American Politics

[KageSora]

And the human factor is such that even if the abdication of private property was an ideal state of existence (which it's not, in my opinion), it could still never work.

I would argue that that depends on the humans involved.

 

It isn't a universally bad thing--it's just that the larger the group of humans involved, the higher the likelihood that somebody is going to get greedy.

[MaelstromOfTheStars]

Hello! May I ask what's the difference between Republic and Democratic? Thanks! I'm not from US- so don't ask how I don't know

Republicans are right wing politicians there pro-religion and very conservative, or George bush.

Democrats are left wing there pro-"rights" and believe that everyone is equal, hippies so to say. Or bill Clinton

 

I take it your from commie land or therefore the parts we haven't liberated yet /s

 

Your right-wing is our left wing, our right wing is your extreme right wing.

 

The British Tories are our democrats basically republicans are British national party

 

[RiverstarOfSkyclan]

Just popped on to say I don't pay attention to politics my dad does, so I'm stuck watching stuff about it sometimes, but I'd rather be watching MLB Network with my brother

[MaelstromOfTheStars]

Just popped on to say I don't pay attention to politics my dad does, so I'm stuck watching stuff about it sometimes, but I'd rather be watching MLB Network with my brother

Honestly you should care. Apathy is cause of the rise of political systems such as Fascism and Communism, about 150 Million People Died from the combined deaths of Bolshevism and Fascism in Europe and in Asia. Apathy in the American Political System is why we went from a Libertarian Right with Giuliani and Paul to a Neo-Con Religous GOP and Tea Party with men such as Rick Santorum who ask their children to play with their wife's miscarried fetus'

 

If we had a more involved political system with less gerrymandering and an actual fair system we might be like the rest of the civilized world with Public Health Care, Government paid tuition, but I guess one country on this planet needs to declare the wars and commit the war crimes if no one else is busy doing it, citizens too busy with other more important things.

 

Sorry for ranting, politics manages to wind me up in ways you can't even imagine sometimes.

[georgexu94]

Republicans are right wing politicians there pro-religion and very conservative, or George bush.

Democrats are left wing there pro-"rights" and believe that everyone is equal, hippies so to say. Or bill Clinton

 

I take it your from commie land or therefore the parts we haven't liberated yet /s

 

Your right-wing is our left wing, our right wing is your extreme right wing.

 

The British Tories are our democrats basically republicans are British national party

Thank you very much. What do you mean by "commie" land?

 

Edited: By the way, Wiki sys Tories are conservative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tory. So wouldn't that make them republics? Sorry, is confused.

Edited October 12, 2013 by georgexu94

[Kyrieath]

Hello! May I ask what's the difference between Republic and Democratic? Thanks! I'm not from US- so don't ask how I don't know

In an attempt to provide another answer- mind this is about just the parties, not individuals who may or may not be living up to their party association.

 

Democratic party: Liberal and progressive politics; they tend to lean more to civil development and advancement. They don't ignore world politics but they generally aren't eager to get involved, one way or the other. They are the oldest functioning political party in America, having reinvented themselves any time society changed drastically without simply becoming a new party.

They are known for being big spenders, not always to useful ends ultimately, and encouraging general enterprise. They also have a history of being able to put aside internal politics to focus on a larger goal, which has worked in their favor for preserving their party through the decades as others have come and gone.

Due to this party's 'open' nature in terms of ideals, a Democrat can vote in favor on a Republican idea and not lose much face with their own party, even if they won't necessarily like it.

 

Republican party: Conservative politics; and it's rather literal that they exist to oppose the Democrats. Although most people describe them as anti-liberal, it's generally best to keep in mind they're actually more arrayed against liberal politics as based on the Democratic party's ideal of it. Don't like world politics either, but they get involved more readily and generally with a military bent. They are a few decades younger than the Democratic Party and do not favor constant change in society as change does not necessarily equate progress. As such, this party is also slow to change its policies and tactics, tending to favor the idea of establishing a tradition over free for all alterations at the drop of a hat as Democrats are occasionally infamous for doing.

They are known for favoring military spending over civil spending and tend to invest in big business over small business. Their party has often been racked with internal politicking that they can't always set aside when two or more subfactions may have very different ideas, even in the face of a larger goal.

