12857 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
In some states, over 60% of the population are weekly church goers, and in such states, the laws are heavily religous in undertone, if not in wording. And those are often the states that are deciding states in US elections, so any Presidential candidate who hopes to have a chance in those states better at least appear to be a virtuous Christian.

People might find that hard to believe, but statistics show that the corrolation between religious denomination and political choices / views in the USA are even higher than in the Middle East (except of course Lebanon, because it's sectarian crap), where there is no clear connection between religious and poilitical views. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 janvier 2011 - 11:39 .

[Giggles_Manically]

If we are still talking about famous leaders and Generals another one I cam across:

Tokugawa Ieyasu



Its amazing what he pulled off, and he also did one of the most risky choices in a battle.

Who knew firing on someone would get them to help you?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Yea, firing on Hideaki was just uber badass. It's like saying "move your ass idiot!"

Ishida had an immense tactical advantage against Tokugawa at Sekigahara, and yet Tokugawa still won.

[Giggles_Manically]

Interesting fellow to read about definenetly.

[KnightofPhoenix]

He's more of a politician I think. Tokugawa shows the importance of psychology and knowing people and trying to predict how they would act. It was a risk, but a calculated risk. I think Hideaki at the time really needed a slap to decide to follow his instincts and choose quickly and Tokugawa gave him that slap.

[Giggles_Manically]

With a cannon ball!

[KnightofPhoenix]

The most efficient kind of slap.

[Giggles_Manically]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The most efficient kind of slap.

Didnt he later go and commit suicide though? 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The most efficient kind of slap.

Didnt he later go and commit suicide though? 

Hideaki? Yea he went mad.
He was clearly weak willed.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

People might find that hard to believe, but statistics show that the corrolation between religious denomination and political choices / views in the USA are even higher than in the Middle East (except of course Lebanon, because it's sectarian crap), where there is no clear connection between religious and poilitical views. 

Doesn't surprise me. Though as you have stated, many aspects of Islam are legally oriented, so the need to apply religon directly becomes repetitive. 

Sectarian based political opposition within US politics is less common, despite the many different denominations involved. There is some, in certain regions, and they do play a big role in regional politics. For example, in the Southern States, which are predominantly Protestant/Baptist, there is a subtle, underlying anti-Catholic sentiment, and thus, are less likely to support a catholic candidate. In other protestant-dominated regions of the US, where other denominations are dominant, there is far less sentiment against a Catholic candidate. But since the Southern Bloc states have been the predominant deciding factor in elections, this is the reason we have had only one Catholic President (Kennedy). This despite the fact that the US contains some 70 million Catholics.

In my native region of the US, the West Coast, religion plays a far lesser role, as it tends to in the Western States in general. It's still present and does play some role, the prevailing attitude is one more of pragmatism and personal liberty (hence why the Western states were the first to pass medical marijuana laws, and have laxer attitudes towards the religous no-nos of abortion, homosexuality, ect). The northeastern Coast is also similar on social issues, as are the major metropolitan regions such as Chicago, Denver, Atlanta, ect).

But unless it's the economy gone bad, the major deciding factor in American elections more often than not religously controversial issues such as abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, ect. As opposed to foreign policy, trade, military policy, or social issues such as education, general welfare, or crime.

Which is interesting, because back when we were more isolationist, we tended more to vote in presidents based of foreign policy and international issues than religous ones. I would say the relatively heavy influence of religion in politics is a pretty recent development, within the last 30-40 years.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I wonder if it's due to the competition with "godless" USSR? We usually like to emphasis the difference with our rivals.

I do not know much about American domestic politics, just foreign policy. But that sounds like an interesting domestic evolution.

[Giggles_Manically]

In Canada there is really very little religious importance placed in our politics.



Its more based around if you are English or French, West vs East vs Maritimes etc.

We never really have a majority government anymore since no party is really able to pull enough seats away from the others. ,Although right now the left is very heavily splintered in Canada, meaning that the only right wing party is sucking up a lot of power.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

@KoP: That's a very good observation, and is actually the most prominent theory that I know, as to why the sudden rise of the religous right. I think it was also in combination with the sudden breakdown in traditional values that kicked off in the late 50s through the early 70's. Sort of a sudden fear of becoming like their "godless" adversaries. The religous factor really shot up into national prominance in the mid 70's.



