How does US politics work?

[sleaterkinney]

And it's on a combination of voter registration and use of marketing targeting software that Rove has been so good at getting the Republican vote out, especially in the 72 hours prior to voting - it usually works by ID-ing the voter, sending them personally tailored election materials slagging the local democrat off, and will often involve calls on the day of the election saying 'go and vote'.

He's been worryingly quiet, hasn't he?

 

[kyser_soze]

I was reading in yesterday's papers how the attack ads on both sides have suddenly been ramped up, mainly focusing on the alleged sexual misconduct of various candidates. Classic Rove really - the dems opened up the GOP wound with matey and his 16 yr old MSN boys and Rove has hit back at them with the same - from accusing canidates to visiting the playboy mansion to calling phone sex lines on the tax payers expense...

 

[sleaterkinney]

from accusing canidates to visiting the playboy mansion

He played the race card with that one as well, didn't he?. But it's not on the scale of the swift boat thing.

 

[poster342002]

The Prime Minister has no equivalent in the US because the PM combines executive and legislative powers.

Interestingly, the French President holds much of the same executive powers as the US version - but France also has a Prime Minister with, I believe, similar powers to the ones described in this thread for the US Speaker of the House. It seems to me that the USA could rename their Speaker as a PM (if they wished) and it wouldn't make any difference.

If anyone knows more - or I'm way out wrong on any of this - please do correct me.

 

[nino_savatte]

No, Nino, it was completely serious. I kill union workers, chop them up, boil their bones to make jam and then eat the jam with my toast. Of course it was supposed to be funny, you humorless dim git.

As for my pomposity, I'm sure that everyone who calls you on tripe you post is (naturally) unbearably pompous to do so. Whatever. At least you admitted it, even if you had to toss another insult my way while you did.

Wind yer neck in, friend.

Let's go back to where this all started. This is what I said,

Unless, of course, parts of the Taft-Hartley Act have been repealed...and I don't think that has happened.

Please note the text in italics; it is an expression of uncertainty. Next time you get on your high horse, please bear in mind that it's a long way to fall when you hit the ground.

 

[nino_savatte]

Interestingly, the French President holds much of the same executive powers as the US version - but France also has a Prime Minister with, I believe, similar powers to the ones described in this thread for the US Speaker of the House. It seems to me that the USA could rename their Speaker as a PM (if they wished) and it wouldn't make any difference.

If anyone knows more - or I'm way out wrong on any of this - please do correct me.

You're correct afaik, perhaps guinnessdrinker could enlighten us further.

 

[zion]

kyser_soze,

Yes, the Rove strategy targets small slivers of the population that their software tells them could swing Republican to mobilize: not just "conservative Christians", for example, but "conservative Christians who have recently bought a snowmobile and have a relative in the military". Then that sliver gets bombarded with tailored materials. It's very effective.

What led to substantial disenfranchisement in Florida in 2000 was the use of a wildly inaccurate felon list. Those convicted of felony offences in Florida can never vote there again. The list they used contained many, many people who didn't fall in that category, and many of them were black or likely Democrats or both. What happened in Ohio was that the office charged with processing voter registrations prior to the election was headed by a Republican, and they prioritized voter registrations from Republican precincts over Democratic precincts. There was also a very substantial effort to disqualify voter registrations where the address listed was no longer valid (Democrats move more often than Republicans too).

There have been many attack ads, which I have seen in my state (paraphrasing, "Deval Patrick, as a public defender, defended someone who was convicted of rape, and got him a lighter sentence - DO YOU WANT SOMEONE LIKE THAT AS YOUR GOVERNOR?"). Attack ads exist to depress voter turnout on the other side. Their combined effect is to increase contempt for politicians in general. To be fair, though, Patrick has not run anything particularly nasty in return, and still looks like he'll win in a landslide.

Poster,

I do think it would be confusing to rename the Speaker of the House a Prime Minister. Why not call him or her Speaker of the House?

