China Thread

[Speaker to Animals]

Parliamentary systems break down into two camps too. We also have many political factions, but the coalitions are formed at the voter level. Americans have far more power to influence outcomes. We elect the executive directly; parliamentary systems do not. Voters shift between ruling and opposition camps freely; parliamentary voters just have to hope the people they elect form alliances the voters want. The worst part is that, in a parliamentary system, opposition is fragmented.

In no universe do they have more choice or influence.

[BjornP]

Parliamentary systems break down into two camps too. We also have many political factions, but the coalitions are formed at the voter level. Americans have far more power to influence outcomes. We elect the executive directly; parliamentary systems do not. Voters shift between ruling and opposition camps freely; parliamentary voters just have to hope the people they elect form alliances the voters want. The worst part is that, in a parliamentary system, opposition is fragmented.

In no universe do they have more choice or influence.

Often they do indeed break down into two coalitions. Sometimes, like in Sweden, or Italy, they don't... and that can lead to alot of negotiation and a government which will have to compromise with its own politics, and thus potentially let down those who voted for them.

But what you get in a multiparty system, is that more people, from all across the political spectrum get a say. Imagine if there was an American Reactionary Party, someone who on most issues represented your views. Now, imagine if there is a democratic party with views more aligned with nuke's interests, and another with Fife's interests, and yet another with Carlus's. Together you can form a coalition, and yes, you will have to make compromises, but the people who voted for you, still get representation. They don't in a duopolistic system, where more and more people are forced into voting for the least worst of an ever decreasing list of candidates. Duopoly means you risk getting ignored. With Trump you got lucky that it was your time to be heard, but what happens when his term is up (or he becomes too senile to govern)? No taxation without representation... how well did you feel represented before Trump? How well do you imagine you'll be after him?

You're saying the "worst" part is that opposition is fragmented. That's hardly a universal feature of opposition parties in democratic multi-party parliamentary systems, though. Being opposed to someone doesn't mean you should become ONE hive mind, does it? Doesn't mean you can't build alliances. Doesn't mean you can't still hold on to your beliefs and serve those who voted for you as best you can.

[Zlaxer]

https://www.quora.com/Is-Chinas-economy ... f-collapse

Not having performed as good as the numbers show all the time, China was on the verge of an economic depression less than three years ago. Exports were falling, business indicators were down, and consumer confidence was at an all-time low. The economy was reportedly still growing at 6.9%, but no one seemed to believe it. China seemed headed for its first recession in several decades.

Interestingly, the Chinese government, after laying eyes on the grave but true facts, did something no other country’s authorities would have possibly considered the solution- they fired the statistician. The forthright head of China’s National Bureau of Statistics, Wang Baoan was soon removed from the position he held on corruption charges which many criticized.

Here's to hoping this is true - FUCK THE PRC.

[heydaralon]

You're describing the UK. And the EU is a market liberal, super-capitalistic institution. Marxists - no matter if you're using the retard definition or the real definition of the term - have no power there.

You guys just hate freedom is all. No big deal, I'm not living there, but its pretty neat to have in the US.

Lol, the only area where you have more freedom than my country is slightly more freedom of speech. We don't jail parents for letting their children play outside, we don't jail people for standing still in the street, we don't jail people for having a beer in public, our police don't gun down non-criminal citizens every time they get scared of their fellow citizens, we don't take away the liberties of prison inmates - especially not for life and after they've served their time, and a man who was born poor in Denmark is born with more opportunity for moving upwards socially than someone born in the US.

Oh, and kids here are allowed to eat Kinder Surprise Eggs... apparantly the American State deems its citizens to dumb to safely and freely handle this:



Of course, they also deem it too unsafe for their citizens to have a multiparty system, to actually vote directly for their leaders instead of having "electors" make the choice for them.... but at least here, Americans will happily agree with the State that such a freedom would just lead to chaos, anarchy and doom. Oh, and most of you agree that your fellow Americans shouldn't be free to organize into unions, alot of you don't agree that your female fellow American citizens should be free to have an abortion.

At least Danes are ok with each other having freedom. Most of you hate each other's freedoms, it's a constant war to paint your opponents as the figurative or literal Antichrist out to eat your children, wether he's called a "Nazi" or "Fascist" or "Marxist" or "Leftist".

All of that may be true but Danish men frequently have sex with their livestock. Michael Booth said the number could be as high as 5% though the real number is at least 4 times that.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/denmarks- ... -its-legal
Part of this is due to the lack of available women who aren't wearing the hijab. Part of it is from ignorance due to poverty. Denmark doesnt even have its own NFL team. They are too poor to even afford a stadium. I pity you folks. I really do.

