US General Election 2016

{{something making me crabbit! No surprise I suppose. But I was just watching a Fox news piece and their electoral expert just claimed that the US system is why it is the 'longest running democracy in the world'.

And its not like this is the first time, or just on Fox I have heard this claim, made in the US- that somehow your democracy is the first and the only one to have lasted any time- do Americans believe this rubbish?
I would just like to point out we had a parliament and democracy before the US was a country- so how can you have the longest running democracy?!!! You are johnny-come-latelies to the concept! }}}}

Welling having kittens, Julia, I guess, is kind of progressive.

Petty, the Americans have a World Series which includes only Americans. So, if they have a long running democracy, it means, only Americans are included in American democracy, which is not to be confused with other countries that may or may not be real democracies, in the isolationist American sense, that is...

Sigh.  Once again, Britain still had a functioning (more than a rubber stamp) King/Queen alongside the Parliament.  Other places may have had pure representative democracy longer, but America is the longest lasting still extant country that has had pure representative democracy.

{{The Monarchy has been just a rubber stamp since the Roundheads lopped of Charlies nogging. And that was in 1649! The whole aim of the Roundheads was  'to give the Parliament supreme control over executive administration.'
And note, there already was a Parliament, this was just getting the top layer of powers into it.
Like I said, yanks- johnny come latelies it was another century and a half before you even existed!  }}}

"Donald Trump doesn't so much have policies as he just says the sorts of things you'd expect a drunk guy on a bus to say when he is shaken awake by a pot-hole.'- Frankie Boyle

{{{ }}

 memo to self. don't get on a bus with Petty.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{something making me crabbit! No surprise I suppose. But I was just watching a Fox news piece and their electoral expert just claimed that the US system is why it is the 'longest running democracy in the world'.

And its not like this is the first time, or just on Fox I have heard this claim, made in the US- that somehow your democracy is the first and the only one to have lasted any time- do Americans believe this rubbish?
I would just like to point out we had a parliament and democracy before the US was a country- so how can you have the longest running democracy?!!!  You are johnny-come-latelies to the concept! }}}}

I don't think that simply having a legislature makes a country democratic when that legislature is completely dominated by aristocrats, as was the case in early modern Britain. The easing of property requirements for voting was a very long, gradual process in the UK that didn't finish until 1928. The US did away with most property requirements during the Jacksonian era, but of course racial barriers to voting lasted until the 1960s in parts of the country. I've argued before that this disqualifies the US from being considered a democracy before the Voting Rights Act on the basis that nobody seems to object to South Africa being described as non-democratic before 1994. The analogy isn't perfect so you could argue that the US should be assessed differently, though I don't think I'd agree. You could also make a similar argument regarding the UK since Catholics were systematically disenfranchised in Northern Ireland during the original home rule era (though that opens up a whole new can of worms regarding the colonial history of Ireland and everything that happened during the Troubles).

Let's also not forget that women weren't allowed to vote in either the UK or the US until the early 20th century. I think it's hard to talk about "rule by the people" when more than half the population is excluded from the definition of "the people".

{{oh I am not claiming the Uk had full democracy for all- but if the US can count its fledgling democracy with all the issues you just mentioned Eldo and claim its the longest running democracy in the world- then its just factually incorrect. Democracies with issues existed long before then.
If you are talking about full democracy then yeah, I'd agree, America has only been a democracy since the 1960's- you were just racists before then! }}}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:oh I am not claiming the Uk had full democracy for all- but if the US can count its fledgling democracy with all the issues you just mentioned Eldo and claim its the longest running democracy in the world- then its just factually incorrect. Democracies with issues existed long before then.

I wouldn't describe any country prior to the 20th century as a democracy (nor even a "democracy with issues"), but I suppose we can look at the expansion of the franchise and the evolution of proto-democratic values. Both the UK and the US were among the early pioneers of allowing middle and eventually working class people to participate in the political system (as were France and Switzerland), but both systems were deeply marred by the exclusion of large portions of the population on the basis of race and/or religion, as well as the disenfranchisement of women.