Nino,

Next time you get on your high horse, please bear in mind that it's a long way to fall when you hit the ground.

And you think I'm pompous?

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Why don't we find some middle ground everyone can agree with?














You're both pompous.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I was going to get involved in this discussion, and then I realized; I just barely understand how my own government works, and that low level of understanding is tenuous at best.

 

[bruise]

er, aren't you canadian?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

er, aren't you canadian?

Yes.

We have a government too, you know.

The point is, I barely understand my own govt; who am I to be expounding on the intricacies of a foreign govt.

 

[nino_savatte]

Yes.

We have a government too, you know.

The point is, I barely understand my own govt; who am I to be expounding on the intricacies of a foreign govt.

Which means, once we unpack what you are saying here, that one shouldn't examine/criticise the governments of other countries - particularly the US - because it's what? Wrong? This is the same line that mears adopts.

What muddleheaded thinking.

 

[nino_savatte]

Nino,



And you think I'm pompous?

Aye, I think that you're not only pompous, you're also quick to score a cheap point. I'm not pompous at all and there is nothing in that bit of text that you have quoted to suggest that I am. You imagine things that aren't there and you misrepresent my posts. This is not the first time this has happened either. What is your problem? Do you find it difficult to be honest?

 

[nino_savatte]

Why don't we find some middle ground everyone can agree with?














You're both pompous.

Nice try but if you actually lookeed at how zion has engaged me, it has been from a soi-disant position of superiority.

 

[nino_savatte]

I do think it would be confusing to rename the Speaker of the House a Prime Minister. Why not call him or her Speaker of the House?

Why would it be confusing? I see nothing confusing about it. As things stand, too much power rests in the hands of the executive branch. What's wrong with having a PM and a Speaker? Or is it the case that many in the US would see this sort of thing as being too 'European'? Aye, that's it and it would also account for the ossified/arthritic condition in which the State exists. Most countries have modified their political systems and structures many times throughout the course of their history. The US seems to want to resist any form of change.

 

[Lock&Light]

Next time you get on your high horse, please bear in mind that it's a long way to fall when you hit the ground.

It's actually such a short way to fall when you hit the ground that it can't be measured. It would depend on how high the horse is to determine if it's a long way to fall before you'd hit the ground.

 

[kyser_soze]

Why would it be confusing? I see nothing confusing about it. As things stand, too much power rests in the hands of the executive branch. What's wrong with having a PM and a Speaker? Or is it the case that many in the US would see this sort of thing as being too 'European'? Aye, that's it and it would also account for the ossified/arthritic condition in which the State exists. Most countries have modified their political systems and structures many times throughout the course of their history. The US seems to want to resist any form of change.

Which power and which executive branch tho? I assume you're talking about the Federal Government, which has way over-extended it's powers pretty much since it was created and not state Govenenors!

And the extension of powers to the Executive branch has been peculiar to this administration, which has successfully created a whole raft of legal special instruments with which to bypass a largely compliant Repblican Congress and SC. Coupled with the fact that the SC currently has a backlog of Homeland Security inspired test cases and you have an easy reason why so much power has gone to the Executive that it didn't previously have.

AFAIC the basic tripartite structure is fine - the dynamic it should create between legislature, judiciary and executive still exists. What needs to be changed is the clever legal finessing that Cheney's team managed to create in order to circumnavigate the normal process of C&Bs inbuilt.

And JC2 - it's possible to learn about other countries political systems by studying the theory and practice. While you can never replicate the exact experience of being there, it is possible to look at things like what's supposed to happen and what actually happens, and compare the theory to the practice!

 

[zion]

Nino,

Zion has engaged me from a soi-disant position of superiority.

I weigh in most on the subjects where I have the most expertise. On US politics, I have the advantage of living in the US and being politically engaged here, so I know much more about it than I do about current UK politics. That doesn't make me "superior to you".

Why would [calling the Speaker of the House the Prime Minister] be confusing? I see nothing confusing about it. As things stand, too much power rests in the hands of the executive branch.

