That's the same as what I said, I think. Or maybe it isn't. American politics is complex. I can hardly believe that people there protest against basic universal healthcare. But they do. The present Republican contenders. What a bunch of muppets. Sarah P would have made monkeys of them. What she lacks in intelligence she makes up for in savvy.
This morning a Republican radio talkshow host Michael Savage offered 1 million dollars of his own money to Newt to quit his campaign. His reasoning was that the most important thing is to defeat Obama and Romney is the man to do that, thus any distraction is unwanted. The question is, how the Reps lose more voters, because of Romney being a Mormon or Newt being a twice divorcee???
A superb display of shooting oneself in the foot with pinpoint accuracy. They have one of the most unpopular Presidents in history. Because he's: 1: Black, and therefore probably the Antichrist. 2. Doesn't start enough wars. (He hates Democracy) 3. Stamps his dusky devil's foot on the freedom to be sick and consequently bankrupt. Who do the Republicans come up with? Newt Gingrich. (If there was an emoticon for shaking your head and smiling wryly, I would insert it here) Marvellous.
Every two years The United States elects a new House of Representatives. In 2010 Republicans managed to take control of the House and Senate (Democrats lost a super majority in the Senate which is needed to keep Republicans from blocking legislation in the Senate) from Democrats. And since then, Congress has virtually been deadlocked, unable to do anything to solve the ills the nation faces. It is a deliberate Republican political tactic first used by Newt Gingrich. So just reelecting President Obama will keep Republicans from running wild and opening public coffers to special interest raids, it will not give Americans a government that is capable of addressing the nation's ills. To do that voters need to give the Democrats a super majority in the Senate and regain control of the House.
Well, that is not likely to happen, is it? More likely is that they get an increased majority once the handicap of their appalling candidates is taken out of the equation. My prediction. Another Four years of Obama tied hand to foot.
OOooh. You said, "period" at the end. That must make it true. So, is the British, Spanish, Canadian, Australian, German, French, Japanese and Brazilian systems "undemocratic" as well? In those systems, the "top spot" goes to one of two parties. Has it occurred to you that politics generally polarize between "left and right", "liberal and conservative". This isn't "non democratic" it's simple economics. And, again, I'd refer to you all the times that our "undemocratic" system is upset by people choosing things that (a) nobody expected or that (b) the politicians wanted. I see you didn't acknowledge any of those points. They did, on a number of occasions, and were shot and killed. Many thousands die in gulags for trying to exercise their rights. Doesn't happen here. ~String
Bells, I notice your avatar has CK on its nappies. Is that some kind of tribute to me? If so, I am proud to have my initials on your nappies, so long as they are kept scrupulously clean.
Then you should agree, and stop arguing. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Not familiar with all of them, but the German system has to be one of the most democratic. Why? Because what happened to the Green party. In a few years from a completely grassroot movement they went to be a member of the Parliament. Doesn't/can't happen here... I call a system decently democratic where a new political power can and will get on power, when supported by the people. Has it occured to you that in any large society 2 parties can not express the different views of the heterogen society? Such as?
Oh yeah, about the elections in Germany 2005: "The election results of 18 September were surprising insofar as they differed widely from the polls of the previous weeks. The Christian Democrats lost votes compared to 2002, reaching only 35.2%, and failed to get a majority for a "black-yellow" government of CDU/CSU and liberal FDP. But the red-green coalition also failed to get a majority, with the SPD losing votes, but polling 34.2% and the greens staying at 8.1%. The left party alliance reached 8.7% and entered the German Parliament, whereas the NPD only got 1.6%." That is about 5 parties mentioned, not 2.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Germany#2005-2009 --------------------------- Here is a list of Spanish political parties, notice that there are 7 getting at least 1% of the votes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Spain#Political_parties_and_elections ----------------------------- Japan, there are 6 parties with more than 1% of the votes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Japan Why small parties are important? Because in a close vote in any dispute, the big parties have to look for the small parties' favors, thus even smaller groups of the democracy are represented in the process.... Unlike in America....
No shit. Because Americans are generally polarized. You can call it anything you want, but it's not "undemocratic" because cry-baby Syz lives in a country but is too lazy to become a citizen and vote, but sits on the sidelines like a simpering child complaining about how the universe doesn't measure up to his lofty standards. The system may be unfair, but you've yet to demonstrate how it is "undemocratic", unless you need a lesson on what is "democracy". Such as, California voters tossing out gay marriage. Such as Ohio voters tossing out Strickland. These voters had a CHOICE and they chose one over the other. It happens all the time. I also pointed out to you that in every American community, the democracy is centered obsessively on voter approved ballot initiatives. None of these initiatives pass by decree, they pass by voter approval (or are rejected the same way). So, tell me which two parties have had all the political control over the last 50 years? Would it be the Christian Democratic Union and the Social Democratic Party? Yep. Two parties. Dominated all elections. (well, except for, like, 9 days where a third party had a chancellor). Which two parties have held all the power since the reform of Spanish government in the early 80's? PSOE and the PP. No third party. Which ONE party has dominated over 90% of the elections since the end of the second world war? In fact, not very balanced at all. LDP with recent inroads by the DP. Um. Exactly like America. Two parties vie for power and jockey the "smaller players" to create a base. Exactly like France, the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Italy, Ireland and the list goes on and on. ~String
Always baby.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You are my God.. I feel proud to wear you on my backside! /Bow Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I appreciate the ad hominem personal attack, nevertheless it is NOT an argument. Not to mention, if I don't like the system, why would I decide to participate in it??? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! By being unfair, I thought that was obvious. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But if you really have lots of time: http://txcommie.wordpress.com/2008/07/08/undemocratic-democracy-the-us-political-system/ The point was that there is at least the possibility of having a 3rd-4th party getting on power. Unlike in America... Now if the voters decide to vote mostly just for one or 2 parties, so be it, but at least give a fighting chance to other organizations. What did Ross Perot got for his 19% showing at the polls? A big nothing, not representation. Imagine there was a Gay Party in the USA with a let's say 2% voting power/representation. The 2 major parties would be bending over to kiss the Gay Party's ass when it comes to a close vote on important matters. So the gays had the negotiating power to ask for certain rights.... Just imagine.... P.S.: If I were a Democrat in Texas or a Republican in New York state I also wouldn't feel the urge to participate in the voting process for president, for obvious reasons. But I tell you what. YOU fix the system, I'll start to participate. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
True, nevertheless it shows the fucked up nature of the US voting system. Not to mention it just shows, how hard/impossible it is for a 3rd party to get in power in a winner-takes-all system. Now if there is interest and String actually brings up arguments instead of ad hominems, we could start a new thread along these lines so we don't get too offtopic on Newt...
