The General American Politics Thread

[Patticus]

Governments have essentially been religion-ran up until the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, though. Hell, the British Empire was the world's greatest power at the same time as its persecution of all Christians who didn't conform to the Anglican Church, and that was only a little over two hundred years ago.

Not in its American colonies, though; people left England (and mainland Europe too) for North America to escape the religious wars and persecution of the 17th century (when they weren't just leaving to make their fortune and become landowners in a place where opportunities for self-improvement were more in abundance), which had the effect of turning the youthful American colonies into religiously diverse places where the Anglican church was always very weak (especially outside Virginia). Independence did little to change this fact, but it did enshrine the freedom to worship any religion you wanted to in law, which wouldn't have happened were there but one state religion enforced across the continent. You have Britain's institutional weakness in its overseas possessions during its 180 year rule to thank for that.

On another note, Voter ID has been struck down by the courts yet again, this time in PA:

A judge in the US state of Pennsylvania has stopped new ID requirements for voters from taking effect before November's presidential election.

The ruling, which says voters do not need valid photo ID to cast a ballot, is likely to be cheered by Democrats.

Pennsylvania, a key swing state, has been leaning towards President Barack Obama in opinion polls.

Laws such as the one halted in Pennsylvania have triggered a debate over voting rights in several states.

The case could be pursued in Pennsylvania's supreme court, although it is unclear if any appeal would be heard before election day.

Election impact?

Opponents of the law, including members of the Democratic Party, have argued that it would make it harder for people - especially the elderly and minorities - to vote.

A lawyer representing the plaintiffs described the ruling as a "win".

Supporters of the measure, passed by a Republican state legislature and Republican governor, said it would help prevent electoral fraud.

However, the state government conceded that there has never been a known case of in-person voter fraud.

Historically, lower voter turnouts have benefited Republicans in Pennsylvania.

Tuesday's decision comes after two days of testimony last week on the state's efforts to make it easier to obtain the identification.

The court heard long queues and poorly informed staff at driving licence centres would complicate voter efforts to get the required documentation.

Before the new law was passed, Pennsylvania's first-time voters needed to show a bank statement or utility bill if they did not have photo ID.

The new rules would require every voter to show a valid, state-sanctioned photo ID before they could vote.

Voters would have to provide two proofs of residency, a birth certificate or citizenship papers, and a valid social security card in order to get the required ID.

Pennsylvania, with 20 electoral college votes, has long been seen as a vital swing state in presidential elections.

But Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has been trailing President Obama in opinion polls from the state.

Correspondents say the dispute over its voter ID law has taken on a high profile amid a tight White House race.

In June, a state legislator told a Republican dinner that the new measure would "allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania".

Similar voter ID laws have been passed and upheld by courts in the states of Indiana, Georgia and New Hampshire.

But such measures have been blocked in Texas and Wisconsin. A court is reviewing South Carolina's law.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19804500

This is good news, however 30 states still have Voter ID laws in place and that's just shit.

[Sami]

Not in its American colonies, though; people left England (and mainland Europe too) for North America to escape the religious wars and persecution of the 17th century (when they weren't just leaving to make their fortune and become landowners in a place where opportunities for self-improvement were more in abundance), which had the effect of turning the youthful American colonies into religiously diverse places where the Anglican church was always very weak (especially outside Virginia). Independence did little to change this fact, but it did enshrine the freedom to worship any religion you wanted to in law, which wouldn't have happened were there but one state religion enforced across the continent. You have Britain's institutional weakness in its overseas possessions during its 180 year rule to thank for that.

True, though my main point is that religion-run governments have in fact been successful even relatively recently. The United States (and unofficially the British colonies, to an extent, as there were a multitude of towns that were very much religion-run as well, such as the puritan towns established by the pilgrims) really was the first case of a prominent government being run with a completely secular philosophy.

I'm not saying that I would prefer a religion-run government myself, by any means, of course. Despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that I'm a Muslim, I believe government and religion should be completely separate from each other. I'm merely pointing out that religious governments have been very successful in the past.

[TheGerkuman]

I'm not sure people like Santorum can get into the NCP. The press release makes it sound economically left-leaning; something that most Republicans won't go anywhere near.

People left England (and mainland Europe too) for North America to escape the religious wars and persecution of the 17th century

Except for the puritans who left to be able to practice their own form of persecution.

Edit: I like the irony that the NCP calls the Republicans 'Pharisiac' (that is, acting like Pharisees) when they're focussing on stopping abortion and marriage equality.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Gerkuman

[Patticus]

I'm merely pointing out that religious governments have been very successful in the past.

They may have predominated, thanks to general ignorance, low literacy rates, the lack of the enlightenment etc, but that doesn't mean they allowed for the kinds of free societies which people in the west today would find acceptable, nor does it mean they ever could. There's just too much scope for tyranny there.

