|
I'd speak for germany here.
Sure I cant speak for all but for most of the ppl I hang out with in and around my university in cologne.
I'll make it fast:
- Nearly no one has ever agreed with anything a republican candidate for presidency (right word?) has ever said, because its often racist, driven by religion or just dumb as shit no one would believe here in any way.
- Your latest votes are seen as kind of a comedy on the well known news page www.spiegel.de there are some candidates listed who are just funny as hell but would never get any voice/vote over here.
- Many of us think US election campaigns are pretty embarrassing, because they are in big parts sooo much faked and staged...
- I hope thats not wrong, but there are only 2 parties in US right? doesnt seem to be very democratic...
- I'm no specialist of your system, but I know on the election to Bush's second period of presidency Bush didnt get the majority of the voices and got still president legally...we feel this is absurd.
- Many of us believe Obama is not a bad president and were shocked, that he gets so few votes these days
REMEMBER I SPEAK FOR ME AND MOST OF MY FRIENDS, not for every german.
|
On November 05 2010 08:58 VanGarde wrote:
Ehm.. what?
You might want to re-think that statement.
What was wrong with my statement? You do realize Swedish markets are less regulated (oh noes free markets!) than America's?
Scadinavian countries rank very high on Heritage's index of economic freedom, and I recall rank the highest (except maybe Hong Kong and Singapore) if you get rid of the taxation and wealth redistribution categories, which arguably have little to do with economic freedom.
|
England is doing absolutely horrible right now. Government has to cut the equivalment of 1 000 000 jobs, and between 10% and 40% in all its sectors.
England =/= United Kindom.
Job cuts you mention are more than doubled, between your estimation and reality.
Sure glad we will be sharing nuclear warheads in the near future!
|
I'm in Canada. We're pretty much the same as the States, so I condescend pretty heavily on both sides of the border.
I also blame the Democrats for losing in these miderm elections by not informing the populace of what, actually, they have actually done.
|
On November 05 2010 08:49 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2010 08:48 Monsen wrote:
You keep telling yourself that if it makes you sleep better.
The homogeneous europe is probably only jealous that the U.S. is the country Jesus loves most.
In other news: People in this thread give their opinions because they were asked for them. You might wanna ask yourself why those opinions are so negative... I ask Europeans to reflect on their own biases, and you get all defensive. Typical non-enlightened right-winger.
Spot on! On the other hand though, my countrymen all believe in evolution, so that's fine.
|
UK person here.
I wonder about politicians like Christine O'Donnel and how many of your politicians like her, but are scared to check in case it turns out you're all like that.
+ Show Spoiler +
Then you get stuff like
+ Show Spoiler +
I think your politics is mostly like anywhere else but with more "character". I do like that you guys still have some sort of interest in rewarding hard work or a good idea (i.e. capitalism) and that a minimal welfare state doesn't seem to be a big deal. 40% of our earnings over ~$60,000 (£37,401) goes to the government and indirectly to criminals, subsidising useless degrees, letting lazy people have a free ride.
I also feel sorry for Obama, poor guy, his buddies think hes "weak" for trying to compromise and the opposition thinks he's the antichrist.
I enjoy the irony that democracy boils down to party loyalty and "who has more charisma" rather than the guy with a decent plan, although this is probably a universal thing.
|
The biggest thing which boggles my mind when it comes to politics in America, is the fact you're still running a two party, first past the post system. That you've got Fiscal Conservatives, Libertarians and Tea Party all under one banner boggles my mind. The ideologies are just so different.
A multi-party representative system is just plain better.
|
On November 05 2010 09:04 ch4ppi wrote:I'd speak for germany here. Sure I cant speak for all but for most of the ppl I hang out with in and around my university in cologne. I'll make it fast: - Nearly no one has ever agreed with anything a republican candidate for presidency (right word?) has ever said, because its often racist, driven by religion or just dumb as shit no one would believe here in any way. - Your latest votes are seen as kind of a comedy on the well known news page www.spiegel.de there are some candidates listed who are just funny as hell but would never get any voice/vote over here. - Many of us think US election campaigns are pretty embarrassing, because they are in big parts sooo much faked and staged... - I hope thats not wrong, but there are only 2 parties in US right? doesnt seem to be very democratic... - I'm no specialist of your system, but I know on the election to Bush's second period of presidency Bush didnt get the majority of the voices and got still president legally...we feel this is absurd. - Many of us believe Obama is not a bad president and were shocked, that he gets so few votes these days REMEMBER I SPEAK FOR ME AND MOST OF MY FRIENDS, not for every german.
There are two major parties, who are in opposition from each other. Third parties usually run as independents and occationally win.
