Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Grey Templar wrote: But the government isn't gone yet, so there is some argument for keeping it in place.
No, there is no argument for keeping it. The US has no problem dealing with countries that are just as bad, if not worse. The only reason the embargo remains is because certain politicians rely on votes from an obnoxious single-issue minority and have to at least pretend to care about Cuba to keep getting elected.
..and that's, my friends how representative democracy works.
Pandering to a single-issue minority at the expense of the overall majority is actually the exact opposite of how representative democracy works.
Grey Templar wrote: But the government isn't gone yet, so there is some argument for keeping it in place.
No, there is no argument for keeping it. The US has no problem dealing with countries that are just as bad, if not worse. The only reason the embargo remains is because certain politicians rely on votes from an obnoxious single-issue minority and have to at least pretend to care about Cuba to keep getting elected.
..and that's, my friends how representative democracy works.
Pandering to a single-issue minority at the expense of the overall majority is actually the exact opposite of how representative democracy works.
Nope... it's how it works. Now, is it perfect? Of course not...
See the ACA act.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/08/17 17:29:07
azazel the cat wrote: No... pandering to a minority at the expense of the majority is not how representative democracy works. It's how it fails.
Citation please... I would guess that there are still "anti-Communism" throughout the fabirc of the American psyche.
And the vast majority of Americans supported the ACA, and still do.
Citations please.
Vast majority want the current ACA repealed or massively fixed.
Citation not required: ipso-facto by virtue of the re-election of those who voted in its favour. As I stated already.
And I am not going to cite how representative democracy works and fails if you do not even understand the very concepts of how the majority and minorities fit into it. I suggest Wikipedia or a 4th grade social studies or civics book.
2) Many of the people who do dislike the current law want it changed because it doesn't go far enough. For example, I dislike that we're stuck with a compromise bill that is pretty much a republican plan from a few years earlier, but that doesn't mean that I think the solution is to scrap it entirely and have nothing at all. It means that the current law is a starting point to improve on once the obstructionist idiots in congress are sent home.
3) Many republicans actually like the ACA as long as you ask them about the individual things it does and don't use the word "Obamacare". IOW, the supposed "opposition" has a lot to do with republican propaganda and reflexive dislike of anything with "Obama" next to it, not the actual policy decisions involved.
This is entirely different from the Cuba embargo, where only a small single-issue minority even cares about it but they get absurdly disproportionate influence because they happen to live in critical districts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Citation please... I would guess that there are still "anti-Communism" throughout the fabirc of the American psyche.
Which is why we deal with China, a long list of oppressive governments that we "shouldn't" support, etc. The simple fact is that you might get a poll that says a majority of people oppose a certain ideology, but US foreign policy ignores that entirely. The only exception is Cuba, where we have to pretend that it's still 1962 because of an obnoxious single-issue minority living in a swing state.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/08/17 21:44:24
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
eclipseoto wrote: Ah gotcha. It's really true though, I can only speak from my perspective, but all of my relatives/family friends have pretty much vowed never to return to Cuba until it's a non-communist state. Despite the revolutionaries like Che Guevara being somewhat idolized in modern culture, they were really pretty awful people to those who didn't want to follow their ideals.
Che ran a prison in Cuba, I believe, that had many executions under his direction.
2) Many of the people who do dislike the current law want it changed because it doesn't go far enough. For example, I dislike that we're stuck with a compromise bill that is pretty much a republican plan from a few years earlier, but that doesn't mean that I think the solution is to scrap it entirely and have nothing at all. It means that the current law is a starting point to improve on once the obstructionist idiots in congress are sent home.
3) Many republicans actually like the ACA as long as you ask them about the individual things it does and don't use the word "Obamacare". IOW, the supposed "opposition" has a lot to do with republican propaganda and reflexive dislike of anything with "Obama" next to it, not the actual policy decisions involved.
This is entirely different from the Cuba embargo, where only a small single-issue minority even cares about it but they get absurdly disproportionate influence because they happen to live in critical districts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Citation please... I would guess that there are still "anti-Communism" throughout the fabirc of the American psyche.
Which is why we deal with China, a long list of oppressive governments that we "shouldn't" support, etc. The simple fact is that you might get a poll that says a majority of people oppose a certain ideology, but US foreign policy ignores that entirely. The only exception is Cuba, where we have to pretend that it's still 1962 because of an obnoxious single-issue minority living in a swing state.
I wonder what would happen if Mexico went Communist?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/08/17 22:40:37
azazel the cat wrote: No... pandering to a minority at the expense of the majority is not how representative democracy works. It's how it fails.
Citation please... I would guess that there are still "anti-Communism" throughout the fabirc of the American psyche.