While a Republican may vote in favor of a Democratic idea, they tend to risk losing face with their party by doing so.

 

-That about gives a very rough summary, I think. Hardly everything but bit of a laymen's overview.

[Obscure_Trash]

I take it your from commie land or therefore the parts we haven't liberated yet /s

Um. I'm really not okay with this sentiment. =\

[KageSora]

Um. I'm really not okay with this sentiment. =\

I just assumed the "/s" meant "/sarcasm" myself.

 

But yeah, if that's a serious statement, it's a very problematic one.

[Cecona]

The whole post seemed pretty sarcastic to me, I highly doubt it was serious.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Cecona

[georgexu94]

So.. commie... What does it mean? I assume communist. If that is so, then no. I am not in a communist country. I'm from the Philippines, which is a republic.

[MaelstromOfTheStars]

Thank you very much.  What do you mean by "commie" land?

 

Edited: By the way, Wiki sys Tories are conservative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tory. So wouldn't that make them republics? Sorry, is confused.

Yes, The Tories are Right Wing for Europe or as we call it in America jokingly, Commie Land. Sorry for not clearing that up. Europe=Commie Land, it's a joke from the Cold War.

 

In America everything is more right wing than Europe. So if you wanted a party LIKE the Tories in America, The Democrats would be like them on the "Spectrum" This is the "Spectrum"

 

Imagine United States Democrats in the Centerish

 

Republicans in between Economic Freedom and Control but at the top of the chart.

 

Tories are about 1/3 of the way up so if Democrats were in europe they'd be Almost Tories

[TikindiDragon]

Actually if you look at policy the Conservatives (Tories) are more Center than the Democrats. You need to look at this wiki link for the current party known as the 'Tories'.

[MaelstromOfTheStars]

Actually if you look at policy the Conservatives (Tories) are more Center than the Democrats. You need to look at this wiki link for the current party known as the 'Tories'.

Yes these are the Tories I'm talking about. These Tories are closer to our Democrats than our Republicans is what I'm saying

[georgexu94]

Ah, I think I am understanding a bit. Thank you, MaelstromOfTheStars for the chart too.

[MaelstromOfTheStars]

Ah, I think I am understanding a bit.  Thank you, MaelstromOfTheStars for the chart too.

Your Welcome very Much, Actually I reccomend reading up about all the Political Philosophies and beliefs there are. The Break Up of Communist Factions into the belief's of their particular leaders is interesting as well such as the Lenin, Stalin, Tito, Mao, Trotsky and Marxist Factions is cool, interesting to read about how one mans ideal world managed to get so split up and used by several very very powerful men. It's all really cool and important if you want to understand parts of history, which I love really.

 

Politics is complicated but it's always important to be informed about it or else dictatorships will arise if the people don't know of the mistakes of the past. Then Oppression. Then Bloody Revolution. Don't Be a part of a bloody revolution, take a part in your political system (If you can) today!

 

 

Also I recommend people to watch CGP Grey's Voting Systems Videos which are really cool to understand the system of voting people use.

 

All Explain the problems with voting systems that we use, the gerrymandering politicians use to get themselves more votes and the overall messed upness of Politics. They're all very accurate for the US Political System and something everyone should use. Left, Right, Up, Down, Stalin, Ghandi, everyone should watch them.

 

Also SockPuppet Strangler, It's Sarcasm, Liberation was a joke on Operation Iraqi Freedom and the "Liberation of Iraq". Liberation of Iraq was with Missiles. American's Liberating=Fire-Bombed. Sarcasm Again, Thought /s was universally understood as "Ended Sarcasm." Me and friends always talk about it when one of us play as America in a strategy game, "I'm going to Liberate this City State you guys kay with it?"

 

I always try and keep it light-ish when talking about Politics as people get really worked up over it including myself sometimes over the most minor of arguments

[philpot123]

New documentary about the Common Core standards. Although it's obviously against the standards, it provides a fair treatment with interviews of both proponents and opponents of the standards. Check it out.

 

Building the Machine: The Common Core

[edwardelricfreak]

In response to what was brought up in this thread,

 

Even if you don't think your vote matters anyway, what's the harm in going ahead and voting? Other than maybe lost time, if your vote doesn't matter, then it doesn't. But if and when it DOES, it may make the difference.