George W. Bush he won his first term with a less than majority of votes, but a majority of electoral votes. Al Gore carried 600 districts, George W. Bush won 2400 districts. He carried about 4/5th's of the country, but still lost vote wise. This is why we us the electoral college, so that a large majority of the country isn't ignored in favor of population centers.
On November 05 2010 09:14 Klimpen wrote:
The biggest thing which boggles my mind when it comes to politics in America, is the fact you're still running a two party, first past the post system. That you've got Fiscal Conservatives, Libertarians and Tea Party all under one banner boggles my mind. The ideologies are just so different.
A multi-party representative system is just plain better.
If they all voted individually for candidates, they would all lose.
|
On November 05 2010 09:14 Klimpen wrote:
A multi-party representative system is just plain better.
I agree, their two party system creates more extreme results. Their main identity is their difference from the other, rather than their beneficial policies, and therefore they widen the gulf between them and entrench people in their views.
In the UK we have 3 main parties, and this means every one is centre-orientated for fear of loosing to the other 2. If one party went hardcore left or right the other two parties nearer the centre will take the common sense voters away from them - so everyone is pretty homogenous and similar.
It creates an atmosphere that is boring but safe - rather than one that is radical and slighty crazy!
|
On November 05 2010 09:05 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2010 08:58 VanGarde wrote:
Ehm.. what?
You might want to re-think that statement. What was wrong with my statement? You do realize Swedish markets are less regulated (oh noes free markets!) than America's? Scadinavian countries rank very high on Heritage's index of economic freedom, and I recall rank the highest (except maybe Hong Kong and Singapore) if you get rid of the taxation and wealth redistribution categories, which arguably have little to do with economic freedom.
You can make any country whatever you want by picking and choosing. Taxation and wealth redistribution are HUGE factors in economic freedom and anyone who were trying to prove the opposite of your point and say that Scandinavia is pure socialism would pick and choose those aspects as well. But that does not really work in reality you have to factor in everything.
Yes the Scandinavian model is not pure socialism it is a relatively unique hybrid between a very strong welfare state and a very free open market but you can not escape the fact that all countries have huge wealth redistribution systems and state financed infrastructure.
|
On November 05 2010 09:44 VanGarde wrote:
You can make any country whatever you want by picking and choosing. Taxation and wealth redistribution are HUGE factors in economic freedom and anyone who were trying to prove the opposite of your point and say that Scandinavia is pure socialism would pick and choose those aspects as well. But that does not really work in reality you have to factor in everything.
Yes the Scandinavian model is not pure socialism it is a relatively unique hybrid between a very strong welfare state and a very free open market but you can not escape the fact that all countries have huge wealth redistribution systems and state financed infrastructure.
My point, and I made this earlier, is that it's not necessarily anti-capitalist to have lots of wealth redistribution as long as tax rates are not so high as to hurt entrepreneurial incentives significantly (and most European countries as well as the US realized this point in the '80s when they lowered tax rates from 80-90% marginal rates).
I consider Scandinavian countries to have a very capitalist system with strong social policies. I try to avoid calling wealth redistribution as "socialism," since it sets up a false dichotomy between the two systems that both sides like to abuse. Marxist Socialism and Capitalism are opposites (and we see how choosing the former over the latter has worked for Venezuela...); "socialism" in the wealth redistribution sense and capitalism can be complements, and all wealthy, modern countries follow such a situation to differing degrees.
|
- I hope thats not wrong, but there are only 2 parties in US right? doesnt seem to be very democratic..
The US has had two and only two parties since 1800 (and even during Washington's presidency, Hamilton and Jefferson bickered a lot). So, I don't know, considering the US was one of the first countries to "re-adopt" Democracy, why wouldn't you consider a two-party system Democratic?
|
United States hegemony > Any other hegemony (ie, China, Russia)
Now that said I do find american politics somewhat absurd, from time to time. But I try to not loose sight of the bigger picture. I want the United States to remain the most powerful country in the world in the forseeable future. My biggest reason for this is that I share more of my values as a westerner with the United States than I share values with China or Russia (albeit Russia isn't really a contender for Super Power anymore).
So long story made short. I like you guys more than the competition. Hugs from Sweden. 
|
That video ... god did I laugh.
Lurkin' never felt so good.
Was that done in the Sims?
|
On November 05 2010 09:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:
It seems to me that economy is not a science at all, and this is not a very original thought. First one to have proven it a very simple way was Karl Marx, and that's 150 years ago. The fact that economist disagree so much (there are left wing economist, right win economist, liberal, socialist, ultra liberal economists etc...) on very simple issues, negates the possibility of saying that a claim is scientifically true because it matches with economic hortodoxy.
