OrphanPip Wrote:A three party system tends towards a fight for the center though, it causes different political dynamics, it's rare that you would have a situation in multiparty systems where one party doesn't control the legislature. Although, the problem with you getting stuff passed isn't the result of your party system, but of the set up of your government, with the congress, senate and the executive all having different allegiances and overlapping powers.
Thanks for the info on HPV.
On the above, I cannot agree with you. For one thing, we do currently have a third party, the TEA PARTY, which is fighting Republicans, not for the center, but for the Right. Furthermore, there was a very recent example where the Tea Party prevented congress from passing necessary legislation on ideological grounds, ignoring legislative alternatives based on bipartisan support.
Additionally, you say that the congress, senate, and executive all have different allegiances and overlapping powers.
I really hope that the Congress and Senate have overlapping powers, since the senate is part of Congress. You mean the House of Representatives and the Senate, I believe. And yes, the legislative branch of the government in the U.S. is divided into two houses, and for good reason in my mind. The senate has two representatives from each states, so that the voice and power of each state is held equally in the senate. The House of Representatives is composed 435 members; the number of representatives from each state is determined by the population of that state. So, one house of congress is based on a balance of power between states and one is based on the balance of power through population.
On the above, I cannot agree with you. For one thing, we do currently have a third party, the TEA PARTY, which is fighting Republicans, not for the center, but for the Right. Furthermore, there was a very recent example where the Tea Party prevented congress from passing necessary legislation on ideological grounds, ignoring legislative alternatives based on bipartisan support.
Additionally, you say that the congress, senate, and executive all have different allegiances and overlapping powers.
I really hope that the Congress and Senate have overlapping powers, since the senate is part of Congress. You mean the House of Representatives and the Senate, I believe. And yes, the legislative branch of the government in the U.S. is divided into two houses, and for good reason in my mind. The senate has two representatives from each states, so that the voice and power of each state is held equally in the senate. The House of Representatives is composed 435 members; the number of representatives from each state is determined by the population of that state. So, one house of congress is based on a balance of power between states and one is based on the balance of power through population.
Yes, the bicameral system is exactly the same in the rest of the British system, apart from the Senate in Canada being atrophied since it was composed of Crown appointees, and the UK has a House of Lords rather than a senate. I understand how the division of powers operates, however that is why you have a slow clunky infighting system, not because of the two parties. The UK and Canada don't have these problems because the powers of the second House have become significantly decreased over time, as is the case with the executive, the Queen, whose role is ceremonial. Which leaves only the House of Commons governing the country. How we adjust for provincial concerns in Canada is that we have very strict constitutional limits on what is Provincial and what is Federal matters, also the seats of the House of Commons encompass regions and population, so that certain areas like the Maritimes and Quebec have more seats in parliament than their population would warrant.
As to the third party thing, the Tea Party doesn't count as a third party, since it is operating within the Republican party. If they were really operating as a separate party, the Republicans would adjust and move centerwards to gain more voters as they would lose the far right. At least in time, since the alternative is splitting the right wing vote and alienating a large swath of voters who they could win easier by going left.
Most countries with three parties have a very clearly delineated left, center, and right. In Canada that is the NDP, Liberals, and the Tories (We also have the separatist Bloc and the Green party with a few seats in parliament, so for now we have a 5 party system). In the UK it is Labour, Lib-Dems, and the Tories. It is likely just by the way vying for votes operates that America would follow a similar trend. The center would not necessarily be dominant, but a party would inevitably try to fill that gap relative to the others.
I apologize for the terminology slip up, in Canada we refer to the House of Commons as the parliament even though the senate and the commons both compose the parliament.
Edit: Just to clarify, I'm not saying the American system is bad, but it has downsides. The downsides of the Canadian/British system is that a party with the support of the majority of the House can essentially go nuts with running the country until the next election, but it has a benefit of being an expedient system.
OrphanPip Wrote:Although, blacks received equal rights in the British Empire (1834) prior to the 15th amendment, so they do have a claim to that. They also actively interfered with the slave trade in West Africa. And in fact, the Canadian colonies banned slavery as early as 1803. And if we look at the last place to emancipate serfs in Europe, Russia in 1863, even they beat the USA to abolition of human bondage.
Actually, Orphanpip, the last place to abolish slavery in Europe was the Ottoman Empire in 1882, and the U.S. banned the Slave Trade the same year Britain did, 1807.
OrphanPip Wrote:Moreover, most of the rights the US instituted, especially legal rights and jurisprudence, were inherited out of already existing British systems.
Thanks, they certainly are connected: "One of the earliest documents used in drafting the American Bill of Rights was the English Bill of Rights of 1689, one of the fundamental documents of English constitutional law. The English Bill of Rights differed substantially in form and intent from the American Bill of Rights, because it was intended to address the rights of citizens as represented by Parliament against the Crown."
So, not really the de jure rights of the citizens but rights of the representatives of the citizens . . . and colonies didn't get representation nor was there freedom of religion, the right to arms in defense (unless you were protestant), the fifth amendment, nor provisions for illegal searches and seizures. And, actually, the British and Canadian supreme court were developed on the American model.
Sorry, it is just that when people get on their high horse, and decide to deride the United States without knowing what they are talking about, it really irks me. And there have been a couple on this page doing that.