Britain in the 17th and 18th centuries was not even remotely democratic; Parliament was controlled by an aristocratic oligarchy. The US didn't have quite the same entrenched aristocracy but during the Revolutionary era politics was still the domain of the uppermost class. Democratization in both countries began in the 19th century as the franchise began to be extended to more segments of society. In the UK, property requirements for voting began to be rolled back by the Reform Act 1832 but they were not completely abolished for men until 1918 and not for women until 1928. Catholics and Jews were granted legal equality in the 19th century as well, although the Catholic population of Ireland did not in practice enjoy equal treatment since the island was still essentially being ruled as a colony and there was a preventable famine that killed between 750,000 and one million people. And later, disenfranchisement became official policy in Northern Ireland from the 1920s to the 1970s. In the US, property requirements for white men to vote were abolished on a state by state basis between 1792 and 1856, though this was still during the era of slavery. American women won the right to vote (regardless of property/class) in 1920, though Black men and women alike continued to be disenfranchised in parts of the country (in contravention of the 15th Amendment) until the 1960s.

TL;DR I don't really see a whole lot to brag about in either case

halfwise wrote:Noam Chomsky is pretty far to the left in the American political spectrum, but I think he gave a good analysis (or I should say yet another good perspective, there are so many) on how the Republican party has interfaced with it's base since the 1970s.

His argument that the Republicans are one of the most dangerous political forces in the world is largely based on their resistance to climate change.  Chomsky overstates the case for this, as liberal non-climate scientists are wont to do.  It's not an existential threat, it's an organizational and economic threat to our species.  Which is still very bad.  Plus, it's already too late to stop things changing though we can decrease the final amplitude and rate.  But it's still a bitter blow to be on the verge of losing all the progress we've made.  

Why is it too late to stop things changing? We can definitely slow it down and I am sure, if people put their mind to it, that we could do something to stop it.

I disagree that it isnt an existential threat. We already have issues with water which will only become worse. Ecosystems that support our food chain will be destroyed and generally there will be a lot less habitable land for people to live on.

How long before wars start to break out of these resources? And how long before those wars start dragging in bigger powers who need to protect thier own resources.

I don't think we will have Kevin Costner paddling about but I think there is a very good chance of another major global conflict triggered by climate change.

Yes, but anything short of nuclear war is not an existential threat to the species: we've been doing war since the dawn of history and we're still here.

If the changes were happening at a fraction of the pace but with the same ultimate outcome we'd adjust just fine. The problem is the speed of the change, which makes it an organizational and economic threat. It's a truly big problem, but I think a large part of the reason many people (mainly US conservatives) refuse to believe it is because it's overstated as the worse threat ever to humanity. It's not. I'm more worried about the effects of overpopulation, which excerbates everything else.

If we stopped emitting all CO2 right now it would take about 50 years to return to normal; but of course that isn't going to happen. Even at the largest conceivable cuts it will take centuries. Meanwhile, the earth hasn't reached it's new equilibrium yet for the current amount of CO2, so will continue warming. It's like a pot of water on the stove: there's a range of flame adjustments that will keep the temperature below boiling, so for every flame output there is an equilibrium temperature. If you turn the flame on, then soon after turn it down a bit, the temperature will keep going up because you haven't yet reached the equilibrium temperatures for either of the flame outputs.

But all of that is beside my main point: climate change should be sold as an economic threat, not an existential threat. Then a lot of skeptics would be less skeptical and we have a better chance of getting something done about it than if it's oversold as the worst catastrophe we've ever faced.

They all exacerbate each other. Climate change will be a big problem because of the population and the resources needed to sustain. One grows, the other shrinks.

I wouldn't count out nuclear war. I am sure a country with nukes that is facing collapse (I mean the actual country, not the regime) has only the option of expanding territory in to areas where the othershadows have big armies and nukes... they will probably get used.

why does nobody talk about population control? its like it is taboo. we need to massively reduce the worldwide population if we have any chance for survival, and its the poorest more vulnerable people who reproduce the most = recipe for disaster, destruction of Amazon, species, mass exodus etc.