And the vast majority of Americans supported the ACA, and still do.
Citations please.
Vast majority want the current ACA repealed or massively fixed.
Citation not required: ipso-facto by virtue of the re-election of those who voted in its favour. As I stated already.
Wow... so, I guess we should never amended the constitution to allow women to vote, or the 18 years old for that matter. Because, at one point the law of land prevented them from voting...
And I am not going to cite how representative democracy works and fails if you do not even understand the very concepts of how the majority and minorities fit into it. I suggest Wikipedia or a 4th grade social studies or civics book.
By the Emperor's Tears... I'm suggesting that it's PART of how the fething system works. Otherwise... WHY IS IT HAPPENING NOW?
It's not like it's illegal... or, is that's what your positing?
whembly wrote: Wow... so, I guess we should never amended the constitution to allow women to vote, or the 18 years old for that matter. Because, at one point the law of land prevented them from voting...
Sigh. You completely missed the point there. Your argument that the "vast majority" of people want to get rid of the ACA is contradicted by the fact that we re-elected the people who passed it. This has nothing to do with justifying that it is right because it's the law.
By the Emperor's Tears... I'm suggesting that it's PART of how the fething system works. Otherwise... WHY IS IT HAPPENING NOW?
Because the system is completely broken. It's failing at being representative democracy because power is concentrated in powerful (but small) lobbying groups instead of the majority of the population.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2) Many of the people who do dislike the current law want it changed because it doesn't go far enough. For example, I dislike that we're stuck with a compromise bill that is pretty much a republican plan from a few years earlier, but that doesn't mean that I think the solution is to scrap it entirely and have nothing at all. It means that the current law is a starting point to improve on once the obstructionist idiots in congress are sent home.
Stuck with a compromised bill? It was passed without so much with a republican vote. They had practically carte blanche dude... the Democrats owns this bad boy.
3) Many republicans actually like the ACA as long as you ask them about the individual things it does and don't use the word "Obamacare". IOW, the supposed "opposition" has a lot to do with republican propaganda and reflexive dislike of anything with "Obama" next to it, not the actual policy decisions involved.
Of course there are some things that are good... the whole thing is still a gak sammich.
This is entirely different from the Cuba embargo, where only a small single-issue minority even cares about it but they get absurdly disproportionate influence because they happen to live in critical districts.
Yep...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Citation please... I would guess that there are still "anti-Communism" throughout the fabirc of the American psyche.
Which is why we deal with China, a long list of oppressive governments that we "shouldn't" support, etc. The simple fact is that you might get a poll that says a majority of people oppose a certain ideology, but US foreign policy ignores that entirely. The only exception is Cuba, where we have to pretend that it's still 1962 because of an obnoxious single-issue minority living in a swing state.
What does China actually "do" for the USA... and compare that to what Cuba can actually "do" for us...
whembly wrote: Wow... so, I guess we should never amended the constitution to allow women to vote, or the 18 years old for that matter. Because, at one point the law of land prevented them from voting...
Sigh. You completely missed the point there. Your argument that the "vast majority" of people want to get rid of the ACA is contradicted by the fact that we re-elected the people who passed it. This has nothing to do with justifying that it is right because it's the law.
So are you the kind of folks who believe we're all single issue voters now? o.O
No, I understand the premise... I reject it.
By the Emperor's Tears... I'm suggesting that it's PART of how the fething system works. Otherwise... WHY IS IT HAPPENING NOW?
Because the system is completely broken. It's failing at being representative democracy because power is concentrated in powerful (but small) lobbying groups instead of the majority of the population.
Aha... he didn't say it was broken...
Sure one could argue that "it's broken"... but alas, this is the system we have now. If there's a small minority that is making disportionate influence... then, it's either working as intended and/or that rest of the population don't care.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/08/18 00:00:48
whembly wrote: LOL... salon??!! That's like getting a poll from Breibart or Media Matters... Try this:
Yeah, why actually read the article and see that it gives a link to the survey results hosted on the (conservative) polling organization's website when you can compare it to tinfoil hat liars.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html#polls
Polling indicates that the low 40's to mid 30's approval. That's been consistent since this thing was passed, trending a bit downward.
And you're ignoring two things:
1) It groups people who hate the ACA and want it gone with people who think it didn't go far enough and needs to be expanded into one generic "disapprove" group. If you remember that there are a substantial number of democrats who dislike the ACA because they see it as too much of a compromise you realize that there is almost certainly a majority in favor of the ACA or similar policies.