Marx was an economist. Though back then they called them political economists. He had an economic model just like Smith and Hume and Malthus.
Yeah, economists disagree on a lot of things. But they also agree on a lot of things. You seem to reject even the things they agree on. Economists are a lot like evolutionary biologists, where because of the limitations of empirical studies (the inaccessibility of controlled studies on societies in economists' case; the inability for evolutionary biologists to test the progression of evolution), they are sometimes simply left with a model and theorizing.
What simple issues do economists disagree on, anyway?
Rejection of economics makes you sound like someone who believes in intelligent design. "Evolution's just a theory!"
England is doing better than France? Hum, no. That's just not true. England is doing absolutely horrible right now. Government has to cut the equivalment of 1 000 000 jobs, and between 10% and 40% in all its sectors. The country has a bigger debt than France and the social situation is much worst.
England doesn't have to cut jobs, English bonds are at very low rates, so there's very little danger of them defaulting (French bond rates are higher), and the UK could continue to borrow if it had the political desire to do so.
By the way, French unemployment is 10.1%, UK's is 8.3%. French GDP/capita is much lower than the UK's GDP/capita. French income is lower than the UK's income at all percentiles. English children have higher math scores than French children.
I will admit that French food is superior to English food by far.
Scandinavian countries are the places were the healthcares, the state pensions, the social security and the taxation is the highest in the world.
They also have some of the freest markets in the world, which is the very definition of ring-wing.
|
On November 05 2010 09:56 domovoi wrote:
So, I don't know, considering the US was one of the first countries to "re-adopt" Democracy, why wouldn't you consider a two-party system Democratic?
because 2 parties means that you guys in the US only have 2 opinions, which, correct me if I am wrong, seems a little off to most of us. Two parties means that in them you can have so much different views that it's just not your opinion that the party you voted for supports after the election.
I dont support systems like in germany in the early 20s where we had like 15 parties all represented in the senate but something like here with a 5% hurdle for votes you have to get before you can get into the senate soudns much better to me than 2 party system. But that wouldnt work because of your funny voting system in the USA
|
On November 05 2010 10:21 Blobskillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2010 09:56 domovoi wrote:
So, I don't know, considering the US was one of the first countries to "re-adopt" Democracy, why wouldn't you consider a two-party system Democratic? because 2 parties means that you guys in the US only have 2 opinions, which, correct me if I am wrong, seems a little off to most of us. Two parties means that in them you can have so much different views that it's just not your opinion that the party you voted for supports after the election. I dont support systems like in germany in the early 20s where we had like 15 parties all represented in the senate but something like here with a 5% hurdle for votes you have to get before you can get into the senate soudns much better to me than 2 party system
The reality is that though Democrats are a big grab-bag of certain policies, and Republicans are a big grab-bag of other policies, when you actually put a bunch of them together in a room, the policies that come out are basically what the median voter wants and the fringe policies are ignored.
Basically, the two-party system does a pretty decent job of getting laws that the majority of Americans want. Now, you might not like what the majority of Americans want, but that's a separate issue.
|
Having two main parties doesn't mean each person in the party thinks the same thing.
And for all the USA haters, let me remind you what my country gave you.
+ Show Spoiler +
Also, do you think the world would be better off today if Japan won WW2? I hope not. I am proud to be an American, and think we have done way more for the world than the ills we have caused, both real and perceived. I chalk up most of the hating to jealousy.
|
The sad truth is that Europeans judge Americans by its absurd political campaign arena, which although is a very vocal and exhibitionist part of American culture, is not of much importance. What better represents America are its industries and its artistic culture, which Europeans undoubtedly respect.
When Americans think of Germany, they think nice cars. When Germans think of Americans, they think idiot politicians, rather than iPhones.
It's a little odd!
|
I view US politics like the good guys(Democrats) VS the bad guys(republicans).
I see it like the because the rest of the world uses systems close to what the democrats want, and noone uses the republican system because of how bad it is for the lower and middle class. Pretty much only upper class people control wealth of a nation in those systems. This link shows how top 1% of population controls almost half of all of america's wealth. The whole "land of opportunity" bullshit is really just "land of opportunity, only if you are the top 1% elite of the population. Otherwise, you are going to be paying most of your money to the top 1%". Basically, 80% of the population(4 out of 5 people) in the US only control 7% of the total country's wealth. Ya. So if you are not lucky enough to be the 1 in 5 rich person in the US, you have not excuse for not voting democrat.
http://www.mybudget360.com/top-1-percent-control-42-percent-of-financial-wealth-in-the-us-how-average-americans-are-lured-into-debt-servitude-by-promises-of-mega-wealth/
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
