The American Politics Discussion Thread

I don't know, it would be a long hard road to convince the American people to actually care about all the issues but, for example, my aunt is a hardcore Catholic. She's a one-issue voter: abortion. If someone is pro-choice, she can't vote for him because that would be voting for murder. So she votes for Romney. But if there were 3 different candidates that all were pro-life, then she would have to actually look at other issues to decide which one to vote for. Kind of similar to me; I'm a social issues vote, and regardless of Obama's economic policies I'm voting for him because I vote on social issues and no one else with good social issues records have a chance of winning. But if there were 2-3 people that had similar views on social issues but different economic policies, I would be forced to compare and contrast their other qualities.

But I'm not sure if it's possible for the US, as bipartisan as it is, to get to that point. :/
 
The problem, the gigantic problem, is the one-round winner-takes-all system, in State level no less. Simply that has the direct effect of concentrating support in two parties alone, because any third party voters will realize that their votes are absolutely worthless. In France, for instance, a first round is held with all candidates from all parties, and the two with the best result go on to a second round. This year, no candidate got over 30% of the votes, a handful got at least 5% and a few of them were overlapping- three conservatives, two social-democrats, etc.

Meanwhile, here in Spain or in Germany, we vote parties and seats are given proportionally, and the party which gets more support (or that can unite a coalition of parties behind them) gets to elect the President/Prime Minister. That way, your vote for Random Party can matter if they get enough votes to get one seat and use it to negotiate policies in exhange for support to the President.

The US system, as it is right now, pretty much makes any third party useless as their chances of ever getting ONE electoral vote out of 538 are microscopycal unless they get millions of people to support them in a State- let's not even talk about 270. Specially now that, after decades and decades of the same parties over and over, the tipping point where lots of people vote not to choose someone but to prevent someone else from being elected has been reached. "Voting for a third party means giving the presidency to the other guy" is the best way to keep your base together.

Meanwhile, I'm going to watch the results of the elections today in Galicia and the Basque Country, two of our states, and where 4/6 parties are expected to get elected to their respective Parliaments with our proportional system, with a possible Galician Government being made out of 3 different parties. I, for one, think that's much more representative.
 
Livewire said:
You kind of need political parties. Imagine if instead of two, we had ten, or even twelve. Think about how confusing and how much of a logistical nightmare that would be. There are some benefits to a two party system/political parties.
Click to expand...

The UK has three major parties, and there aren't any major issues- they only have to get a third chair in the debates. And it allows some degree of freedom to "punish" your favourite party if they screw up without directly favouring the one you hate the most.
 
Livewire said:
You kind of need political parties. Imagine if instead of two, we had ten, or even twelve. Think about how confusing and how much of a logistical nightmare that would be. There are some benefits to a two party system/political parties.
Click to expand...

Canada has (at least):
- New Democratic Party
- Green Party
- Bloc Québécois
- Liberal Party of Canada
- Conservative Party of Canada

Those are the big ones, with Liberal, Conservative, and NDP being the major players.

The Conservatives actually used to be two separate parties: Progressive Conservative Party of Canada (which I affiliate myself with) and the Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance. I wish they'd split up again :(

So, you don't need just two. I would hate if Canada went to a two party system. I wouldn't feel like I have much of a choice.
 
I don't like the party system as it is because you can never be fully satisfied with a candidate (unless you actually agree with 100% of their stances and plans). Since Obama and Romney are the only well-advertised candidates I'm forced to vote for Obama because I agree with his plans more than Romneys (which are fairly non-existent). So basically, my vote is going for NOT electing Romney rather than voting for someone I truly want in office.

What I would like to see happen is the law-making power of Congress/Senate and the President halted after the construction of a bill. The bill is then introduced to and truthfully translated for the public and then voted on by the people. A person should be able to represent themselves as a whole, and not forced to choose the lesser of an evil. Every party can be equally represented in the Government, but the public majority will always win. People who only care about things like abortion would only influence decisions made about abortion, rather than vote for a whole package they choose to ignore.

If that can't happen, or wouldn't work, we should at least do better to make sure other parties are in the mainstream. Not having Jill Stein, Gary Johnson and the other candidates represent themselves in a debate is a disgrace and really shows how influenced by media we are as a nation. A leader of a nation shouldn't "win" a debate because they attacked the opponent better (which makes them look better the next day in media), it's not a rap battle. The winner of a debate should be a personal decision of whose argument resonated with you best.
 
