign is the founding block of the british government in the same way the constitution and the declaration of independence are for the US. Sure in practice it's inertia and the fact that the army would probably listen to them, but legally they are both the underpinning of how the government works and if you pull that rug out, it requires effort to decide on a new way of doing things. They would absolutely "give a poo poo" if they had to rewrite the constitutonal basis for their existence. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 08:52 on Dec 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 08:48
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Yes but that describes every law ever. Yes I agree, laws also only mater if people in charge of enforcing them do so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 08:50
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Donald Trump in 2016 made it clear that if he had lost, he would have denounced the election as stolen. That kind of behavior in other countries has sparked many riots, coups, and even civil wars. What will happen when he does it again in 2020? If it were in his power, what are the odds he'd actually try and overcome a legitimate loss through fraud or force?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 08:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Yes but that describes every law ever. The thing I doubt is it would seriously effect how the government works as having a large golden mace present is a formality and would not effect the creation or enforcement of laws in any real way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 08:54
|
|
|
Probably not no, but old governments get a bit nervous when they have to demonstrate openly that the only reason they persist is because they've got all the guns. They like to pretend there's more to it than that and will go to some lengths to keep up the illusion. It's actually having a somewhat significant effect on UK politics right now as it happens. The enforcability of really stupid old customs as actual functioning parts of the government is being put to the test and the outcomes are determining what the government can get away with. So it is a relevant concern if you're going to look at the system of government.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 08:57
|
|
|
I would like to say democracies gain legitimacy from the consent of the governed but I've been questioning that a bit lately.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 09:09
|
|
|
Something something strange women in ponds distributing swords.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 12:25
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:The Mace of the United States House of Representatives. I am a very huge US political nerd, to the point where I think I kinda-sorta understand how reconciliation and the Byrd rule works in the US Senate. I did not know this mace existed. It kinda makes me oddly happy to see it. edit: wait, what the gently caress! The Sergeant at Arms is literally authorized to use the magical US mace to threaten unruly lawmakers with it?!? (This is from wikipedia, maybe its fake bullshit, I don't know) quote:In accordance with the House Rules, on the rare occasion that a member becomes unruly, the Sergeant at Arms, upon order of the Speaker, lifts the mace from its pedestal and presents it before the offenders, thereby restoring order. Rigel fucked around with this message at 13:00 on Dec 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 12:54
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:He won't. A man who can't bring himself to fire subordinates in person has no appetite for high stakes conflicts he can't walk away from. Of all the post-WWII presidents, Trump is quite possibly the least equipped to pull off a coup: he's spent the first two years of his presidency alienating the military, intelligence services, and business elites he would need to support him. He lacks the organization or knowledge to quash alternate sources of legitimacy within the government. He has no popular movement: if he asked his followers to occupy the streets of the capital, they would get mugged. Or arrested. Yeah I don't really think he has the power to reverse a real election loss. However he has apply demonstrated a willingness to abuse power in a way that is not business as usual. For example if the stories that he was pushing the FBI to prosecute Clinton long after the election are true, it's an break with precedent, that's some petty dictator poo poo. If we had unrestricted control over the FBI and justice system I have no doubt he would have ordered frivolous investigations and indictments. Also the way he preemptively denounced the outcome of the 2016 election if he were to lose was extraordinary and dangerous, because it undermines trust in elections. Given the general disarray and lack of focus of the Trump administration he hasn't really been able to do much actionable harm to American democracy. The real threat is that the next generation of Republicans will take his message to heart and go even further towards undermining democracy than they do today. Hopefully though that won't happen, but keeping it from happening will probably require serious commitment from activists.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 18:50
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:I would like to say democracies gain legitimacy from the consent of the governed but I've been questioning that a bit lately. The funniest post in this entire thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 00:46 |
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:I would like to say democracies gain legitimacy from the consent of the governed but I've been questioning that a bit lately. This is true for actual democracies such as Cuba and France.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 23:02
|
|