Religion plays a part in both sides, left and right, but tends to be far more prominent on the right. Though in the western states, mainly, the desert/mountain states, though they tend to be pretty conservative, they are less reliously so. This is the "wild west" so to speak, in terms of history. The only exception being Utah, which is Morman-dominated and always has been since it's settlement by white people. The attitude is more of fiscal conservative rather than social, the general attitude of apathy regarding most social issues. This is also, interestingly enough, the place that hosts the most militia-type organizations. They tend to be very anti-federal government, and have a pretty strong isolationist view of foreign policy.



The west coast is more liberal/left wing bastion, rarely electing Rebublicans as president. Though less anti-federal in sentiment, politics and attitudes tend to be in radical opposition to most washington policies. California, my home state and the most populous one, has had major conflicts with the federal government over laws passed by it's citzens regarding medical marijuana, illegal immigration, and affirmative action. There were even conflicts between state and federal law enforcement agencies over the medical marijuana one, and there continues to be.



The east, however, is almost a different country, where the prime conflict is between the traditional "northern" and "southern" states.





@giggles: Canada? You mean that vast, uncivilized frozen wasteland populated by potheads in igloos that's north of Minnesota?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Interesting. I really should start studying the USA more.

But since I am a history geek, I tend to find it...empty. Need to get past that.

[Sarah1281]

Empty?

[KnightofPhoenix]

By our standards, it's pretty empty. Or just short, if that's a better word.

Not foreign policy wise of course, but that's more global history.

[USArmyParatrooper]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
In some states, over 60% of the population are weekly church goers, and in such states, the laws are heavily religous in undertone, if not in wording. And those are often the states that are deciding states in US elections, so any Presidential candidate who hopes to have a chance in those states better at least appear to be a virtuous Christian.

People might find that hard to believe, but statistics show that the corrolation between religious denomination and political choices / views in the USA are even higher than in the Middle East (except of course Lebanon, because it's sectarian crap), where there is no clear connection between religious and poilitical views. 

As much as I dislike religious influence in US politics I find that extraordinarily hard to believe. Lebanon is not the only islamic theocracies in the region. In fact, most countries in the middle east have at least some religious influence in their laws. Iran and Saudi Arabia actually have religious courts to enforce social adhereance to Sharia law. I know for a fact that in Iraq and Afghanistan "honor killings" are relatively common and socially acceptable.

And again, while I dislike the influence and power the religious right has in our political system, they pale in comparison.

[Joy Divison]

Yeah, US history is boring. I'm glad enough of my colleagues are willing to take it up....

As far as US religion and politics, ever since the Republicans targeted the Evangelical vote in the late 1970s, it's definitely been one of the defining features.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 23 janvier 2011 - 02:06 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...
As much as I dislike religious influence in US politics I find that extraordinarily hard to believe. Lebanon is not the only islamic theocracies in the region. In fact, most countries in the middle east have at least some religious influence in their laws. Iran and Saudi Arabia actually have religious courts to enforce social adhereance to Sharia law. I know for a fact that in Iraq and Afghanistan "honor killings" are relatively common and socially acceptable.

And again, while I dislike the influence and power the religious right has in our political system, they pale in comparison.

Lebanon is far from being an Islamic theocracy. It isn't one. At all.

I was not referring to governments, but rather to political views of people. And what kind of policies they support.
The corrolation between religion and political views is weak.

EDIT. Stats: views of democracy in the Mid East.



Question of whether they are favorable to democracy, and their religiousity, in Egypt.



As we can see, a policy choice, like that of democracy has a weak corrolation with religiousity.
And it's quite ironic that the two democracies (Indonesia and Turkey) have the highest unfaovrable view towards democracy.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 23 janvier 2011 - 02:19 .

[Sarah1281]

I like US history but I know that I'm rather biased. Being relatively short makes it easier to get more detail on the whole thing.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Yes, because the US is a very new young country by world standards, having little historical record before the Spanish conquistadors.



For example, I often find it amusing to know that the house I live in (Southern Spain, Granada province) predates Columbus' discovery of the Carribean. This village was built by the Moors in 1380 or abouts, and has changed little in that time in terms of construction. The US has little history compared to the old world countries, which have histories going back to the beginning of civilization. 235 or so years of history, coupled by maybe two hundred pre-revolution, it's still a relative blip on the historical timeline.



The US is a curious country when looked at in the context of others in history, and in terms of today. After having lived in various countries, I can understand why it's hard to understand it's behavior at times, which can look frighteningly irrational sometimes.