2) 30-45% approval is still way more than the number of people who care about Cuba. The ACA is a law with broad support (especially once you consider people who support similar policies and just dislike details of the ACA), the Cuba embargo is irrelevant to everyone except a small single-issue minority.
Stuck with a compromised bill? It was passed without so much with a republican vote. They had practically carte blanche dude... the Democrats owns this bad boy.
Have you forgotten your history already? The democrats started with much more comprehensive reforms, and kept compromising away parts of it in a desperate attempt to make it a "bipartisan" bill. Even though in the end the republicans still voted against it just to show how childish they could be the final bill was very similar to republican proposals from a few years ago.
Of course there are some things that are good... the whole thing is still a gak sammich.
You missed the point there. When you get significantly different results between "do you like X, Y, Z" and "do you like Obamacare" it's a sign that opposition to the bill for many people has much more to do with "Fox news told me to hate this" than actually disliking the things the bill does.
What does China actually "do" for the USA... and compare that to what Cuba can actually "do" for us...
Sigh. Again, missing the point. The Cuba embargo doesn't exist because the Cuban government is particularly bad, since we're willing to deal with other governments that are at least as bad. The truth is that it has nothing to do with whether or not Cuba deserves an embargo, the embargo exists for exactly one reason: Cuban exiles/refugees in Florida saying "support the embargo or we're going to cost you a vital swing state".
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/08/18 00:18:16
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Peregrine wrote: Said some stuff about Obamacare that has nothing to do with this thread... btw, I don't watch FoxNews... I hate their format.
What does China actually "do" for the USA... and compare that to what Cuba can actually "do" for us...
Sigh. Again, missing the point. The Cuba embargo doesn't exist because the Cuban government is particularly bad, since we're willing to deal with other governments that are at least as bad. The truth is that it has nothing to do with whether or not Cuba deserves an embargo, the embargo exists for exactly one reason: Cuban exiles/refugees in Florida saying "support the embargo or we're going to cost you a vital swing state".
I understand that.
So... are you advocating that those Cuban exiles/refugees not to have any say?
azazel the cat wrote: No... pandering to a minority at the expense of the majority is not how representative democracy works. It's how it fails.
Citation please... I would guess that there are still "anti-Communism" throughout the fabirc of the American psyche.
And the vast majority of Americans supported the ACA, and still do.
Citations please.
Vast majority want the current ACA repealed or massively fixed.
Citation not required: ipso-facto by virtue of the re-election of those who voted in its favour. As I stated already.
Wow... so, I guess we should never amended the constitution to allow women to vote, or the 18 years old for that matter. Because, at one point the law of land prevented them from voting...
And I am not going to cite how representative democracy works and fails if you do not even understand the very concepts of how the majority and minorities fit into it. I suggest Wikipedia or a 4th grade social studies or civics book.
By the Emperor's Tears... I'm suggesting that it's PART of how the fething system works. Otherwise... WHY IS IT HAPPENING NOW?
It's not like it's illegal... or, is that's what your positing?
Whembly, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here that you are being intentionally obstinate and just playing dumb for the purpose of... I don't know what, but the most plausible alternative given your posts in this thread is that you are mildly slowed, and I honestly don't believe that to be the case.
So please, are you honestly missing the forest for trees in every single post you read in this thread? Or are you actually trolling this time?
azazel the cat wrote: No... pandering to a minority at the expense of the majority is not how representative democracy works. It's how it fails.
Citation please... I would guess that there are still "anti-Communism" throughout the fabirc of the American psyche.
And the vast majority of Americans supported the ACA, and still do.
Citations please.
Vast majority want the current ACA repealed or massively fixed.
Citation not required: ipso-facto by virtue of the re-election of those who voted in its favour. As I stated already.
Wow... so, I guess we should never amended the constitution to allow women to vote, or the 18 years old for that matter. Because, at one point the law of land prevented them from voting...
And I am not going to cite how representative democracy works and fails if you do not even understand the very concepts of how the majority and minorities fit into it. I suggest Wikipedia or a 4th grade social studies or civics book.
By the Emperor's Tears... I'm suggesting that it's PART of how the fething system works. Otherwise... WHY IS IT HAPPENING NOW?
It's not like it's illegal... or, is that's what your positing?
Whembly, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here that you are being intentionally obstinate and just playing dumb for the purpose of... I don't know what, but the most plausible alternative given your posts in this thread is that you are mildly slowed, and I honestly don't believe that to be the case.
So please, are you honestly missing the forest for trees in every single post you read in this thread? Or are you actually trolling this time?
Woah. dude...
Seriously... lemme spell it out to you... m'kay?