First, the Speaker of the House is an office of the legislative branch, whereas a Prime Minister is generally an office of the executive branch. It's not that it's a "European" terminology: it's that it's a term from a different, parliamentary system of government, where the executive and the legislative branches are not as separate. Therefore, to me, it would confuse things. It would probably be less confusing to you because you're used to a system that has a prime minister.

Second, if I came to you and said, "What's wrong with calling the Chancellor of the Exchequer the Secretary of the Treasury? Is that too "American"? Aye, that's it, and it would also account for the ossified/arthritic condition in which the State exists", you would be perfectly entitled to tell me to fuck off with my culturally imperialistic attitude.

Third - prime minister of whom, exactly? We're a republic, so this person couldn't exactly be a minister of the Crown...

Kyser_soze,

I agree 100%.

 

[nino_savatte]

Which power and which executive branch tho? I assume you're talking about the Federal Government, which has way over-extended it's powers pretty much since it was created and not state Govenenors!

And the extension of powers to the Executive branch has been peculiar to this administration, which has successfully created a whole raft of legal special instruments with which to bypass a largely compliant Repblican Congress and SC. Coupled with the fact that the SC currently has a backlog of Homeland Security inspired test cases and you have an easy reason why so much power has gone to the Executive that it didn't previously have.

AFAIC the basic tripartite structure is fine - the dynamic it should create between legislature, judiciary and executive still exists. What needs to be changed is the clever legal finessing that Cheney's team managed to create in order to circumnavigate the normal process of C&Bs inbuilt.

Aye, I am referring to the Federal structure. I tend to use the word "state" in this way as I would do if referring to the ideological and/or repressive functions of any country's ruling classes.

Sorry, I came over all Althusserian there.

 

[nino_savatte]

I weigh in most on the subjects where I have the most expertise. On US politics, I have the advantage of living in the US and being politically engaged here, so I know much more about it than I do about current UK politics. That doesn't make me "superior to you".

It's your tone, friend. Need I remind you exactly of what you said? You were a little too quick to pronounce me "unreliable". You deliberately misread my post in order to provide yourself with a cheap point. Well done you. Bravo.

 

[zion]

Nino,

You know perfectly well that you can't determine someone's tone from a written post.

On my being too quick to judge you as "unreliable", remember what happened.

You posted something untrue about Taft-Hartley that you hadn't adequately researched, with caveats that it was as far as you knew. I asked you for a specific citation. You got huffy, swore at me, and refused to supply a citation. You not only felt that what you were posting was true, but that anyone who doubted you was obviously ideologically motivated.

I went and researched what you were saying, found it was untrue, and told you that on that basis I couldn't consider you a reliable source on Taft-Hartley. I don't think I rushed to judgment. I treated you fairly by doing primary research to determine whether you were right, before saying that I didn't consider you reliable on it.

 

[kyser_soze]

Will you two just apologise to each other, shake virtual hands and get on to the next argument? There's a new Dwyer thread out there...*

















*I have no way of knowing this, just assuming that there will be one somewhere...

 

[nino_savatte]

Nino,

You know perfectly well that you can't determine someone's tone from a written post.

On my being too quick to judge you as "unreliable", remember what happened.

You posted something untrue about Taft-Hartley that you hadn't adequately researched, with caveats that it was as far as you knew. I asked you for a specific citation. You got huffy, swore at me, and refused to supply a citation. You not only felt that what you were posting was true, but that anyone who doubted you was obviously ideologically motivated.

I went and researched what you were saying, found it was untrue, and told you that on that basis I couldn't consider you a reliable source on Taft-Hartley. I don't think I rushed to judgment. I treated you fairly by doing primary research to determine whether you were right, before saying that I didn't consider you reliable on it.

Please pay attention, numbnuts: I said "Unless, of course, parts of the Taft-Hartley Act have been repealed...and I don't think that has happened". Which bit of that did you not understand? As for specific citations, you never made it clear what sort of citation you required. I didn't swear or get huffy, I only suggested that you did your own research. It seems to me that you are clearly unable to read my posts without reading something else into them.

