Jump to content
angel_mage

Is America a greedy country?

Recommended Posts

You know, as an aside, I find this very interesting ...

 

After Katrina hit, there were thousands of people who were abandoned within the center of the disaster. There was wide-spread looting. People were shooting each other. People were shooting at the helicopters that were there trying to save them ...

 

After the Tsunami struck Indonesia, there were no events such as these. Same thing with Japan now the government moved in, people are helping people, they're getting their [cabbage] together.

 

5 years later and thousands people are still struggling to get their poop in a pile after Katrina.

 

Not so in Indonesia. Want to wager what the turnaround time is for Japan? I'd wager it'll be very brief.

 

So, why are American Katrina victims not doing better? :unsure:


nyuseg.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
russia has been involved in one war in the past 10 years (cant remember much more). i dont have any proof but the name hardly crops up. china is fairly bad tbf, but no were near as bad as the us.

 

Russia has been at war with Georgia just a couple years ago.

 

As for China, I'd say that they're probably worse or at least more blatant as far as Government thugs going around beating up journalists and [cabbage]. I remember a story recently about a BBC news crew being beat up by plain-clothes police officers. The Chinese government also severely limits freedom of speech and encourages anti-intellectualism whereas the United States is generally the opposite.

 

 

The United States isn't an insufferable place to live in. In general you do get a lot of freedoms. However, I will say that the United States is a very capitalistic country, and money is valued far more than human lives. I don't believe that the US government would do something that benefits the citizens if money could be made.

 

The United States government also has no qualms to betray allies if the betrayal is something that could be beneficial and/or avoid negative publicity (e.g. Hosni Mubarak of Egypt). Though this is true with most other countries as it's the very nature of politics. The U.S. is concerned about itself first and others second (if it's even concerned about them, which is usually only if the others can be useful to the United States).

 

The United Kingdom, for example, only has such a close relationship because the United States government finds the U.K. to be a valuable asset. Once Britain refuses to give and/or cannot continue to give the support that it does now, it'll simply be cast aside and not two-[cabbage]s will be given.


SWAG

 

Mayn U wanna be like me but U can't be me cuz U ain't got ma swagga on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe people are making comments about Pearl Harbor. You know what it is? It's a lame ass attempt at an excuse to be LAZY and DO NOTHING. I mean, especially to the teenagers who posted about PH - are you kidding me? You sit on your computer all day doing absolutely NOTHING being a complete zero and the best you can come up with is a Pearl Harbor comment?

 

It's like some minorities who use slavery from 300-400 years ago to justify their lifestyle and hate toward the white man. [bleep]ing stupid.

 

Oh and for those bad-mouthing America... while you may think America sucks, at least it doesn't suck as much as everywhere else.


FairTraders.net (Merchant Guides + Grand Exchange Update Notifier)

Get FREE Grand Exchange updates through the website, by email, or through your mobile device!

 

ftsig.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and for those bad-mouthing America... while you may think America sucks, at least it doesn't suck as much as everywhere else.

 

Quite a hypocritical comment.


SWAG

 

Mayn U wanna be like me but U can't be me cuz U ain't got ma swagga on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and for those bad-mouthing America... while you may think America sucks, at least it doesn't suck as much as everywhere else.

 

Quite a hypocritical comment.

 

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that "Unbeatable" (rolleyes.gif) was just joking.. because, otherwise he just displayed exactly the kind of attitude that makes people dislike the place, which he even spoke about in his initial criticism of the Pearl Harbour Facebookers.

 

I take it as a given that his comment was some kind of trolling attempt akin to coming into a thread about blind American pride and saying:

"herp derp 'merica's da best derp derp"..


calvinandhobbessigedite.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But yeah America especially has a bad democracy (no offense) in the way it works. People don't really get any say at all.

 

Where do you get that idea from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and for those bad-mouthing America... while you may think America sucks, at least it doesn't suck as much as everywhere else.

 

Quite a hypocritical comment.

 

 

Pwned?

