Maybe i should just stick to Video Game related posts around here.
"What have i done.? Is it too late to save me from this place? From the depths of the grave? We all are those .. who thought we were brave."
Maybe i should just stick to Video Game related posts around here.
"What have i done.? Is it too late to save me from this place? From the depths of the grave? We all are those .. who thought we were brave."
| LuStaysTru said: Maybe i should just stick to Video Game related posts around here. |
No, my friend, that would be a foolish decision. If you do not frequent these threads, how can we enlighten you? Do not deny yourself this privilege.
I laugh how foreigners never understand the dynamics of our two party system. They don't understand that the Democrats aren't liberal and Republicans are not conservative. They are coalitions on political ideology which could only exist in a system like the US.
The democrats aren't about socialism or entitlements, they are about representing the democratic interpretation of the US constitution. They are the federalists and the voice of the people crossing state lines. Those include the combined voices of many disenfranchised groups and minorities within smaller areas who don't have much representation locally. They have to balance their favored constitutionally granted powers of the federal government with the power of the individual constituencies granted by the constitution.
The republicans aren't about big business or impeding civil progress, they are representing the republican interpretation of the US constitution. They are "States Rights" activists and the voice of the majority of each region from which they come. These include a minority view in the national scale of rural and some suburban areas in a country where urban areas are the population, financial, and power centers. They have to balance their favored constitutional limitations with the power of the federalist and national nature of the constitution.
The system isn't parliamentary, its congressional in the real sense of the word. Each population zone sends its equal representative to the House of Representatives, and each geographical state sends two senators no matter the population to the Senate. The Governor doesn't just govern down, along with the senators they govern up by influencing the federal executive bureaucracy.
More often than in parliamentary systems, you'll see people from different parties in a geographical region will be more similar to each other on individual issues than their own party peers. The caucus, while similar to a parliament's distributional nature, has little power over final votes or what comes out of a legislative committee. The nature of campaign finance and elections in the U.S. prevents parties from choosing the final viable candidates - while one may get party endorsement, to get on a ballot requires a lot of support in each locality, though this changes depending on each state's rules.
America Legislators and Presidents in action aren't like the traditional parliamentary conservatism, liberalism, socialism, and corporatism (whatever they name their parties in ech country). They are a collection of ideas and perspectives from all over a very large, diverse confederated nation under a larger federal government.
But what do I know, I'm an ignorant American, who considers a High School Band trip to the CN Tower foreign policy experience.
I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.
| steven787 said: I laugh how foreigners never understand the dynamics of our two party system. They don't understand that the Democrats aren't liberal and Republicans are not conservative. They are coalitions on political ideology which could only exist in a system like the US. *stuff* |
I honestly learned something from this post. Thank you.
I still think that the American system is kinda stupid, but at least I understand it better now. =P
Oh, really? I thought it was a joke post. :P
I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.
bbut -- I thought John Kerry was the most liberal senator?!? Or is it just whoever the Democrats nominate for president is in any given year? BTW -- Liberal is not a slur and it certainly didn't hurt Obama as his margin of victory was greatest for any presidential nominee in the last 20 years. Not only that, but he brought quite a few new Democratic senators and representatives with him.
You will have to think of another word to try to insult our people with.
| steven787 said: Oh, really? I thought it was a joke post. :P |
Really? Aww shit, here I thought I had figured something out. =P
@Damkira I wasn't trying to insult anybody or mean it as a slur. It obviously didn't hurt him. I was pointing out how people in this country and the world embrassed it.
@Jackson50 Thanks for the "enlightenment".....reminds me of Resident Evil 4
"What have i done.? Is it too late to save me from this place? From the depths of the grave? We all are those .. who thought we were brave."
Oh and for everybody quit talking down to me and assume that I know nothing just because I am an American. I recognize that liberal if viewed differently in other countries and Europe is much more liberal and left leaning but I was talking about the American election.
"What have i done.? Is it too late to save me from this place? From the depths of the grave? We all are those .. who thought we were brave."
I agree with the OP ;) Still, the country wanted "change." They'll be surprised at the changes that will come their way in a center-right nation!