US Presidential Election 2024

[greenmark]

But it’s not a true democracy, look at what the Supreme Court did over abortion laws. There was no National or even state vote on the subject.

Wrong.

There are plenty of state laws in the US on abortion - and those state laws are passed by state legislators elected by the citizens of each State. That is representative democracy in action. Representative democracy is different from direct democracy - we don't have a vote on every single issue. Mob rule is itself never wise.

Have to disagree with your here Gaz.

The US is a unique case study because its not one country, it's effectively fifty countries each with their own set of laws. With abortion the Republicans did what they do best, they played the long game. They quietly got conservatives elected to positions of power much further down the food chain where they could influence state legislatures. They know that if an abortion ban was put to a public vote they would lose big time. Kansas left it to the voters to decide and they voted against an amendment to the constitution that would have allowed lawmakers to ban abortions. Kansas is one of the more conservative states in the union.

Representative democracy isn't justification for politicians passing any law they want. Take Brexit, that was put to a public vote. The Tories didn't say we can do what we want because you elected us to office.

The USA and other western countries are only a true democracy when it suits them.

I agree with Archery.

If the US were a true democracy how could one man (Mitch McConnell) have continually blocked senate votes for years on bills from gun control to healthcare even though polls showed that a majority of Americans were in favour of change? And it's not just the Republicans, the current Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer's daughter is a lobbyist for big tech which is at the very least a conflict of interest because he still hasn't put an antitrust bill against big tech to the senate for a full vote.

There are senators who have been in office for forty years who have only had to stand for re-election once because there was nobody to stand against them. How's that true democracy?

Are you saying there is some conspiracy of the elite that decides when and how democracy is suited to the conditions of the west?

Let's be really clear, whatever failings there are in the West, and there are many, the system of representative democracy in the west is vastly superior to the autoritarian systems in China and Russia, the absolute monarchy of Suadi Arabia or the theocracy of Iran.

Like you I'd rather live in a democratic society but it's a fallacy of the western world that all the people in these countries need or want to be saved, they don't.

I think I might agree that the US is currently in a battle for the preservation of it's democracy.
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022 ... ing-rights
Sorry it's a long article but there's worrying stuff in it. Republican states passing laws to make it harder for the opposition voters to vote is pretty disturbing.
I think in the past across democratic countries there was a cross-party consensus to ensure that elections were a fair fight because that is the feature of democracy that protects us all from nutjobs.
Although it didn't protect us Hitler TBF.
But the article suggests an orchestrated campaign by republicans to impair opponents. Very dangerous IMO.

[Trader Pat]

I think I might agree that the US is currently in a battle for the preservation of it's democracy.
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022 ... ing-rights
Sorry it's a long article but there's worrying stuff in it. Republican states passing laws to make it harder for the opposition voters to vote is pretty disturbing.
I think in the past across democratic countries there was a cross-party consensus to ensure that elections were a fair fight because that is the feature of democracy that protects us all from nutjobs.
Although it didn't protect us Hitler TBF.
But the article suggests an orchestrated campaign by republicans to impair opponents. Very dangerous IMO.

I'll have a read of that later.

I think that will be Trump's ultimate legacy, he's emboldened the nutjob politicians to try stuff they would never have dreamed of trying before he was in office.

[gazuty]

Probably not very far apart here Pat and plenty to agree on

The US is a unique case study because its not one country, it's effectively fifty countries each with their own set of laws.

Agree. There are wide differencces in the US on many things and it is not a homogenous culture by any means.

They know that if an abortion ban was put to a public vote they would lose big time.

Not sure if that is the case on an individual state by state basis (I'd need to see the polling).

I do know, based on my own visits to the US, is that there are many more religious people who seek to live the values of their religion than in other western countries that were historically majority christian. What I mean by that is there are more people motiviated on a daily basis by their religious beliefs and those beliefs influence their political actions more than in Australia (for example). Obviously that impact is different in different states.

However, you might be right Pat, that even in what might appear to be religous societies people might vote in the majority for the legalisation of abortion (given that has happened in Ireland - which you will know a lot more about than I would - but from a long distance away it seemed an interesting outcome. I guess Ireland has a very youthful demographic and that probably played a part).

Representative democracy isn't justification for politicians passing any law they want.

Agree, that is why we have elections. What I dislike is where present parliaments do things to prevent (or make it very difficult) for future parliaments to change course. Australia has that problem because while the lower house (house of representatives) generally represents the present will of the people, as at the last election, the senate is far less representative. So as an example, the parliament has just passed legislation relating to cutting carbon emissions that will be difficult to repeal in the future if at that future time it was a good idea to reverse course.

I understand there are certain matters where course reversal is not possible - eg Brexit and that is why a referendum might be a good idea.

If the US were a true democracy how could one man (Mitch McConnell) have continually blocked senate votes for years on bills from gun control to healthcare even though polls showed that a majority of Americans were in favour of change? And it's not just the Republicans, the current Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer's daughter is a lobbyist for big tech which is at the very least a conflict of interest because he still hasn't put an antitrust bill against big tech to the senate for a full vote.