 

OT: Went on YA! news and saw that Japan's top-notch companies from automobile and electronic industries might raise prices.

Scary thought...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But yeah America especially has a bad democracy (no offense) in the way it works. People don't really get any say at all.

 

Where do you get that idea from?

 

 

The fact that you only have two political parties with any chance to get in. My friend telling me about it, can't remmber now was one of those nights in the pub.. But basically your parties have to be massivley funded by shady people with more than fairness at heart to be heard at all. In UK every party gets airtime on BBC (I think). Also the fact you have the supreme court.. err wuite a lot of things. It's quite obviously not a great democract, anywhere were those only democrat or republic (right, or far-right) is pretty bad democracy wise IMO.

 

Tell me if I'm wrong?

 

And to post abovce

 

^^^

You were on topic, Japan is off topic lol! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, as an aside, I find this very interesting ...

 

After Katrina hit, there were thousands of people who were abandoned within the center of the disaster. There was wide-spread looting. People were shooting each other. People were shooting at the helicopters that were there trying to save them ...

 

After the Tsunami struck Indonesia, there were no events such as these. Same thing with Japan now the government moved in, people are helping people, they're getting their [cabbage] together.

 

5 years later and thousands people are still struggling to get their poop in a pile after Katrina.

 

Not so in Indonesia. Want to wager what the turnaround time is for Japan? I'd wager it'll be very brief.

 

So, why are American Katrina victims not doing better? :unsure:

 

You cannot really compare New Orleans with the rest of America. Every country has their bad areas. There was rampant crime in New Orleans before Katrina hit. However, if something similiar happened to a more 'civilized' part of the States, I can almost guarantee there would have been much more of a Japanese style recovery.


99 Fletching - 01/08/08

99 Theiving - 09/11/08

99 Cooking - 12/13/08

99 Runecrafting - 10/23/09

99 Strength - 05/07/10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But yeah America especially has a bad democracy (no offense) in the way it works. People don't really get any say at all.

 

Where do you get that idea from?

 

 

The fact that you only have two political parties with any chance to get in. My friend telling me about it, can't remmber now was one of those nights in the pub.. But basically your parties have to be massivley funded by shady people with more than fairness at heart to be heard at all. In UK every party gets airtime on BBC (I think). Also the fact you have the supreme court.. err wuite a lot of things. It's quite obviously not a great democract, anywhere were those only democrat or republic (right, or far-right) is pretty bad democracy wise IMO.

 

Tell me if I'm wrong?

 

And to post abovce

 

^^^

You were on topic, Japan is off topic lol! :P

Well now that you've proven you don't know anything about America, I can stop taking your argument seriously.


TANSTAAFL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would happen in every country, there is even a picture floating around that highlights that it wasn't just Americans making comments about Pearl Harbour, includes Brits, Aussies, NZ etc.

 

And @ all the Brits trying to act all high and mighty, really? I can assure you that if there was a natural disaster etc in say Germany people in this country would have a field day making snide remarks about WW2, heck there would probably be comments made about it on TV. And the Friendly Fire argument is pathetic and stupid.

 

TL:DR, every country has ignorant morons, vocal minority, silent majority etc.

 

do you live in england? if you do fairplay who the [bleep] do u talk to? ive never met anyone that cares that much about the germans. people arnt ignorant and dumb enough to care or make comments about something that happened 60/70 years ago now. we might joke sometimes but ive n eveer met anyone that would say something like that.

 

also it wasnt us who started the whole firendly fire thing :rolleyes:

 

i think what everyones saying is america seems to have a lot more ignorant morons. :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But yeah America especially has a bad democracy (no offense) in the way it works. People don't really get any say at all.

 

Where do you get that idea from?

 

 

The fact that you only have two political parties with any chance to get in. My friend telling me about it, can't remmber now was one of those nights in the pub.. But basically your parties have to be massivley funded by shady people with more than fairness at heart to be heard at all. In UK every party gets airtime on BBC (I think). Also the fact you have the supreme court.. err wuite a lot of things. It's quite obviously not a great democract, anywhere were those only democrat or republic (right, or far-right) is pretty bad democracy wise IMO.