{{Thats what the fluoride in the water supply is for }}}

Mrs Figg wrote:why does nobody talk about population control? its like it is taboo. we need to massively reduce the worldwide population if we have any chance for survival, and its the poorest more vulnerable people who reproduce the most = recipe for disaster, destruction of Amazon, species, mass exodus etc.

Not sure why you are opposed to Trump then... he said he wants to kill a load of them.

Isn't that why we've always sent young people of breeding age off to war?

as I said, its taboo. it gets a reaction every time like its a bad thing, when its just common sense.

The chinese did it. The chinese people weren't happy about it, but they pulled it off and now China's booming (well, parts of it). The key to making it work is to make it voluntarily attractive. Kids are more of a financial burden in technologically advanced countries; I've seen arguments that the way to fix the population problem is to bring 3rd world countries into the "modern" fold. Other than creating a lot of pollution and greenhouse emissions along the way (and especially at the goal) this is a winning solution for everyone.

But we'll have truly created a hothouse by the times the process is done unless we can do things much more efficiently. I don't think we're advanced enough yet to advance the whole world!

we just need to hand out more condoms. how can people have kids when they are starving.

Access to birth control is important for a number of reasons but economic development and improved education for women and girls are generally the biggest factors in lowering birth rates. This relationship can be observed in societies at many different levels of development and is not dependent on governments doing anything specific to discourage (much less criminalize) having too many children. At this point many of the wealthiest countries in the world have birth rates that are below replacement level (~2.1 children per woman) and would have shrinking populations if not for immigration.

On the other hand, if your concern is pollution, then wealthy countries tend to be worse offenders than poorer countries both in absolute numbers and on a per capita basis. The main challenge moving forward is finding more sustainable means of development, especially as the standard of living rises around the world. Overpopulation is not the main challenge as the rate of growth continues to shrink and the global population will likely peak in this century. Mass starvation is not one of the biggest risks we face either, since agricultural productivity has made great advances, especially since the Green Revolution. It may be necessary to place less emphasis on animal husbandry in the future though, since it's so inefficient in terms of energy expended to produce a given number of food calories. GMO crops are one of the most promising avenues for continuing to improve our agricultural efficiency.

what I don't understand about population control is this, every day there is something in the news about the lack of homes being built in the UK, politicians vowing to build thousands and thousands more and asap, there is a massive housing shortage, leaving aside the nimby argument, the UK is a small island we cant cover it with concrete ad infinitum, sooner or later building has got to stop, or am  I missing something? everytime they say build build build its helping the economy I  am saying what about the green bits. don't they matter. I bet only 1000 years ago you could go from end to end under trees.

I agree Figgles whole heartedly ! Ive been saying it for years. We are only a tiny Island. We cant keep ferkingwell building !!! Everyone says how lovely it is to have gorgeous countryside well, suck it up baby cuz the next time you see it will be on some sort of Virtual reality gizmo, or on the internet, pictures of how lovely the countryside WAS. I'm ferking furious about it !!! If we were the size of Russia it might just be ok but, we aint !!! Building affects all things connected with it. From chubby bubby Bees to massive Lordly Oaks. I wanna scream Ferk Off ! Bugger off & find another bigger Country !!

I think the built land in the UK. is actually quite small. There is a ton of room to build in... a massive amount of land is agricultural and plenty just plain old wild too.

Not that I think everything should be built in. Need to start building up a bit more without people moaning you can't see St Pauls from some random angle that nobody ever sees anyway.

{{Scotlands mainly empty. Our population has still not fully recovered from the Clearances. The hillsides round here are dotte4d witrhthe ruins of long forgotten and abandoned towns and villages.

And preserving wildlife in a lot of it isn't a huge issue as in a lot of the highlands very little lives there thanks to early settlers deforestation and there is plenty room. }}