There are senators who have been in office for forty years who have only had to stand for re-election once because there was nobody to stand against them. How's that true democracy?

Representative democracy is not about always doing what the majority of the country wants. Each representative plays their own individual role. Exploring different perspectives and having different views put forward is really important. Mitch McConnell needs a bunch of other senators on side to block votes or to vote no or to oppose what some might call progress.

Of course the purpose and manner of operation of the US Senate has changed over time, because no matter the population it is two senators per state. Many people think that is undemocratic and I understand their perspective because we have a similar problem in Australia, where a small state like Tasmania elects the same number of senators as NSW with about 1/15th the population.

The two house system is a break of the "populist" lower house doing whatever the majority wants. Breaks on power and mob rule are important. Can the system be improved - for sure. However, in most systems we are stuck with what we have until some form of revolutionary event occurs. Revolutions are generally bad for people like me - coz I'm likely to be guillotined by some fanatical Robespierre speeding us towards his next utopia. That's why I prefer incrementalism.

Like you I'd rather live in a democratic society but it's a fallacy of the western world that all the people in these countries need or want to be saved, they don't.

I am with you here Pat. I used to, naively, consider that representative democracy could be exported around the world and people were waiting to be liberated. While I think western represenative democracy the best form of government for all peoples, history, custom and local culture mean that other people in other places need to want it for themselves. I can't impose it on them at the end of the barrel of a gun or a cruise missile.

Did I favour removing Saddam - yes. Not on the basis of WMD - just on the basis that he was a ruthless tyrant. Has it helped the average iraqi - probably not and might have even made their life worse.

So, I was wrong about Iraq and many other conflicts. But these choices are hard. Without Clinton, Europe would have intervened against Serbia just after the last muslim had been ethnically cleansed. It is hard to know when to act and the outcomes (even if they are ultimately good) often involve terrible destruction and loss of life along the way. There is good and evil, but there is no utopia.

[gazuty]

I think I might agree that the US is currently in a battle for the preservation of it's democracy.
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022 ... ing-rights
Sorry it's a long article but there's worrying stuff in it. Republican states passing laws to make it harder for the opposition voters to vote is pretty disturbing.
I think in the past across democratic countries there was a cross-party consensus to ensure that elections were a fair fight because that is the feature of democracy that protects us all from nutjobs.
Although it didn't protect us Hitler TBF.
But the article suggests an orchestrated campaign by republicans to impair opponents. Very dangerous IMO.

Voter supression is something to worry about.

What I worry about is that on both sides, Democrat and Repbulican, there have been failures to accept the result of elections. The "elite" were clearly hostile to Trump's election in 2016. Many people simply refused to accept the result and acted accordingly. Trump's own behavior has been disgraceful on the outcome of the 2020 election. This is not a "he started it first" point, it is a fact that the entirety of the policitcal elite (politicians, the media, academia, and other elements of civil society) have corroded their democracy through their behavior on both sides post 2016 and 2020. It is fundamental to peaceful democracy that political actors consider their political opponents as acceptable political actors in the political system. If one political group exists and another considers that they should not exist then violence, revolution and typically violent revolution follows.

My hope is that the stabilsers in the US constitution, the separation of powers between the three arms of government and the other elements of civil society are strong enough to move past the current turmoil. Time will tell of course.

[greenmark]

I think I might agree that the US is currently in a battle for the preservation of it's democracy.
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022 ... ing-rights
Sorry it's a long article but there's worrying stuff in it. Republican states passing laws to make it harder for the opposition voters to vote is pretty disturbing.
I think in the past across democratic countries there was a cross-party consensus to ensure that elections were a fair fight because that is the feature of democracy that protects us all from nutjobs.
Although it didn't protect us Hitler TBF.
But the article suggests an orchestrated campaign by republicans to impair opponents. Very dangerous IMO.

Voter supression is something to worry about.

What I worry about is that on both sides, Democrat and Repbulican, there have been failures to accept the result of elections. The "elite" were clearly hostile to Trump's election in 2016. Many people simply refused to accept the result and acted accordingly. Trump's own behavior has been disgraceful on the outcome of the 2020 election. This is not a "he started it first" point, it is a fact that the entirety of the policitcal elite (politicians, the media, academia, and other elements of civil society) have corroded their democracy through their behavior on both sides post 2016 and 2020. It is fundamental to peaceful democracy that political actors consider their political opponents as acceptable political actors in the political system. If one political group exists and another considers that they should not exist then violence, revolution and typically violent revolution follows.

My hope is that the stabilsers in the US constitution, the separation of powers between the three arms of government and the other elements of civil society are strong enough to move past the current turmoil. Time will tell of course.

I agree the desire for power seems to be making politicians and their advisers break the unwritten part of the constitution. We've seen it before over 'damaged' voting slips. But not on the scale we saw from Trump's team. It seemed to me (backed up by every legal challenge they laucnhed and was thrown out) that they will stop at nothing, including dishonesty, to gain power.
This is a big leap, but Hitler was deeply dihonest and used democracy to gain power and the rest is history that should serve as a warning for us all.