 

Tell me if I'm wrong?

 

And to post abovce

 

^^^

You were on topic, Japan is off topic lol! :P

Well now that you've proven you don't know anything about America, I can stop taking your argument seriously.

 

Dude i know you have other parties but there's no chance oif them getting in power whatsoever. I don't know the details of your political system, why the [bleep] would I? I dont care, i dont really know my own that much. most people don't.

 

But any country that has aligned TV station and two parties, isn't very democratic :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But yeah America especially has a bad democracy (no offense) in the way it works. People don't really get any say at all.

 

Where do you get that idea from?

 

 

The fact that you only have two political parties with any chance to get in. My friend telling me about it, can't remmber now was one of those nights in the pub.. But basically your parties have to be massivley funded by shady people with more than fairness at heart to be heard at all. In UK every party gets airtime on BBC (I think). Also the fact you have the supreme court.. err wuite a lot of things. It's quite obviously not a great democract, anywhere were those only democrat or republic (right, or far-right) is pretty bad democracy wise IMO.

 

Tell me if I'm wrong?

 

And to post abovce

 

^^^

You were on topic, Japan is off topic lol! :P

Well now that you've proven you don't know anything about America, I can stop taking your argument seriously.

 

Dude i know you have other parties but there's no chance oif them getting in power whatsoever. I don't know the details of your political system, why the [bleep] would I? I dont care, i dont really know my own that much. most people don't.

 

But any country that has aligned TV station and two parties, isn't very democratic :)

 

If you don't know much about it, stop trying to talk about it. You just said yourself you don't know what you're talking about. There is chances of other parties getting in. Theree's a newer party that's becoming more and more popular that's not one of the big two (Republican and Democrat). If you wish to talk down on America, know what you're talking about first.


~ Proud Father ~ Proud (Currently Deployed) Army National Guardsmen ~ Proud Lakota ~ Retired Tip.It Crew ~
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UK hasn't really participated in "modern warfare" to the extent that America has so that too is an imbalanced example. You can't prove anything and you're persisting with this for no reason even though it's clear that there is no evidence in your favor. Then you go and say my examples don't work because it's WWII, which was hardly "trench warfare" by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Let's just focus on Iraq because it's the most recent.

 

"Where the armies were in it for the same time" - Maybe, though the UK had already withdrawn from some of the later examples you posted. Besides that, the US sent over 150,000 troops, the UK sent under 50,000.

 

 

no evidence aside from the fact there's more instances of American forces using friendly fire than other nations you mean?

Cause I'd say thts pretty strong evidence.

 

Also Britain hasn't withdrawn from Iraq or Afghanistan, they still there just same as US.

"United Kingdom: 46,000 invasion (withdrawn 7/09)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq#Troop_deployment_in_Iraq_2003-2009

 

America has three times more troops there, that's an exponentially greater chance for friendly fire to occur. Any "reputation" American forces have for greater instances of friendly fire is pure propaganda. Not to mention the fact that there were over 10,000 deaths by friendly fire from the British in WW2 that you threw out "because of the technology" which makes no sense because all parties had access to the same technology. Plus there were examples completely unrelated to technology or American presence, like the one I posted where British aircraft destroyed German ships carrying over 7,000 concentration camp survivors and POWs.

 

Like Y_Guy said, it happens in all conflicts, the assertion you are trying to make is logically flawed because there are no concrete examples with equivalent time in combat or manpower in combat on either side.

 

 

ww2 was a differnt war neek. different times, totally uncomparable. completely messy, much worse technology. [bleep]ed up times for most people in europe. not ameirca though who 'saved the day'. your country wasnt even sure if it wanted to be involved. pAH.

 

also the british should have excactly 3 times less if the friendly fire rate is the same, since britain on american is friendly fire.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/22/american-troops-friendly-fire-iraq

 

got to admit tho, i just went on wikipedia and if all of the exampled on friendly fire are the only ones that occured then it was about 3-1. which means it was equal :P

 

but i dunno..

