10 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettNo, I am not american either.
Are you daft?
The nation has become polarized to an extent not seen since 1861. The result was civil war then and the results are likely to be as equally calamitous now.
How do you measure this polarization? Why does it not look that bad to me, who only gets to see whats in the news? Is your news censorship that good?
I tend to not see polarisation in peoples problems, you all seem to agree on what the problems are:
1. Chinas beating us.
2. We can live on borrowed money any more.
3. There are no jobs. (because they are going abroad).
4. The US is no longer the super power it once was - we didn't win several wars - and looked bad in them.
What I see is polarization in how to deal with it.
I realize that the bulk of people from any era are incapable of envisioning a future that differs significantly from the present they know, but I think they're in for a rude awakening.
Yes, you are correct, the bulk of people from any era incapable of envisioning a future that differs significantly from the present they know, and for that very reason are often unwilling to try to change it. Although I must say that the youth often get excited about change.
But ultimately, most people realise the massive costs that war and other change brings about, and since almost all the problems in the US today are about Americans addiction to being the richest, I really cant see many Americans trying to change that. Which is why I asked earlier, do you think China envy will finally get to you all?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
10 Sep 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThis makes me wonder if parliamentary governments like Japan's are less prone to gridlock.
I find neither scenario likely. A Japan-style period of stagnation is certainly possible though, especially considering the deteriorating political climate and the apparant unwillingness of the electorate to do anything about it.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/08/25/less_gridlock_in_a_parliamentary_system.html
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
10 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by SleepyguyHow about corporatism versus populism, centered in the R and D parties but not entirely synonymous.
So who are the two sides you see in this conflict? Conservatives vs liberals? Haves vs have nots?
Which side do you envision starting the violence, and which side do you envision suspending the Constitution?
http://www.populistdaily.com/politics/corporatism-versus-populism.html
I'm not saying the above cite is 'fair and balanced.' Maybe someone can cite a link attacking populism from the standpoint of what's good for business is good for the people in general.
I would expect populist violence (demonstrations going violent) followed by government suppression and escalation, after perhaps SCOTUS-initiated or SCOTUS-upheld distortions of corporate versus personal rights.
10 Sep 11
Originally posted by rwingettI don't think so.... it's a stretch.
The changes that we are looking at will not be motivated externally. They are internal dissensions that will tear the nation apart. The structure of US government has become wholly inadequate to deal with that stress. Some people on this thread (the usual crowd) foolishly imagine that a dysfunctional government is a good thing and that it can be continued i ...[text shortened]... nd far reaching changes are in store for the US. The only question is what form they shall take.
10 Sep 11
Originally posted by rwingettNumber 4, but not with de facto (as opposed to actually) separated nations.
During the next 25 years, one of the following scenarios will likely take place:
1. Using some "national emergency" as a pretext, the President will suspend the Constitution and rule by decree indefinitely.
2. Using some "national emergency" as a pretext, a group of military and/or corporate interests will stage a coup, suspend the Constitution, and ...[text shortened]... So, which of the four above seems most likely, or are there more scenarios I've overlooked?
10 Sep 11
Originally posted by JS357Hm, yeah that site sucks IMO. Here's an NPR article with a more fair interpertation IMO.
How about corporatism versus populism, centered in the R and D parties but not entirely synonymous.
http://www.populistdaily.com/politics/corporatism-versus-populism.html
I'm not saying the above cite is 'fair and balanced.' Maybe someone can cite a link attacking populism from the standpoint of what's good for business is good for the people in general. ...[text shortened]... r perhaps SCOTUS-initiated or SCOTUS-upheld distortions of corporate versus personal rights.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123137382
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
11 Sep 11
Originally posted by SleepyguyThat is a better discussion of populism in general. I don't see the Tea Party as overlapping very far with the economically vulnerable and potentially volatile population that would make up a populist anti-corporate movement. I think the writer of this piece suggests the same or at least is consistent with it. The Tea Party is on the whole, whiter, somewhat older, and somewhat wealthier than the general population.
Hm, yeah that site sucks IMO. Here's an NPR article with a more fair interpertation IMO.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123137382
11 Sep 11
Originally posted by SleepyguyConservatives haven't been shot in the face for winning an election. And what about Sarah Palin and her talk about "don't retreat, reload"?
Ah, good 'ol Sharron. Not the brightest bulb. But I'm sure somewhere even in her brilliant comments she made reference to a tyrannical government as prerequsite to any of those 2nd amendment remedies. If someone were to try to suspend the US Constitution as rwingett suggests then all hell really could break loose, but conservatives would be out to defend the Constitution, not suspend it.
But there is one Democrat who talked about getting bloody in the streets to be fair.
19 Sep 11
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIs there a bumper sticker of that out?
Conservatives haven't been shot in the face for winning an election. And what about Sarah Palin and her talk about "don't retreat, reload"?
But there is one Democrat who talked about getting bloody in the streets to be fair.
Love it,, Don't retreat, reload..... perfect...