[Trader Pat]

They know that if an abortion ban was put to a public vote they would lose big time.

Not sure if that is the case on an individual state by state basis (I'd need to see the polling).

I do know, based on my own visits to the US, is that there are many more religious people who seek to live the values of their religion than in other western countries that were historically majority christian. What I mean by that is there are more people motiviated on a daily basis by their religious beliefs and those beliefs influence their political actions more than in Australia (for example). Obviously that impact is different in different states.

There were quite a few polls that showed a majority of Americans supported the right to have an abortion which is why Kansas was interesting as it's a conservative leaning state.

I agree 100% about religion's role, the Christian right is incredibly influential and seems to be getting stronger but it's dangerous territory when one group of people can force their beliefs onto another group which is what you're seeing with these bans imo. Ultimately though it fell to a handful of supreme court justices (unelected) to rule on Roe and suprise surprise they went with their religious beliefs. It's almost laughable at this stage that America still calls itself a secular nation.

However, you might be right Pat, that even in what might appear to be religous societies people might vote in the majority for the legalisation of abortion (given that has happened in Ireland - which you will know a lot more about than I would - but from a long distance away it seemed an interesting outcome. I guess Ireland has a very youthful demographic and that probably played a part).

Ireland's not as conservative as it used to be and it's also a sign of how much the grip of the catholic church has loosened on society here which for me is a good thing. The US seems to be going in the opposite direction.

My mother isnt mobile anymore but when she was I'd bring her to mass every Sunday which meant I was forced to sit through priests sermons (was like being 8 years old again!). The tone of a lot of these sermons haven't changed since I was a kid which is probably part of the reason why numbers of churchgoers continue to fall in Ireland. If you went to Sunday mass in Ireland the striking thing is how few young people there are, its >80% old people. Even a lot of the old people are probably only there to hedge their bets!

Did I favour removing Saddam - yes. Not on the basis of WMD - just on the basis that he was a ruthless tyrant. Has it helped the average iraqi - probably not and might have even made their life worse.

I don't think I had a strong opinion on it either way at the time. But looking back nobody really knows why the US invaded Iraq. Was it to remove a tyrant? Was it about WMD? Was it about oil? Or was it just the Americans flexing their muscles on the world stage after 9/11? Probably more about the last two than the first two.

So, I was wrong about Iraq and many other conflicts. But these choices are hard. Without Clinton, Europe would have intervened against Serbia just after the last muslim had been ethnically cleansed. It is hard to know when to act and the outcomes (even if they are ultimately good) often involve terrible destruction and loss of life along the way. There is good and evil, but there is no utopia.

You can only go with the information available at the time and because everything is spun so much it's hard to know what to believe. History will show Clinton did the right thing but even at the time he was criticised on one side for getting involved and on the other side for not acting fast enough.

Who'd be a world leader?!

[gazuty]

[quote=gazuty post_id=307607 time=1660435430
Who'd be a world leader?!

I’m having lunch tomorrow with a friend - who went to the G20 - had to shake hands with Putin.

[Derek27]

[quote=gazuty post_id=307607 time=1660435430
Who'd be a world leader?!

I’m having lunch tomorrow with a friend - who went to the G20 - had to shake hands with Putin.

Don't shake hands with him when you meet.

[Trader Pat]

[quote=gazuty post_id=307607 time=1660435430
Who'd be a world leader?!

I’m having lunch tomorrow with a friend - who went to the G20 - had to shake hands with Putin.

Was gonna say make sure to wear gloves but Derek got there before me

[Derek27]

[quote=gazuty post_id=307607 time=1660435430
Who'd be a world leader?!

I’m having lunch tomorrow with a friend - who went to the G20 - had to shake hands with Putin.

Was gonna say make sure to wear gloves but Derek got there before me

I was gonna say the G20 is now the G19 after Russia's expulsion and he's probably washed his hands several times since then, but I think I'm getting confused with G8/G7.

[Derek27]

I hope the US is watching how the Keyan elections are being run, they might learn from it.

[Derek27]

Chairs being thrown around the Kenan election hall so it's much the same as in the US.

[Derek27]

Liz Cheney hinting or not ruling out challenging Trump for the Republican nominee. That's the Liz I'd like to see more off - bring it on!

[Trader Pat]

Liz Cheney hinting or not ruling out challenging Trump for the Republican nominee. That's the Liz I'd like to see more off - bring it on!

I think there's more chance of me winning the nomination but fair play to her for speaking out though. She's bucked the trend of Republicans who do speak out in that she ran for re-election knowing she would lose. Kudos.

[Derek27]

Liz Cheney hinting or not ruling out challenging Trump for the Republican nominee. That's the Liz I'd like to see more off - bring it on!

I think there's more chance of me winning the nomination but fair play to her for speaking out though. She's bucked the trend of Republicans who do speak out in that she ran for re-election knowing she would lose. Kudos.

She will at least be a pain in the arse, especially with more dirt dug up about Trump.