Sadly I was too sick and tired to live blog this event today. But I managed to watch the debate after I woke up and I have to say I wasn't disappointed. I thought the third and last presidential debate was a clear win for the President. He displayed the authority of the nation's Commander-in-Chief: He was calm, dignified, and confident. He explained to a clueless Mitt Romney the way the world actually works.

Romney seemed out of his depth. His arguments were more a series of bromides than positions – "we have to make sure arms don't get into the wrong hands," "we want a peaceful planet," "we need to stand by our principles," "we need strong allies," "we need a comprehensive strategy to move the world away from terrorism."

In tonight's debate, Romney seemed to wander. He often had difficulty distinguishing his approach from the President's, except to say, repeatedly, "America needs strong leadership."

On the few occasions when Romney managed to criticize the President, he called for a more assertive foreign policy – but he never specified exactly what that assertiveness would entail. He wanted "tougher economic sanctions on Iran," for example, or "stronger support for Israel" – the details of which were never revealed.

Obama's most targeted criticism of Romney, on the other hand, went to Romney's core weakness – that Romney's positions have been inconsistent, superficial, and often wrong: "Every time you've offered an opinion," said Obama, "you've been wrong."
 
Everyones opinion is wrong. Thats why its called a opinion, instead of fact.

Anyway, I doubt that Romney would put more scantions on Iran. He'd be to busy waging a 'economic war' on China. (Which is, very, stupid since the, majority of, the things we buy, minus food, are made in China.)

Just to drive home that point, a picture.
[PokeCommunity.com] The American Politics Discussion Thread

(Basically, China has all of us by the balls. And, ironically, Capitalism is why.)
 
Last edited:
Mr. X said:
Everyones opinion is wrong. Thats why its called a opinion, instead of fact.

Anyway, I doubt that Romney would put more scantions on Iran. He'd be to busy waging a 'economic war' on China. (Which is, very, stupid since the, majority of, the things we buy, minus food, are made in China.)

Just to drive home that point, a picture.
[PokeCommunity.com] The American Politics Discussion Thread

(Basically, China has all of us by the balls. And, ironically, Capitalism is why.)
Click to expand...

Capitilaism is what would prevent outsourcing to China. China attracts jobs because businesses don't have to deal with nearly as many burdensome regulations that they have to here.
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
Capitilaism is what would prevent outsourcing to China. China attracts jobs because businesses don't have to deal with nearly as many burdensome regulations that they have to here.
Click to expand...

No, the "make the highest profit at all costs" attitude praised so highly by capitalism is what causes companies to make the decision to outsource to sweatshops in China, ignoring the human rights issues that surround them because CAPITALISM.

The only way for America to compete with Chinese labor while maintaining "capitalism at all costs" is to make our labor so cheap that most people would not be able to live off of their jobs (it's hard enough to live as it is on minimum wage), while removing everything that makes workers safe and keeps companies from forcing them into dangerous conditions for the sake of a paycheck.

People > money.
 
Your not pointing out anything that I haven't already told her in the past.

This is America. We, supposedly, more then half a **** about our workers. It's what, supposedly, sets us apart from the 'evil' countries (aka, china, N.Korea, Cuba, ect ect.).

What we are seeing today is a repeat of the 20's. Sooner or later, the system will collapse upon itself again. Hopefully this time we can get some regulations in place to keep corperate greed in check.
 
Last edited:
Mr. X said:
inb4 Freaky

'The companies would have no choice but to offer fair wages for our skilled labor.'

Seriously. I pointed out all of this to her once before, and this was (pretty much) her response.
Click to expand...

In what world is that? "Fair Wages" could only be obtained AND MAINTAINED by a strong labor movement. Which is usually stomped down in today's neo-liberal world.
 
The conditions of employment, such as wages, hours, workplace conditions, and benefits in addition to wages, should not be legislatively mandated. These should be negotiated between the employer and each employee, or their labor union, if the employee belongs to one.
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
The conditions of employment, such as wages, hours, workplace conditions, and benefits in addition to wages, should not be legislatively mandated. These should be negotiated between the employer and each employee, or their labor union, if the employee belongs to one.
Click to expand...

Except this is not an equal power relationship. This is a relationship where the corporations have exponentially more power than than the workers. Working out wages one-on-one only works well in mom-and-pop businesses, where they care about the people they're hiring, and can be affected by harming the interests of one or two families. People need jobs to live, because they need money. If all corporations offered jobs at 50 cents an hour, what are they supposed to do, not work at all? They would be forced to take a job that doesn't pay enough because it's better than being paid nothing. And then the corporation has their workers at their price and have no need to raise wages.
 