Oh, and I think I can determine tone from what someone types...it isn't that difficult. You've done this sort of thing before, zion; you've misrepresented and deliberately distorted what I've said to make yourself look good.

Still, I have to ask why you demanded a "specific citation" when you could have Googled it yourself or popped down to your local library (you appear to have gleaned some data from a book in order to post information about the US political system - very lawyerly, if you don't mind me saying so). Perhaps you should have a think about some of the specifics of English grammar while you're at it....and maybe see an optician. But reading is only part of the problem, comprehension is quite another....or maybe you're just a lawyer?

E2A: when one demands a source for the information or opinion that has been given, it is done with specific [ideological] purpose in mind.

I've found you out.

 

[nino_savatte]

Will you two just apologise to each other, shake virtual hands and get on to the next argument? There's a new Dwyer thread out there...*



















*I have no way of knowing this, just assuming that there will be one somewhere...

Sorry kyser, but zion has an unfortunate habit of reading things into my posts that aren't there. He's done it here and he's done it elsewhere. I don't know why he does it.

I've put dwyer on ignore, perhaps I sould do the same with zion.

 

[zion]

I agree that we should put that part of the discussion into private messages. It is kind of off topic for the thread.

On the use of the word "state", I think there's a unique confusion that arises when discussing American politics because in internal American political discussions the federal government is never referred to as the State.

It's also particularly confusing because many functions that are discharged by the central government in Britain are discharged at least in part by state governments in the United States. This makes it harder to make generally authoritative statements about the nature of US politics. For example, I found out yesterday that, unlike in California where you have to register as a member of a party or an independent, in Massachusetts you register as a member of a party or as "unenrolled".

 

[bruise]

or as "unenrolled".

is this the 'anarchist' option? ie registering a protest as not intending to vote

i completely agree with the PM thing - can you two keep it off the thread?

 

[nino_savatte]

I agree that we should put that part of the discussion into private messages. It is kind of off topic for the thread.

On the use of the word "state", I think there's a unique confusion that arises when discussing American politics because in internal American political discussions the federal government is never referred to as the State.

It's also particularly confusing because many functions that are discharged by the central government in Britain are discharged at least in part by state governments in the United States. This makes it harder to make generally authoritative statements about the nature of US politics. For example, I found out yesterday that, unlike in California where you have to register as a member of a party or an independent, in Massachusetts you register as a member of a party or as "unenrolled".

The State is what it is and even in the US, the word is used, principally by academics to describe the ideological and repressive functions of the ruling classes. The Federal government is the ideological arm of the State, as is the Supreme Court, Congress and the various agencies which serve it. Individual state governments are also a part of the wider state, since they operate in much the same way as the Federal arm of state. There is nothing "unique" or "confusing" about it.

 

[kyser_soze]

When it's spelled with CAPS it's clearly a reference to the whole apparatus of government - 'The State' , not the elements specifically which, incidentally, Nino has done.

 

[nino_savatte]

Just to add: the State is a continuous entity that changes very little over the course of time. It can be modified but such modifications are often minor and will go unnoticed by the masses. In Britain the nature of the State changed because it was forced to do so by external pressures. The only changes were constitutional and such changes are unlikely to have a direct effect on the masses.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I agree that we should put that part of the discussion into private messages. It is kind of off topic for the thread.

On the use of the word "state", I think there's a unique confusion that arises when discussing American politics because in internal American political discussions the federal government is never referred to as the State.

It's also particularly confusing because many functions that are discharged by the central government in Britain are discharged at least in part by state governments in the United States. This makes it harder to make generally authoritative statements about the nature of US politics. For example, I found out yesterday that, unlike in California where you have to register as a member of a party or an independent, in Massachusetts you register as a member of a party or as "unenrolled".

'State' as used is not a proper noun, and needn't be capitalized in the middle of a sentence.