 

Yes, the public's vote DOES matter, though personally I feel it matters more when electing governors and electoral college candidates. It still matters when it comes to presidents, but if you want the vote to sway in favor of one side for the president, it makes more sense to vote for the other members above, as they are responsible for a good chunk of power when it comes to voting.

[KageSora]

Each raindrop alone cannot cause a flood--it is only when there are many that a flood can happen. Votes are similar--each one, when there are many, isn't majorly important on it's own, but together they can be a powerful force.

 

If everybody thought their vote didn't matter and didn't vote, then each person who did vote has more power given to their vote.

 

Sure, there may be a lot of people who've failed as leaders in various respects (I don't think they've all been total failures, mind you--or we'd not be here as our own country right now), but the thing is you need to vote to have any kind of chance at impacting who's in charge.

 

Even if you think they're all poor choices, you can vote for the one who you think is going to cause the least harm according to your views.

 

 

Besides--at the very least you can complain and say "Hey, this isn't the president I voted for, I don't like how things are going" if you vote who you backed loses.

[_Z_]

Before discussion begins anew, this is a reminder that users need to respect other users. If this thread becomes too heated or personal, it may end up closed. Please use the report function as necessary to report any rule breaking, ie disrespect. Keep in mind that politics do have a real effect on people's lives, so a degree of sensitivity in what you say is necessary.

[sh20000sh]

I heard Clinton had actually got more votes than Trump but Trumps was elected. I thought case like this was rare that might be happened in system like this when I read Bush was elected like this. So got more votes and got fewer electroal college wasn't rare case as my thought, was it?

[serce2]

Well, the popular vote is easy to get if you get cities or very high density states even if you neglect rural areas. For example, Chicago alone has more people than the entire state of Wyoming, yet the former is smaller politically than the latter. Both places need somewhat equal representation, in order to get a leader that doesn't heavily favor cities, henceforth why every state has at least 3 votes.

So no, it's not rare theoretically.

[Vhale]

I heard Clinton had actually got more votes than Trump but Trumps was elected. I thought case like this was rare that might be happened in system like this when I read Bush was elected like this. So got more votes and got fewer electroal college wasn't rare case as my thought, was it?

It's only happened 4 times in 200 years. Having it happen twice recently to the same party is what has peeked people's interests. I think one senator, Barbara Boxer, has introduced bills to do away with the EC the last three? elections. But they've never gotten ground.

[flockof-doves]

I heard Clinton had actually got more votes than Trump but Trumps was elected. I thought case like this was rare that might be happened in system like this when I read Bush was elected like this. So got more votes and got fewer electroal college wasn't rare case as my thought, was it?

she got more of the popular votes than trump, but trump got the most electoral votes and in turn was made president.

[angelicdragonpuppy]

One thing I read that caught my interest was how elections would be handled differently if they were popular votes. Right now parties don't focus on advertising in regions where they know the vast majority is against them because getting 20% of the vote versus 10% doesn't matter--they still lose electoral votes and thus the effort is wasted. But if it was a popular vote, swaying every last person they can would be essential and they'd spread out their reach.

 

Honestly I rather like that idea, since it would expose everyone to more differing opinions than the current only-swing-states-matter approach. Honestly I think the biggest problem in America today is that everyone is so entrenched in their opinions that we can't come together to get even basic reasonable stuff done or have civil discussion. Maybe more expose to both parties would help moderate friendliness win out.

Edited November 17, 2016 by angelicdragonpuppy

[flockof-doves]

One thing I read that caught my interest was how elections would be handled differently if they were popular votes. Right now parties don't focus on advertising in regions where they know the vast majority is against them because getting 20% of the vote versus 10% doesn't matter--they still lose electoral votes and thus the effort is wasted. But if it was a popular vote, swaying every last person they can would be essential and they'd spread out their reach.

 

Honestly I rather like that idea, since it would expose everyone to more differing opinions than the current only-swing-states-matter approach. Honestly I think the biggest problem in America today is that everyone is so entrenched in their opinions that we can't come together to get even basic reasonable stuff done or have civil discussion. Maybe more expose to both parties would help moderate friendliness win out.

this^^^

 

and one other thing with the electoral college and such, it doesn't represent the views of the entire country. it's really an outdated system that desperately needs to be replaced.