WOW, not chew each others to pieces yet most people here like to just say all republicans are haters, i'd say most but not all, considering i'm a republican but only at a state level; i wanted to quote some people but because of this BS post count system i can't, nor can i post links
i haven't voted for a president yet, every year they always pick someone more retarded than the last, on the flip side i didn't care for any of the democrats so i didn't vote.
By state level i mean i vote for alderman, mayor, and governor, you want to see how bad DEMOCRATS are move to chicago. corruption out the ass and most are democrats our last 2 governors have been arrested and quinn is a fucking shitbag, daley was a fucking nut bag, most of the alderman are too. what makes me a republican is mainly the fact that i grew up around firearms, hunting, fishing, competition shooting, skeet shooting, bow hunting, bow fishing, and the right to carry.
its just the way i was raised, your question about how can i be gay and republican is like asking how can someone be gay and catholic or christian? it's pretty much the same thing, the bible denounces homosexuality as a mortal sin yet some people are gay and catholic
Wow. This turned into an "America bashing" thread pretty quickly.
Commenting on the original topic here, I did see the debates and was appalled by what was getting applause and boos.
I felt sorry for Ron Paul. Like him or not, he was the only one who kept consistent and tried to make thought-out and coherent arguments. One thing that really got me was when Ron Paul stated that the US's unwanted involvement in the middle-east is mainly what provoked the 9/11 attacks (that got applause, oddly enough).
Santorum interrupts him and states, loudly and proudly, that the terrorists attacked because they hate "what the US stands for: Freedom and Prosperity" (or something to that effect). The fact that he was saying this with a straight face was bad enough, but he got HUGE applause.
Back to Ron Paul, who replies by saying that this mindset that "the terrorists hate us because we're free and prosperous" is only going to get the US in more trouble and needs to be done away with. The crowd totally hate-fu**ed him with boos.
Sad stuff.
bariuke Wrote:Wow. This turned into an "America bashing" thread pretty quickly.
That's not surprising. Typically it exhibits startling misconception about the American Political System, a vast ignorance of American History, and a convenient amnesia about their own Political Systems and Histories. On those issues they scored a 10. But they lost points for leaving out McDonald's and Disneyland. I give it an 8.7 on the xenophobic scale.
As far as Ron Paul is concerned, his is half right on the issue concerning terrorism in the middle east. Yes, American Foreign Policy in Israel and its willingness to deal with dictators for its own benefits certainly is a helpful recruitment device for terrorists, but you would have to completely ignore the ideology of Islamist (not Islamic) groups to deny that a fundamental reason why the U.S. and other Western Nations are subject to terrorism is a hatred for their liberties, though Islamists consider those Liberties abominations.
No, I think every country deserves to be bashed. There is nothing to be gained from any mythologising of the perfect nature of any state, they're all shitty in their own special ways, and they all have upsides in their own special ways.
Inchante Wrote:Based on the above statement that "African Americans were denied all those rights up until recently", I would say that you know very little about American History at all.
I did admit that I know little about American History, and now I realise I know nothing at all about the subject. :confused: However, I have to say one thing for sure, when my uncle came to Britain in the late 1940s from Jamaica. On his journey to Britain, the aircraft he flew in terminated in America (he was to board a ship for the rest of his journey). Thinking that he could buy himself a meal he went to restaurant, before he knew it, two police officers came along and roughly ejected him from the restaurant telling him blacks were not allowed in. In Britain he could have a meal in any restaurant. Don't get me wrong prejudice did exist in Britain, I would be very stupid if I did not admit to that.
Glock30 "WOW ... i'm a republican but only at a state level ... every year they always pick someone more retarded than the last, on the flip side i didn't care for any of the democrats so i didn't vote ... how bad DEMOCRATS are move to chicago. corruption out the ass and most are democrats our last 2 governors have been arrested ... what makes me a republican is mainly the fact that i grew up around firearms ... and the right to carry."
-corruption is part of the human experience, not tied to any one party.
-voting is the only way to prevent the government being taken over by HP and Walmart.
-the "right to carry" has its benefits but i lived in the mountains and while there a firearm was a tool like a shovel, socket wrench whatever. i dont see the government supporting my hobbies and out door aspirations.
more off topic:
bariuke Wow ... Santorum interrupts ... and states, loudly and proudly, that the terrorists attacked because they hate "what the US stands for: Freedom and Prosperity" (or something to that effect). The fact that he was saying this with a straight face was bad enough, but he got HUGE applause.
Back to Ron Paul, who replies by saying that this mindset that "the terrorists hate us because we're free and prosperous" is only going to get the US in more trouble and needs to be done away with. The crowd totally hate-fu**ed him with boos...
it seems it is always easy to attract the attention and headlines, thus the votes, with hate and ridicule.
Inchante ... but you would have to completely ignore the ideology of Islamist (not Islamic) groups to deny that a fundamental reason why the U.S. and other Western Nations are subject to terrorism is a hatred for their liberties, though Islamists consider those Liberties abominations.
the US can not be the police force for the world. if only for one thing we are running out of money/ credit.
OrpanPip No, I think every country deserves to be bashed ... all have upsides in their own special ways.
in the US there were a lot of states that prevented the ladies from voting up till 1970. if you look which states held out so long, its mostly along the lines of those states with low economic opportunity and social exposure (few passports, junk education), and high fundamentalist religion.
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