 

About friendly fire. Majority of British friendly fire incidents happened on-ground-to-ground. Majority of American friendly fire incidents i found was most due to accidentally aircraft strafing which at least understandable because it's hard to see 10,000 ft from the ground. and yes we do fly 100% of them meaning that chances are they things can go wrong. Let's not to mention that we even saved many British troops on the ground in Afghanistan along as ross kemp in Afghanistan says. As i recall 16 British servicemen was been killed by British friendly fire alone in both wars combined. 13 was due to ground-to-ground and 3 was due to the fault of the British Forward Air Controller giving the bad coordinates to a US pilot that killed 3 privates of the Royal Anglian Regiment back in August 23, 2007. Remember the FAC is always responsible for pilot actions and he did authorized the pilot to attack. And UK friendly fire rates are the same as the US due to troops per troop. Wikipedia has been going through lots of changes since so it can't be always that accurate. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1038781/British-soldier-faces-manslaughter-charges-Afghanistan-friendly-deaths.html

 

Even a month ago in February, another soldier from the royal Irish regiment was shot and killed by another British soldier while returning foot to base in Afghanistan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But yeah America especially has a bad democracy (no offense) in the way it works. People don't really get any say at all.

 

Where do you get that idea from?

 

 

The fact that you only have two political parties with any chance to get in. My friend telling me about it, can't remmber now was one of those nights in the pub.. But basically your parties have to be massivley funded by shady people with more than fairness at heart to be heard at all. In UK every party gets airtime on BBC (I think). Also the fact you have the supreme court.. err wuite a lot of things. It's quite obviously not a great democract, anywhere were those only democrat or republic (right, or far-right) is pretty bad democracy wise IMO.

 

Tell me if I'm wrong?

 

And to post abovce

 

^^^

You were on topic, Japan is off topic lol! :P

Well now that you've proven you don't know anything about America, I can stop taking your argument seriously.

 

Dude i know you have other parties but there's no chance oif them getting in power whatsoever. I don't know the details of your political system, why the [bleep] would I? I dont care, i dont really know my own that much. most people don't.

 

But any country that has aligned TV station and two parties, isn't very democratic :)

 

If you don't know much about it, stop trying to talk about it. You just said yourself you don't know what you're talking about. There is chances of other parties getting in. Theree's a newer party that's becoming more and more popular that's not one of the big two (Republican and Democrat). If you wish to talk down on America, know what you're talking about first.

 

The Tea Party, I presume? That's even worse. Now we have three parties. One in the middle, one on the right, and one on the radical bat[cabbage] insane right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

i think what everyones saying is america seems to have a lot more ignorant morons. :thumbup:

 

America seems to have a lot more people in general. A lot of people who take advantage of free speech and don't know what they're saying, who think they're awesome because schools teach them American pride, but just a lot of people in general. I'm not saying the US wouldn't have a higher percentage of loud ignorant morons compared to other countries, but there are idiots everywhere. Plus, in general, people pay a lot more attention to negative things than they do to the positives. (even though in this situation only the loud moronic people are considered because they're quick to identify themselves as Americans.)


/FG/First thread post to when I joined the family.

VR48f.jpg

[hide=Insert rant here]blahblahblahLIFE[/hide]

img

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But yeah America especially has a bad democracy (no offense) in the way it works. People don't really get any say at all.

 

Where do you get that idea from?

 

 

The fact that you only have two political parties with any chance to get in. My friend telling me about it, can't remmber now was one of those nights in the pub.. But basically your parties have to be massivley funded by shady people with more than fairness at heart to be heard at all. In UK every party gets airtime on BBC (I think). Also the fact you have the supreme court.. err wuite a lot of things. It's quite obviously not a great democract, anywhere were those only democrat or republic (right, or far-right) is pretty bad democracy wise IMO.

 

Tell me if I'm wrong?

