Republicans vs Democrats: A rivalry gone too far

[TMLutas]

this is why I love the danish multi-party system...

we have over seven different parties - from exteme right wing to equally extreme left wing, with the majority being more center-ish or just a lil' to either side.

makes for far more fair elections, since any 'winner' can't expect more than 30% of the combined votes - and thus we always end up with a nice coalition goverment being formed, the winning party seeking out one or two lesser ones to team up with, so they can get a majority vote.


to that end, I think that american politics resemble bolsjevik (spelling?) communism more than democrazy...

- if one of the two parties gets all three big seats, that is, majority in senate, congress and the presidency then you technically do have a one party system in that period

- the amount of blatant election fraud is more or less similar to communism, plus the whole use of the 'if you dont vote with us, you're not patriotic' reminds of the 'if you dont vote with, you're not supporting the revolution'

I could go on... but come on - Ann Coulter...

The problem with parliamentarian democracies is that the parties tend to talk amongst themselves to figure out who is "in" and who is "out". In the US system, that decision is made by the people in a free vote.

I think that you misunderstand the US system though and you're doing it in a way that is very common for people from unitary states with parliamentary democracies.

1. The US system is federalist. There are certain times that a Governor can say no to the President even in vital areas. This is not always smart (see Hurricane Katrina) but it is their right. So holding all three "big seats" means much less than it would in Denmark because the state governments are *never* in the hands of just one party. There are always strongholds where the other party dominates.

2. The US system contains anti-majoritarian elements. Even with cloture proof margins, a minority party can slow down and stymie the majority if it's willing to be on short sleep until the next elections. This real threat of governmental paralysis means that the minority gets a bone throne its way even when "on paper" they are completely without power.

3. Beyond the two houses of Congress and the Presidency, the judiciary plays a large (some say too large) role in national governance. Even when a majority of justices are picked by one party, this is no guarantee that you will get rulings in favor of that party as Republicans have learned for the past few decades.

4. Both the Democrat party and the Republican party are not parties in the european sense. Instead, they are party coalitions running on a united slate. Within these "parties" are several factions, each one of which would be a party in Denmark. On any particular issue, one of the factions can and very often does jump ship in a way that would bring down a government in a parliamentary democracy. This is how Presidents get their legislative agendas into law even when they control neither house of Congress. They craft their proposals in ways that unite their coalition and divide (often called wedge) the majority so that on the most important issues, the majority becomes the minority and the President gets his way (at least in theory, execution problems make it an exciting game full of surprises).

[TMLutas]

One other thing to note: perhaps not all systems are scalable. Dennmark has a population of about 5-6 million people, which is about the size of the average american state. Overall America has a population of about 300 million. What works on a small scale might not work on a large scale.

In fact, Federalist #10 points out that Republics really only work once you get big enough that there is never a natural majority and that everybody is solicitious of minority rights because everybody is a minority on one issue or another.

[TMLutas]

Heh. Someone tried that on Andrew Jackson's wife early in his political career. He challenged him to a duel, knowing the other fellow was a better shot, or at least a faster draw, deliberately took the first shot, and then killed the man.

No male ever said it too loudly again after that. Unfortunately for her peace of mind, all too many women would whisper it.

As I recall, the individual's last words were "Dear God, did I actually miss?" as Jackson took aim at him after being hit in the chest.

And yes, we have an entire political faction, the jacksonians, named after a guy so tough that he could take a dueling pistol bullet with so little reaction that the shooter thought he could miss. Lately, they've turned Republican but have always dominated our military and police forces and their loyalty is not primarily to any party.

[TMLutas]

i really don't understand where this enmity between political parties comes from, well i do understand where it comes from, but not how it has grown so violent.

party 1. gives this point of view,
party 2. gives that point of view,

people vote between 2 points of view, one with more supporters gets to be in power, taking care of national politics.

why the need for charracter assassinations, libel and spreading rumors, why the need for outright lies or voting frauds, i see no real need for these things.

they happen, neither side is innocent, but they are not necessary.

i guess that it might come from both sides being violently oppsed to the possibility that they might be wrong/mistaken/missinformed, wich i see rather silly, if someone raises doubt against you opinions/methods, then just review those opinions/methods and see if there really is an error in them, that's what the political discussion is for.

i would also point out that i am not in either side of the political argument, i'm not even certain what either parties opinions are.

In the trenches, there's a lot of cross party cooperation, even with all the name calling. President Bush got quite a few brickbats for inviting the bete noir of conservatives, Ted Kennedy to have a big voice in his education policy (NCLB) and until very recently, Bush had a Democrat, Norm Mineta as his Transportation Secretary. Clinton had a Republican as Secretary of Defense. With all the rancor, President Bush has yet to veto a single bill passed by Congress including the time when the Senate had a Democrat majority.

That isn't to say that there isn't real rancor and division but that there are other currents going on at the same time.

[TMLutas]

Actually, pro-gun people like myself believe the gun IS the counter. They shoot, you shoot back.