So... you're complaining that the embargo is nothing more than an appeasement to the Cuban-American who elects politicians to ensure that this Embargo remains in place. Since this is such a small minority (which is true), that it's completely against how a "Representative Democracy" should function (such, I guess they're ruining it for everyone else). Do I have that Right?
How is that ANY different from any other groups, be it ethnic, religious, or... gasp... a single subject matter that they would want to elect politician to support their cause?? Riddle me that one, batman! Frankly, how is it any different than the NAACP? Planned Parenthood? NRA? Or, the numerous groups that participates in American politics?
Here's the funny thing... it's much more complex than that. We are NOT a nation of single issue voters. In some cases, yes, voters in southern Florida tends to elect Anti-Castro politicians. And in some cases, politicians are re-elected despite some very unpopular thing that their parties may have pushed (ie, the ACA). But, that doesn't necessarily mean that certain things are "popular" or "more valid" if we keep re-elected those same politicians. Should the embargo be dropped? Maybe... because I don't think we have had a serious national discussion about it yet. Should we repeal or fix the ACA? There's a huge amount of pressure of this going on in the political sphere... we'll see what happens in '14 midterm and '16 elections. Frankly, I think it'll turn into an albatross that it'll be blamed for all the bad things... whether its true or not.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/08/18 07:40:53
whembly wrote: How is that ANY different from any other groups, be it ethnic, religious, or... gasp... a single subject matter that they would want to elect politician to support their cause?? Riddle me that one, batman! Frankly, how is it any different than the NAACP? Planned Parenthood? NRA? Or, the numerous groups that participates in American politics?
Because:
1) Those groups are much larger. Planned Parenthood in theory represents 100% of the population, and in practice the solid majority who don't believe in abstinence-only nonsense. The NRA represents the nearly 50% of the population that owns a gun and defends a major constitutional right. And these groups are widely distributed across the country, representing true national issues. The anti-Cuba minority, on the other hand, is both small and concentrated in a single area. Their influence is vastly disproportionate to their actual size.
2) Those groups don't have "obey us or never get elected" power. For example, people complain a lot about how the NRA makes gun control a suicide issue, but even the "pro-gun" party does little more than a token effort to delay new gun control laws until everyone forgets about the latest shooting and drops the issue. Compare that with the Cuba embargo, where pretty much nobody is willing to publicly admit a position other than " THE COMMUNISTS!".
We are NOT a nation of single issue voters.
No, we aren't a nation of single-issue voters. But in this case it's a single-issue minority that is responsible.
In some cases, yes, voters in southern Florida tends to elect Anti-Castro politicians.
It's not just the fact that they elect local politicians, it's that they've made supporting the Cuba embargo mandatory at the national level by threatening to deny Florida (an important swing state) to whichever party dares to consider ending it. Which is why the system is broken. In a functioning representative democracy the representatives from Florida might vote in favor of the embargo, but the representatives from the other 49 states would tell them to STFU and stop being annoying.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: How did the ACA discussion get into the Cuba one?
Because a certain single-issue poster thinks that a law with broad public support and a policy that only a tiny minority cares about are the same thing.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/08/18 08:18:30
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
The small minority decides elections because they are a big enough voting block that can decide which way Florida's electoral votes go. The tiny voting block can swing presidential elections.
It doesn't matter what the other 49 states think about Cuba. It's all about Florida and those electoral votes.
So then the issue is not the failure of a representative democracy, but failure of the electoral college system?
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
I'd love to ditch the Electoral College.
It existed because originally it was impossible to count all the votes in a timely fashion so it was simpler to count them for the state and then send in a token number of electoral votes to represent what the majority voted.
Now that we can actually count all the actual votes, we should ditch the College all together and go with a straight populace vote.
this would eliminate the swing state problem and give it firmly back in the hands of the people. And people living in a state with an unchanging opposing majority would actually have an effect on the election.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Multi-party isn't better. Its just different.
A Multi-party system also means a single issue system. Each party will have it own separate issue its campaigning for. This causes extremism to creep in.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/08/18 16:32:35
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
So, what I'm getting from all this is that expatriate Cuban Templars control Florida's banks, and thus the spice, thus the universe? And somethingsomething Obamacare? Yes?
Grey Templar wrote:Multi-party isn't better. Its just different.
A Multi-party system also means a single issue system. Each party will have it own separate issue its campaigning for. This causes extremism to creep in.
Quite the opposite, actually. A two-party system will naturally gravitate towards polarization, and thus become extreme. However, a multi-party system allows for the entire spectrum of viewpoints.
The downside is that the election winner will not always hold 50%+1 of the vote, thus minority government are very common. However, the minority government is, IMO, always a good thing, because it forces compromise between the groups in government.
THE COMMUNISTS!".