 

And to post abovce

 

^^^

You were on topic, Japan is off topic lol! :P

Well now that you've proven you don't know anything about America, I can stop taking your argument seriously.

 

Dude i know you have other parties but there's no chance oif them getting in power whatsoever. I don't know the details of your political system, why the [bleep] would I? I dont care, i dont really know my own that much. most people don't.

 

But any country that has aligned TV station and two parties, isn't very democratic :)

 

If you don't know much about it, stop trying to talk about it. You just said yourself you don't know what you're talking about. There is chances of other parties getting in. Theree's a newer party that's becoming more and more popular that's not one of the big two (Republican and Democrat). If you wish to talk down on America, know what you're talking about first.

 

The Tea Party, I presume? That's even worse. Now we have three parties. One in the middle, one on the right, and one on the radical bat[cabbage] insane right.

 

And that proves america is undemocratic how? The democrats/republicans do a pretty good job representing the majority of the population, and the tea party represents the idiotic part of the population. Explain what part of the population is not represented through the political system, or how members in the House and president aren't under the direct control of the people (president is basically determined by popular vote, bush was a rare exception).

 

While the political system has a huge bias towards preserving the status quo, which does result in massive inefficiencies and maintenance of incumbent political figures, neither prove it's undemocratic, but rather a necessary consequence of democracy and representation in government.

Edited by i_trollz_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact of the matter is that America doesn't really do a good job at representing people on the left-wing of politics, and to say that two parties and some token Independents are enough to resolve the opinions of the population is pretty insulting to Americans.

You need to have more parties to satisfy the people who think that the Democrats are too right wing, or the people who simply want to protest and demand democratic reform. Maybe people who would like a party that takes the best of the Democrat policies and the best of the Republican policies. Or a Green party, or a Socialist party, or a Communist party, or a Christian party, or a Monster Raving Loony Party (I love these guys). These things are necessary in a democracy. You need to get closer to asking everybody what they think, not whether they support Team A or Team B.


~ W ~

 

sigzi.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact of the matter is that America doesn't really do a good job at representing people on the left-wing of politics, and to say that two parties and some token Independents are enough to resolve the opinions of the population is pretty insulting to Americans.

You need to have more parties to satisfy the people who think that the Democrats are too right wing, or the people who simply want to protest and demand democratic reform. Maybe people who would like a party that takes the best of the Democrat policies and the best of the Republican policies. Or a Green party, or a Socialist party, or a Communist party, or a Christian party, or a Monster Raving Loony Party (I love these guys). These things are necessary in a democracy. You need to get closer to asking everybody what they think, not whether they support Team A or Team B.

You do know that nearly the entirety of American news media is left wing right? The only right-wing media I can think of is Fox and the only true impartial one is the WSJ. Literally everything else is left.


[if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or

by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.]

 

Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact of the matter is that America doesn't really do a good job at representing people on the left-wing of politics, and to say that two parties and some token Independents are enough to resolve the opinions of the population is pretty insulting to Americans.

You need to have more parties to satisfy the people who think that the Democrats are too right wing, or the people who simply want to protest and demand democratic reform. Maybe people who would like a party that takes the best of the Democrat policies and the best of the Republican policies. Or a Green party, or a Socialist party, or a Communist party, or a Christian party, or a Monster Raving Loony Party (I love these guys). These things are necessary in a democracy. You need to get closer to asking everybody what they think, not whether they support Team A or Team B.

You do know that nearly the entirety of American news media is left wing right? The only right-wing media I can think of is Fox and the only true impartial one is the WSJ. Literally everything else is left.

Mhm. So where's the party/parties to match?

Edited by Will_H

~ W ~

 

sigzi.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But yeah America especially has a bad democracy (no offense) in the way it works. People don't really get any say at all.

 

Where do you get that idea from?

