Lucky Star Shrine Forums
Go Back   Lucky Star Shrine Forums > General > General Chat

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-14-2018, 07:00 AM   #391
I (somehow) evolved Ditto
kirant's Avatar
Location : Wars World, Black Hole HQ
Finally back with stable internet.

Originally Posted by Thane of Cawdor View Post
No, given my view of canada, and by OUR definition we consider canada a commonwealth, i dont like it.
I think you misconstrue my point. The existence of Canada as using the same system should play no part in the consideration.

The system of governance is utilized by most countries and fixes many of the problems we see in the USA government (such as the "lame duck" presidency occurring because the parliament and head of state fundamentally disagree with each other). The number of parties I list would probably prevent the partisan nature that your politics has taken on and tends to meet a fairly stable amount for most governments of this structure. Parties couldn't stray too far from "their lane" without losing votes.

Europe has some other interesting models (with a few nations working with proportional representation as oppose to independent seats). But I don't think the USA would ever be as bold as that.

It comes with its own problems (that is, a party with a majority is basically one-party rule for its term), but it makes far more sense than the cobbled together USA system. The USA's system only works if the states were operating as independent countries instead of being reliant on their federal government.

That is to say, the USA's government structure only makes sense if the independent states in the USA were as unique and separate from each other as the countries in the European Union. That is, if every North Carolinan thought they were North Carolinan first, American second. If every state had its own military as oppose to relying on the federal government structure it for them.

(Well, there is Texas. But Texas is a bit of a unique case)

The USA's reliance on a federal government doesn't match this and the better fit certainly comes with these alternative structures.

Originally Posted by Thane of Cawdor View Post
i mean a borderline revolution, and yes in my eyes, making things more conservative, because as time passes, countries tend to grow more conservative.
To be fair, doing what I propose above basically reads "destroy the Constitution and start over". That's pretty much revolution outright.

Not that it's a bad thing. The Constitution was seemingly built on the idea that you guys would actually update the damn thing (with more than the really small touches you've made). So deifying the writers and enshrining the document to the point where debating implications of commas may be a sign that you guys have screwed up the intent of it to begin with.

Originally Posted by Thane of Cawdor View Post
i site America, the majority of Europe, even china (started as communism but most major cities are basically capitalist), and the list goes on.
Your examples are weak evidence. Your examples basically forget that we saw a conservative push in the '80s, followed by a globalist push in the '90s.

- The USA really hasn't gotten more conservative as time has gone on. You started as a nation which felt it was its divine right to conquer everything (that is, to manifest destiny yourself all over the map). You then decided to "nope" your way out of all international politics (isolationism) before feeling that taking a stand against the USSR was the right thing to do (Cold War). Then you assigned yourselves the role of the world's policemen.

-- tl;dr, USA has gone through multiple pushes of "conservatism" and "liberalism".

- After the rise of neo-conservatism, Europe has, by and large, been the forefront of much evolution in politics. It has experimented with massive government structures (ex - effective removal of borders in the Schengen area [1995], which makes travel often as simple as traversing states, and unification of currencies under the Eurozone [1999]) and has been the forefront of some of the most interesting traditionally "social" ideas. This is especially true in the Scandinavian countries.

- China has long been Communist "in name only". It's basically just one party rule. It claim that it has gotten more or less conservative in that regard is silly.

I think what you're really trying to claim claim is that the last 5 years has seen a rise in traditionally conservative notions (nationalism in particular). And that is true. Brexit and the rise of (what many call) the "alt-right" are movements which seem like countercultural pushes against the globalist movement. Something kind of expected in the face of terrorism and how it seemingly contradicts with globalist feelings.

But to claim that the countries unilaterally get more conservative with age isn't supported by that.

Originally Posted by Thane of Cawdor View Post
you have foxnews labeled as nonsense, [...] its an opinion, an editorial.
That's not what's being said. It's that they alter the way they report a story to fit a specific political leaning.

Here's a fun exercise: find a big story and read it on multiple sites. What facts are removed, what facts are highlighted in greater detail, and how much detail is provided on certain aspects reflect a lot about the network reporting it.

In this case, it's not hard to find FOX's daily news wire as omitting key points or failing to provide specific context into a story which sells a more "conservative" slant.

Originally Posted by Thane of Cawdor View Post
I think that media bias chart may be the norm in very liberal countries, perhaps canada, but as for america, we are still more right-side shifted.
Media bias is expected anywhere media exists. What direction the media leans depends on the network we discuss. That's why Reuters and Associated Press are special to me: they for the most part manage to avoid any level of bias.

No doubt the USA is heavily conservative by most nation's standards. And I mean that in a "the only other major nation as conservative is Israel" way.

Originally Posted by Thane of Cawdor View Post
Okay, tell us what Putin wants to accomplish by having Trump as president.
He gets a more Russia friendly president running in the USA, which makes his goal (forming a powerful Russia through somewhat imperialist means) easier.

- Trump has killed sanctions against Russia which were agreed upon by both Republicans and Democrats. This keeps his power base happy.

- Trump is well known to seemingly praise dictators, Putin being a very famous one

- Trump is open to recognizing Crimea as Russian land, something no other western nation agrees with.

- Clinton is a known foreign policy hawk and would likely be very terse with Russia (much more so than Trump)

- It is also a nice middle finger to Clinton, whom Putin particularly despises.

- Trump wants to withdraw the USA from many international portfolios, which lets room grow for Russia and its allies (like China) to take up. And indeed, China has taken big steps forward in many areas (such as pushing the environmental agenda).

Ruri's Law: The vast majority of people are idiots (including myself)
Shameless Self-Plug - Updated May 30 - A Letter to a Younger Me Anime Edition

Last edited by kirant; 07-14-2018 at 07:06 AM.
kirant is online now   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:08 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Theme By : Companyturk