In theory, at least, eventually, you'll end up with a polite rational population, as all the impolite irrational people will have been shot to death.

i'd be more inclined to except anarchy and wide spread massacres, but you seem to be more optimistic about people than i am.

In reality, there are jurisdictions that have gone so far as making gun ownership mandatory, mostly rural small towns. The universal experience so far is that crime takes an immediate ~50% tumble and stays there. The problem of widespread massacres is an independent variable. If it were not, Switzerland (which is more heavily armed than the US) would have huge numbers of mass shootings. They do not.

[ChronicMisadventures]

Regarding guns and their "Proliferation":

The presence of guns do not cause crime.
The presence of guns does not stop crime.
People cause crime, and people stop crime. Guns make both easier.



Bumpersticker seen on a vehicle in the local post office parking lot: "Guns don't kill people. Postal workers with guns do."

No, okay, I'll be serious. Roe vs. Wade was a decision by the US Supreme Court back in the 1970s which permitted abortions to be performed in the US without threat of arrest.

From an article a month or so with the author of a book on the Roe v. Wade issue who's gone through the documents released via Freedom of Information Act since it's been the requisite number of years since the relavent Justice's death: The Justices "didn't think this would be a controversial decision" because they only circulated within their own social groups who were in favor of it rather than having contact with anyone from the other side of the issue.

And yes, we have an entire political faction, the jacksonians, named after a guy so tough that he could take a dueling pistol bullet with so little reaction that the shooter thought he could miss. Lately, they've turned Republican but have always dominated our military and police forces and their loyalty is not primarily to any party.

Yup, I count myself in the Jacksonian camp of Mead's division of the American public (the other three camps are the Jeffersonians, Hamiltonians, and Wilsonians, incase anyone was wondering)

[BrockthePaine]

The problem of widespread massacres is an independent variable. If it were not, Switzerland (which is more heavily armed than the US) would have huge numbers of mass shootings. They do not.

Au contraire, the US has a higher overall gun ownership rate (39%) than Switzerland (27.2%). Some vital statistics:

US:
Total deaths: 18.57 per thousand
Total Homicide: 5.70 per thousand
Firearm Homicide: 3.72 per thousand
Total Suicide: 12.06 per thousand
Firearm Suicide: 7.35 per thousand
% Households With Guns: 39%

Switzerland
Total deaths: 22.80 per thousand
Total Homicide: 1.32 per thousand
Firearm Homicide: 0.58 per thousand
Total Suicide: 21.28 per thousand
Firearm Suicide: 5.61 per thousand
% Households With Guns: 27.2%

Switzerland is unique not in guns being widespread, but in the NATURE of the guns which are owned. Swiss have more widespread access to fully-automatic rifles and submachine guns, while Americans have a larger subset of sporting firearms such as deer rifles and shotguns. Norway has a higher firearm ownership rate than Switzerland and a lower total death rate all across the board.

J4n1, you might be interested to know that the UN says Finland's gun ownership is the highest in the world at 50% of all households owning guns. My information only says that 22% of Finns are armed.

[The JAM]

[...unWARP!!!]

Good evening.

In reality, there are jurisdictions that have gone so far as making gun ownership mandatory, mostly rural small towns.

That's true down here also. Our church is WAY out in the highway, between two towns (or one city and one semi-major village), and the county ORDERED him to get himself a gun, since he and his family lived in a house next to the church.

Yup, a Full Gospel Christian pastor owns a gun.

Not that it came as a big shock to anyone, he used to be a policeman. He's killed several poisonous snakes and a rabid dog so far.


Gun ownership is a bit sketchy in Mexico, though. There are permits available for mostly anyone over 18 (I think), but you have to be careful about which model you buy since there are models which are "of exclusive use of the Armed Forces", mostly the automatic type.

And now the problem is that the drug lords have about as many AK-47s as the army does, oi....


¡Zacatepóngolas!

Until next time, remember:

I

AM

THE

J.A.M. (a.k.a. Numbuh i: "Just because I'm imaginary doesn't mean I don't exist")

Good evening.

[WARP!!!]

[BrockthePaine]

I understand from my gun forum that nothing larger than a .380 is allowed...

[J4N1]

J4n1, you might be interested to know that the UN says Finland's gun ownership is the highest in the world at 50% of all households owning guns. My information only says that 22% of Finns are armed.

that is interesting to know, especially when i personally know of only 2 people who own a gun, there are lot's of hunters and sportsmen, but 50% sounds kinde high, can i get a link to that information.

[BrockthePaine]

J4n1, you might be interested to know that the UN says Finland's gun ownership is the highest in the world at 50% of all households owning guns. My information only says that 22% of Finns are armed.

that is interesting to know, especially when i personally know of only 2 people who own a gun, there are lot's of hunters and sportsmen, but 50% sounds kinde high, can i get a link to that information.