 

 

The fact that you only have two political parties with any chance to get in. My friend telling me about it, can't remmber now was one of those nights in the pub.. But basically your parties have to be massivley funded by shady people with more than fairness at heart to be heard at all. In UK every party gets airtime on BBC (I think). Also the fact you have the supreme court.. err wuite a lot of things. It's quite obviously not a great democract, anywhere were those only democrat or republic (right, or far-right) is pretty bad democracy wise IMO.

 

Tell me if I'm wrong?

 

And to post abovce

 

^^^

You were on topic, Japan is off topic lol! :P

Well now that you've proven you don't know anything about America, I can stop taking your argument seriously.

 

Dude i know you have other parties but there's no chance oif them getting in power whatsoever. I don't know the details of your political system, why the [bleep] would I? I dont care, i dont really know my own that much. most people don't.

 

But any country that has aligned TV station and two parties, isn't very democratic :)

 

If you don't know much about it, stop trying to talk about it. You just said yourself you don't know what you're talking about. There is chances of other parties getting in. Theree's a newer party that's becoming more and more popular that's not one of the big two (Republican and Democrat). If you wish to talk down on America, know what you're talking about first.

 

The Tea Party, I presume? That's even worse. Now we have three parties. One in the middle, one on the right, and one on the radical bat[cabbage] insane right.

 

And that proves america is undemocratic how? The democrats/republicans do a pretty good job representing the majority of the population, and the tea party represents the idiotic part of the population. Explain what part of the population is not represented through the political system, or how members in the House and president aren't under the direct control of the people (president is basically determined by popular vote, bush was a rare exception).

 

While the political system has a huge bias towards preserving the status quo, which does result in massive inefficiencies and maintenance of incumbent political figures, neither prove it's undemocratic, but rather a necessary consequence of democracy and representation in government.

 

First Bold: Currently in the United States political climate neither the poor or other denominations of the working class have any representation in either congress or house of representatives. The mere fact it takes millions of dollars only goes to prove the point.

 

Case 1 to prove the point is what has happened in Wisconsin recently via revocation of bargaining rights(it didn't just apply to teachers you know).

 

Second bold: No, in no way shape or form is the president of the United States elected via popular vote. Instead, that position is decided by the electoral college which often does go with the popular vote, but the two are not dependent on each other as there are a few cases where they decided not to go with the majority vote(and one where they had the electoral and still was not elected president).

 

[spoiler=Electoral]In 1824 Andrew Jackson received a plurality of the popular (inasmuch as we actually have records of it at that time) and the electoral vote, but was not elected President.

 

In 1876, Samuel Tilden beat Rutherford B. Hayes by 3% in the popular vote (though somebody in another thread said that was mainly because he suppressed the black vote in southern states), and lost the EC by 1 vote -- Louisiana, Florida, and South Carolina were all extremely close, and the board appointed to examine them was composed of 7 Dems, 7 Reps, and 1 Independent; however, the Independent resigned and was replaced by a Republican, so the board ruled that all three states had voted for Hayes.

 

In 1888, Grover Cleveland was the incumbent President, and barely lost his home state and the election to Benjamin Harrison, who lost the popular vote by less than 1%.

 

 

 

Third Bold: What the Supreme Court of the United States did there was actually unconstitutional as the constitution expressly leaves the electing of the president to the electoral college. If in the event of a tie, in the electoral and majority, then Congress decides the final vote.

 

 

In terms of the actual topic of the thread.

 

In terms of actual greed, I would say that the federal government is still stuck in its' imperialist days from the 1800s and early 1900s, while on the other hand I can easily say that the majority of the common folk in the US are not as greedy as one would think; or rather as much as any other human.

Edited by Stragomagus

Quote - Revenge is such a nasty thing that only breeds more vengeful souls, but in some situations revenge does not even need to be sought out, but only bided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact of the matter is that America doesn't really do a good job at representing people on the left-wing of politics, and to say that two parties and some token Independents are enough to resolve the opinions of the population is pretty insulting to Americans.