[Zlaxer]

The bear with the big tongue sort of makes sense now :snicker: :hiding:

[SuburbanFarmer]

sWe elect the executive directly; parliamentary systems do not.

No we don’t. We elect “electors”.

[Speaker to Animals]

sWe elect the executive directly; parliamentary systems do not.

No we don’t. We elect “electors”.

Jesus Christ, you think the electoral college applies to House and Senate??

[Speaker to Animals]

Parliamentary systems break down into two camps too. We also have many political factions, but the coalitions are formed at the voter level. Americans have far more power to influence outcomes. We elect the executive directly; parliamentary systems do not. Voters shift between ruling and opposition camps freely; parliamentary voters just have to hope the people they elect form alliances the voters want. The worst part is that, in a parliamentary system, opposition is fragmented.

In no universe do they have more choice or influence.

Often they do indeed break down into two coalitions. Sometimes, like in Sweden, or Italy, they don't... and that can lead to alot of negotiation and a government which will have to compromise with its own politics, and thus potentially let down those who voted for them.

But what you get in a multiparty system, is that more people, from all across the political spectrum get a say. Imagine if there was an American Reactionary Party, someone who on most issues represented your views. Now, imagine if there is a democratic party with views more aligned with nuke's interests, and another with Fife's interests, and yet another with Carlus's. Together you can form a coalition, and yes, you will have to make compromises, but the people who voted for you, still get representation. They don't in a duopolistic system, where more and more people are forced into voting for the least worst of an ever decreasing list of candidates. Duopoly means you risk getting ignored. With Trump you got lucky that it was your time to be heard, but what happens when his term is up (or he becomes too senile to govern)? No taxation without representation... how well did you feel represented before Trump? How well do you imagine you'll be after him?

You're saying the "worst" part is that opposition is fragmented. That's hardly a universal feature of opposition parties in democratic multi-party parliamentary systems, though. Being opposed to someone doesn't mean you should become ONE hive mind, does it? Doesn't mean you can't build alliances. Doesn't mean you can't still hold on to your beliefs and serve those who voted for you as best you can.

You are not listening to me. We have factions too. We align them at the voter level. The two political parties are coalitions. There is a realignment underway because what in a parliamentary system might be called a workers party is leaving the dems for the repubs. It would be like coalitions in your parliament breaking up, triggering a new government.

[BjornP]

All of that may be true but Danish men frequently have sex with their livestock. Michael Booth said the number could be as high as 5% though the real number is at least 4 times that.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/denmarks- ... -its-legal
Part of this is due to the lack of available women who aren't wearing the hijab. Part of it is from ignorance due to poverty. Denmark doesnt even have its own NFL team. They are too poor to even afford a stadium. I pity you folks. I really do.

Bestiality was outlawed either last year or the year before that. You know which country it's still legal to fuck the livestock, though? USA. So... guess you're more free to fuck goats than we are, now.

and...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_Am ... Federation

The number of hijab wearing woman, though? Oh yeah.... that's true. Black is the favorite choice of color for women's clothing, but since we don't want to offend the Swe... uh.. Muslims... we demand that our women wear hijab. Not legally demand, of course, we just stare at them and bitch passive-aggresively about them shaming someone else's honor. That's freedom.

[BjornP]

You are not listening to me. We have factions too. We align them at the voter level. The two political parties are coalitions. There is a realignment underway because what in a parliamentary system might be called a workers party is leaving the dems for the repubs. It would be like coalitions in your parliament breaking up, triggering a new government.

Except in your system, there can only be two factions. If some member from Faction A has an idea that neither Faction A or Faction B would agree with, he can either try and change the entire party ideology of Faction A or B... or he won't stand a chance at winning. If Trump had lost to some of the other Republican candidates for president, who would be representing your interests as a Trump voter? The candidate you were opposed to the day before?

Look, I have no doubt it provides alot of political stability. And the realignment you speak of, you're probably right about that, too. It's great that you, yourself, alone get better representation, but what of the 350 million other Americans? They all going to agree with the new Republican party, the old Democratic party? Why would you for that matter want people in your party with allegiances to an ideology rejected by the new guy in charge?

More choice, more competition, more freedom, more representation...that's a good thing, and the only thing preventing it from manifesting itself into better democratic representation, would be your low expectations of yourselves as citizens and a fear that "chaos" and "anarchy" would follow in the wake of being allowed more choice, more responsibility. That's not to say you should become totally anarchistic and allow any choices to be made, freedom doesn't mean letting anyone who feels like it near power - I don't mind Nazis or Communists... untill they try and gain political power.