No problem. The statistics I was using earlier, which say 23% of Finnish households own guns, is here, while the 50% figure (referenced in the footnotes) is here. Which is the actual figure? I don't know. I'd almost be more inclined to go with the lower figure, as it is more in line with other Scandanavian countries on this chart.

[J4N1]

No problem. The statistics I was using earlier, which say 23% of Finnish households own guns, is here, while the 50% figure (referenced in the footnotes) is here. Which is the actual figure? I don't know. I'd almost be more inclined to go with the lower figure, as it is more in line with other Scandanavian countries on this chart.

not to sound sceptic, but the study does not sound reliable, the sources of information are not stated clearly enough.
but maybe i just can't read the document as it is meant to be read, for some reason these documents are always written in as confucing manner as possible.

[BrockthePaine]

Most of that information was by the 1998 International Journal of Epidemiology, you can see the cite right below the footnotes, before the next section starts.

[J4N1]

Most of that information was by the 1998 International Journal of Epidemiology, you can see the cite right below the footnotes, before the next section starts.

and once again the reference section is less the than clear, most sources are second or even third hand sources, books written but not cited where the information originated, not saying the information is wrong, just that i would be more inclined to trust it if it cited Finish Police as a source of information, or any other clearly Finnish source of information.

but that is a problem with many studies, they cite other studies as sources of information instead of finding out the information themselves.

but it's not really important.

[BrockthePaine]

I ran a search for Finnish firearm statistics, but I can't read Finnish, so half of what I got is useless to me. I'd suggest checking StatFin, the Finnish statistics website, or the Finnish Ministry of the Interior, which Wikipedia states as the originator of the 25% ownership figure. Unfortunately the person who wrote the Wikipedia article failed to cite his sources, so I can't track it to the original.

[JakeWasHere]

"Past performance isn't an indicator of future results."

What moron said that? And what fool believes it??

Every mutual fund prospectus has that in the fine print, Ralph. Hell, that's the reason I don't plan to ever invest in stocks, bonds or mutual funds; I know this is a capitalist country, and a successful one at that, but I'm never going to read any document that might as well have "WARNING: YOU MAY LOSE YOUR MONEY" printed on the front cover and end up thinking that it's a good investment.

[ChronicMisadventures]

I'm never going to read any document that might as well have "WARNING: YOU MAY LOSE YOUR MONEY" printed on the front cover and end up thinking that it's a good investment.

Circa 1999-2000 or so (before the dot-com bubble burst): There was a company called NetJ.com Their prospectus clearly stated that: A) they were not doing business at that time, B) they were considering possibly doing business at some point, but C) they had no idea what kind of business that would be.

....the stock still went up to something like $7/share at one point, probably just because it had '.com' in the name.

[Bennu]

People who try to ban guns should understand, "its not guns that kill people, its people who kill people".

[Tbolt]

I think it was Ann Coulter who put it most succinctly:

"People do not want to ban guns so much as they want to ban violence"

Basically, if someone is enraged to the point of homicide they will use whatever means to facilitate that end: Firearm, knife, screwdriver, automobile, wrench, etc.

If we banned Kalishnikov weapons from the planet, would that end leftist revolutions? I think not.

Banning firearms is putting a band aid on a gaping wound in society. If people are willing to murder on casual notice, ther there is something wrong with those individuals. If those individuals become the rule and not the exception, then there is something wrong with the society that produces them.

[NydaLynn]

I would also point out that i am not in either side of the political argument, i'm not even certain what either parties opinions are.

Here's the basic rundown:

Both sides are dominated by several interest groups, broken down as follows:

Democrats ("The Left")
- Minorities (particularly blacks)
- Homosexuals
- Social authoritarians (the government knows best)
---Anti-gun
---Anti-smoking
---Antiwar/Pacifists
- Pro-abortion
- Interpretive Constructionists (Constitution is a "breathing document")
- Open Immigration

Republicans ("The Right")
- Pro-gun
- Pro-life/Anti-abortion
- Pro-Marriage/Anti-Homosexual
- Social libertarians (government best which governs least)
- Strict Constructionists (The Constitution says "X")
- Controlled Immigration

Regarding the composition of both parties, several kinds of people generally vote for each:

Democrats
- Urban poor
- Immigrants
- Extremely rich
- Elderly and youths
- Unions

Republicans
- Rural and small-town people
- Working middle class
- Military and retired (as high as 90% of military votes in certain districts are republican)
- Christians, many Catholics, and associated groups

That's just the general idea of the two parties of American politics. Each party has an "extreme" wing, although the Democratic extreme wing is bigger, louder, and more affluent, and thus controls a large portion of their party's agenda. Republicans since the end of Reagan's term have been largely ignoring their extreme wing and moving towards the center, which has resulted in large numbers of "RINOs" (Republicans in Name Only). There are a few remaining DINOs but they've either shifted to the Republican side or been forced out of office.

Ah, thanks for labeling it all out. No wonder I am an Indipendant. I identify with four groups apiece for either 'side'!