Another major factor in politcs is race, of course. Various groups of non-caucasians form pretty powerful voting blocs. Like, Hispanics out west or black people in the south and certain metro areas. East Asians form a pretty strong bloc on the West Coast and Northeast. Race tends be to a very touchy subject in politics, due to the recent event of the Civil Rights movement. There are many Americans alive who remember clearly what it was like, with segregation and all. And because the civil rights movement stirred some serious storms and unrest, it remains a pretty sensitive topic. I imagine this "political correctness" will fade as the decades go on, and fewer people alive will remember those days, and a more natural, rational approach regarding race issues.



In general, though, the black vote usually goes to Democrats (left wing), and Hispanics often swinging between left and right. Whites are the ones more likely to be devided by religion or lack of. As both the black and hispanic votes have become very signifigant in recent years, racial/social issues have been playing bigger and bigger roles as well.



But if you want to know what the real deciding factor in in both domestic and international U.S. politics, you look at the lobbyists. The lobbyists, more than anything, are the real power in Washington because of their widespread influence or wealth. If you want to know what U.S. foreign policy is going to be like, look at the lobbyists that supported the president in his election. That will give you a pretty good clue. For exmaple, if a presidential candidate wins that is backed by the lobbys of the arms industries primarily, chances are there will be a more aggressive, military oriented foreign policy. Or, if they are backed by an agricultural lobby, trade restrictions on certain food imports might occur. If unions back the president (and US unions are VERY different from the European ones) then there will be more worker-friendly policies and benefits introduced, as well as possible trade restrictions on certain things.



The Lobbyists provide the money and clout the candidate needs to launch a successful campaign. And as we both know, politics has it's own rules, "i sctach your back, you scratch mine". Thus, a presidential candidate has to return the favor by promoting or pushing for laws/actions that will bring some benefit to their lobby supporters, else they might lose them for the next election, as well as make powerful enemies. And of course, various congressmen are also supported by various lobbys as well.



And then you have state politics, and the state vs federal war. American politics can get pretty convoluted, hence the atmosphere of circus and insanity during national elections.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Yea I think it's common knowledge that lobbies are the most influential in US policy making and elections. An important reason as to why I am not impressed by the system in general. I am symplifying, but it seems to me that the career of the President can be divided into:

- First 2 year, dish out political favors to those who gave you money. Try your best to boost your financial resources that you spent on the previous  electoral campaign.

- Last 2 years, prepare for the upcoming election.

Meeh.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 23 janvier 2011 - 02:26 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

That's basically it. It's a well known problem in U.S. politics, despite congress passing laws to attempt to curb it. The lobbys are just too powerful, they find all sorts of ways around it. And of course, who the hell is really gonna enforce it, since every politician is in power because of a lobby? Lobbies can make or break a person in Wasgington.



It is quite annoying, but since the lobbies are often composed of groups of voting citzens themselves, its hard to really tackle, since they sway large amounts of popular influence and opinion, and combine different types of voters. Though with the right lobby, you're more likely to get your own interests served. After observing European politcs, I can see why they consider it borderline anarchy, and rather corrupt, and at times insane.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
After observing European politcs, I can see why they consider it borderline anarchy, and rather corrupt, and at times insane.

I very closely observed the French elections in 2007 and the recent American elections and wow. The disparity in the intelligence of political debates, the media and just the campaigns in general is astounding.  I was actually impressed at how the most powerful country in the world managed to look so ridiculous (no offense). The sheer amount of political banality is just beyond me.

At first, I wasn't that impressed with the French elections, the debate started nit picking on two or three policy differences that  aren't that major anyways. But after observing the American elections and the media war they were fighting, I quickly revised by opinion of the French elections.

In France, you'd never have something like "Obama girl", a half naked singing busty hottie who is clearly targetting drooling boys. And then in general I noticed the vast difference in the media and how confrontational American media is and how they don't even make the effort of sounding at least a bit unbiased or actually smart (Bill O'Reilly for instance. Shouting and interrupting doesn't make you smarter.), vs the relatively much better quality of the French media. I mean it's very sad that I understand American policy more when I am watching satyrical shows like John Stewart and Colbert Report! And then when I hear that many Americans don't realize that Colbert Report is a satyrical show, I just can't help but facepalm.

I don't want to sound pretentious, but something is very wrong there. I am very sure that Europeans do think that American politics are insane and ridiculous and at times, I tend to think that.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 23 janvier 2011 - 02:56 .

[Sarah1281]

Bill O'Reilly. Shouting and interrupting doesn't make you smarter

He's rational for Fox.