[Sami]

They may have predominated, thanks to general ignorance, low literacy rates, the lack of the enlightenment etc, but that doesn't mean they allowed for the kinds of free societies which people in the west today would find acceptable, nor does it mean they ever could. There's just too much scope for tyranny there.

Fair enough; it is rather hard to imagine us going back to that state of society.

[Phos]

Will republicans get behind a christian party? Basically all of them are run on handouts.

[Chooch]

..Interesting.

[Nepenthe]

I don't see what you're talking about. It's just a bunch of Romney cups--

Ohhhhhh....

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

That actually took me a good minute to get.

[-Robin-]

Romney is acting and sounding pretty aggressive in this debate.

Him cutting off the mediator just now is not going to help him.

[Nintendoga]

Anyone drunk yet?

[VO.SUPER]

Man, Romney is really aggressive. I hope that people aren't fooled by his fierce attack.

[The Kid]

They just won't let up. I feel bad for the mediator.

[\gunther]

If there's no Romney x Big Bird rule 34 within the hour then this country really is in a dire state.

[Autosaver]

"Govenor, do you support the voucher system?"

OBAMA TKAES 716 BILLIONS DOLLARS AWAY FROM EDICARE!!!!

"...bu-"

*insert off topic answer*

#firedbigbird

"So we're going to mov-"

MEDICARE!!!!!

"Mov-"

BAD

srsly mitt romney

Edited October 4, 2012 by Autosaver

[VO.SUPER]

That poor mediator is really having a hard time keeping them under control.

[Sami]

Mitt Romney's little skirmishes with the mediator are fucking hilarious.

[The Kid]

Agreed. That liberal hack should be fired

Wat.

[Balding Spider]

Wat.

We must've missed that somewhere in Mitt's answers. But let's talk school rankings, and what an awesome idea that was.

[VO.SUPER]

Well it's over now... so what did everyone think?

[Voyant]

Mitt is rude a fuck...and needed to shut the fuck up.

The dude is just soooo hard to like.

[\gunther]

I'm not the most politically articulate person in the world, so could someone explain how grading schools would be beneficial in the long-run?

From what I gather, Romney's logic was that it would allow parents to choose what school would be best for their kids, but what if I'm from an area that doesn't have any good schools? It wouldn't be easy to just pack my family up and leave for a better city. And even if it were economically feasible, would having less students help these poorly graded schools, and by extension, the towns they're in?

Wouldn't having comparable curriculums and learning environments across all of nation's schools be more beneficial?

Edited October 4, 2012 by gunthetra

[Balding Spider]

Obama's really gotta cut down on the damn stories, they can only be effective for so long.

[Linkabel]

Well it's over now... so what did everyone think?

Well as much as I support Obama I thought that Romney did a better job at dominating the debate (though he did say stuff that makes you wonder)BUT I think it was because everyone was expecting (or hoping) that Obama will be more aggressive and well there were instances were Obama had a lot of openings to attack or discredit Romney that he simply did not take. Saying that both candidates did not dealt a critical blow to each other and Romney still has a lot of work to catch up, overall Obama still has the advantage but that doesn't mean he should get too overconfident.

[Patticus]

ABC's talking heads are all in agreement that this debate was great for Romney; that he performed much better than expected, that he was better stylistically, had better zingers etc. One of the pundits said that Obama tonight was much more like his flat, deflated, uninspiring 2007 self than his shining beacon of hope '08 self. I didn't see much of him in '07 so I can't say if that's true or not, but it is worrying that the comparison has come up.

One of the other pundits also compared the debate to the 2004 presidential debates, when the incumbent came in looking for a draw and the challenger came in looking for a win, and the challenger won. I'd say that's probably accurate; Obama played it far too safe and needed to be more aggressive. Hopefully he'll really be able to up his game in 2 and 3 weeks' time when the next two presidential debates occur (the VPs duke it out next week).

Romney didn't do himself any favors by bullying the moderator, and the moderator himself was just too weak in my opinion. They needed someone who could really yell at the candidates to shut them up once their allotted time slots expired. Of course, it didn't help that, in a debate of facts and figures (or in Mitt's case, etc-a-sketchery), where points and counterpoints were always going to be complex and long-winded, the candidates only had two minutes to make opening speeches to each segment.

I'm not the most politically articulate person in the world, so could someone explain how grading schools would be beneficial in the long-run?

It wouldn't. The UK did something similar a few years ago; league tables for schools, and it didn't help one jot.

Grading schools will only serve to further demoralize teachers and students at poor schools, overwhelm better ones with way more applications than they can take, and it won't help any kids' education.

This is AWESOME by the way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6a6FK9Yod2M