You need to have more parties to satisfy the people who think that the Democrats are too right wing, or the people who simply want to protest and demand democratic reform. Maybe people who would like a party that takes the best of the Democrat policies and the best of the Republican policies. Or a Green party, or a Socialist party, or a Communist party, or a Christian party, or a Monster Raving Loony Party (I love these guys). These things are necessary in a democracy. You need to get closer to asking everybody what they think, not whether they support Team A or Team B.

You do know that nearly the entirety of American news media is left wing right? The only right-wing media I can think of is Fox and the only true impartial one is the WSJ. Literally everything else is left.

Mhm. So where's the party/parties to match?

?

 

Okay, barring the fact that the two-party system is extremely hard to dismantle, I don't think you got my point. Left-wing politics are not underrepresented- if you look at our last congressional elections you'll see that's definitely not true (and hey, the funs really going to start in the next one when even more seats are up for grabs). Left-wing opinion is overrepresented in the media.

 

Are you European? I know that America is more right than Europe (ha, a pun), so it may seem like Americas left isn't as visible.


[if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or

by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.]

 

Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact of the matter is that America doesn't really do a good job at representing people on the left-wing of politics, and to say that two parties and some token Independents are enough to resolve the opinions of the population is pretty insulting to Americans.

You need to have more parties to satisfy the people who think that the Democrats are too right wing, or the people who simply want to protest and demand democratic reform. Maybe people who would like a party that takes the best of the Democrat policies and the best of the Republican policies. Or a Green party, or a Socialist party, or a Communist party, or a Christian party, or a Monster Raving Loony Party (I love these guys). These things are necessary in a democracy. You need to get closer to asking everybody what they think, not whether they support Team A or Team B.

You do know that nearly the entirety of American news media is left wing right? The only right-wing media I can think of is Fox and the only true impartial one is the WSJ. Literally everything else is left.

Mhm. So where's the party/parties to match?

?

 

Okay, barring the fact that the two-party system is extremely hard to dismantle, I don't think you got my point. Left-wing politics are not underrepresented- if you look at our last congressional elections you'll see that's definitely not true (and hey, the funs really going to start in the next one when even more seats are up for grabs). Left-wing opinion is overrepresented in the media.

 

Are you European? I know that America is more right than Europe (ha, a pun), so it may seem like Americas left isn't as visible.

 

Says England in my location, so yeah. smile.gif

 

I'm not sure how we started talking about the media, I was talking about how the government represents the people. The media has no reason to represent the people at all.

 

I think this is where my grasp of American politics and public perception is failing me, because I don't follow what you're saying. Who are the left-wing politicians that got voted in that you are referring to? I'm calling the Democrats a centre party, the Republicans right-wing and the Tea Party far-right. What are you calling them?

Edited by Will_H

~ W ~

 

sigzi.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact of the matter is that America doesn't really do a good job at representing people on the left-wing of politics, and to say that two parties and some token Independents are enough to resolve the opinions of the population is pretty insulting to Americans.

You need to have more parties to satisfy the people who think that the Democrats are too right wing, or the people who simply want to protest and demand democratic reform. Maybe people who would like a party that takes the best of the Democrat policies and the best of the Republican policies. Or a Green party, or a Socialist party, or a Communist party, or a Christian party, or a Monster Raving Loony Party (I love these guys). These things are necessary in a democracy. You need to get closer to asking everybody what they think, not whether they support Team A or Team B.

 

 

Er, no.

 

Unlike Europe, in the United States people vote directly for their representatives - not parties. Individual reps can and do vote against their party line on a regular basis, so to the contrary the American system is far more democratic then elsewhere as it allows direct local control unconstrained by such divisions.

 

As to your second point, no need exists for insane hard-left groups like socialists or a green party because Americans in general can't stand such nonsense. They exist, but they are on the crazy fringe where they belong.

 

The system is far more efficient overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every country has its flaws, I suppose it's more present in the USA because it's a world power. That being said, I don't think it's anyone's duty to point those out unless it affects their own country. I find it funny that those insulting Americans for being too nationalistic (is that even a word?) don't realise that that act itself is just the same thing.


j0xPu5R.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.