You not telling her anything that I haven't in the past.

She still thinks that Corporations care about their employee's.

They don't. All they care about is making money. At. Any. Cost.
 
Toujours said:
Except this is not an equal power relationship. This is a relationship where the corporations have exponentially more power than than the workers. Working out wages one-on-one only works well in mom-and-pop businesses, where they care about the people they're hiring, and can be affected by harming the interests of one or two families. People need jobs to live, because they need money. If all corporations offered jobs at 50 cents an hour, what are they supposed to do, not work at all? They would be forced to take a job that doesn't pay enough because it's better than being paid nothing. And then the corporation has their workers at their price and have no need to raise wages.
Click to expand...

When businesses (not all large companies are companies are corporations under the legal definition of the term) pay wages that are insufficient, what happens in a free market system where both the employer and the employee have equal rights regarding the freedom to contract, workers organize to have more clout in negotiations with their employer.
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
When businesses (not all large companies are companies are corporations under the legal definition of the term) pay wages that are insufficient, what happens in a free market system where both the employer and the employee have equal rights regarding the freedom to contract, workers organize to have more clout in negotiations with their employer.
Click to expand...

The reason we have these regulations is because when left to their own devices, companies would rather use their power to lean on workers in a way that forced them to work for pennies.

Look at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire. The reason so many people died in that fire was because the doors were locked in the factory. Why were the doors locked? So the employees had to request the key from their managers, so they could be searched before they left on suspicion of theft. The company put theft above the safety of their workers, because theft affects their bottom line while a worker getting hurt did not (since they could easily be replaced). Without the regulations that are now in place on workplace safety, this is what happens. Companies put their bottom line first.

And in a country where a company can offer ridiculously low amounts of money for work, the company will. And where one company does, another does. Working is not a luxury that we can play games with like you seem to think. It is a necessity for the workers. As a necessity, the employers have massive amounts of power in the negotiation. If a worker refuses to work for 20 cents a day, but all the companies around her only offer 20 cents a day, then what is she supposed to do? She now has no job. She has no negotiating power. The companies hold all the power. If they didn't, we wouldn't need regulations to protect real people from being exploited by them.
 
Toujours said:
The reason we have these regulations is because when left to their own devices, companies would rather use their power to lean on workers in a way that forced them to work for pennies.

Look at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire. The reason so many people died in that fire was because the doors were locked in the factory. Why were the doors locked? So the employees had to request the key from their managers, so they could be searched before they left on suspicion of theft. The company put theft above the safety of their workers, because theft affects their bottom line while a worker getting hurt did not (since they could easily be replaced). Without the regulations that are now in place on workplace safety, this is what happens. Companies put their bottom line first.

And in a country where a company can offer ridiculously low amounts of money for work, the company will. And where one company does, another does. Working is not a luxury that we can play games with like you seem to think. It is a necessity for the workers. As a necessity, the employers have massive amounts of power in the negotiation. If a worker refuses to work for 20 cents a day, but all the companies around her only offer 20 cents a day, then what is she supposed to do? She now has no job. She has no negotiating power. The companies hold all the power. If they didn't, we wouldn't need regulations to protect real people from being exploited by them.
Click to expand...

If a company is forced to pay by law more than a worker is worth, then that company will have to hire less employees than they need, or outsource jobs so that they can pay their workers what their labor is worth. Minimum wage laws price unskilled workers out of jobs, because companies won't hire them because they can't pay them what their labor is actually worth.

Individual workers may not have much negotiating power, but organized workers do. This is why labor unions exist.

As far as locking workers in, that is already illegal without burdensome regulations. The tort of false imprisonment provides relief for workers in that situation.
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
If a company is forced to pay by law more than a worker is worth, then that company will have to hire less employees than they need, or outsource jobs so that they can pay their workers what their labor is worth. Minimum wage laws price unskilled workers out of jobs, because companies won't hire them because they can't pay them what their labor is actually worth.

Individual workers may not have much negotiating power, but organized workers do. This is why labor unions exist.

As far as locking workers in, that is already illegal without burdensome regulations. The tort of false imprisonment provides relief for workers in that situation.
Click to expand...

Um ok. If Im gonna get a job, I expect to be paid more than a dollar a day for me work. Id rather minimum wage laws exist than to be payed like 5 dollars a day. People can't live off that. They cant afford to buy things like food and pay rest and other expenses. How do you expect them to be able to afford to live if that were the case and the laws didnt exist?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top