Best leader your country never had

Given we don't have a continental European or Westminster system, who gives a fudge how they work? That's totally irrelevant to us. We're not continental Europe or Westminster, we're America. How do you do, pleased to meet you.


Link to video.
 
Your internal stuff has much more bearing on the world than any other country's internal stuff. With great power comes great scrutiny. You could say it's tall-poppy syndrome to an extent, I guess.

It's interesting you bring up the monarchy issue, because it's a good reminder to me that things can be understood in a totally different way from the inside. I'm a republican, but I'd bet I see much more justification in the monarchist argument than you would.
I think a big factor is also that we all live a little bit in America on account of the popularity of its shows, movies etcetera

Another big factors is probably also that the national myths of America combined with a relative ignorance of the rest of the world are a bit provocative....

It all seems to come together, a perfect storm of urging to lecture those dame Americans ;)
 
Another big factors is probably also that the national myths of America combined with a relative ignorance of the rest of the world are a bit provocative....

But wait...one of our national myths is that we know more about the rest of you than you know yourselves.

Are you saying that isn't true? :sad:
 
But wait...one of our national myths is that we know more about the rest of you than you know yourselves.
No it isn't...
It's that we think we're all that matters. Ironically, foreigners obsessed with the USA and its policy, what we should and shouldn't do, seem to as well.
 
Because we have the judicial system we have, appointed judges have had a good track record of protecting the minority viewpoint. Unfortunately, while that's had some positive results in civil rights, it has often meant the minority view of the rich and extra-enfranchised.

We Californians like our direct democracy but we're surprisingly cautious about it. Though bad laws get through all the time (as it is with democracy), the default vote is "no" on all things. This is how Schwarzenegger twice took a shellacking when he tried to maneuver his legislative agenda around the Senate/Assembly by calling for special elections. We don't like games.
 
You're right about the appointment of judges, it is clearly not an open ball game.

I think, Hygro, the difference is, you aren't a statist like some. Statists seem to think that the government is de facto better (both than the citizenry or the other levels of government).
It's both cynical and incorrect.

Condorcet said something to the effect of, if they are talented enough to get elected, they have merited it. Now, that really only works on a local level, of course, which is closer to being able to uphold the general will and social contract.
 
Because we have the judicial system we have, appointed judges have had a good track record of protecting the minority viewpoint. Unfortunately, while that's had some positive results in civil rights, it has often meant the minority view of the rich and extra-enfranchised.

We Californians like our direct democracy but we're surprisingly cautious about it. Though bad laws get through all the time (as it is with democracy), the default vote is "no" on all things. This is how Schwarzenegger twice took a shellacking when he tried to maneuver his legislative agenda around the Senate/Assembly by calling for special elections. We don't like games.

When the election of judges actually hits the radars, be they recall or to get in office in the first place, the minority views of the rich and extra-enfranchised are not going to be ameliorated by those campaigns. You have the extra-enfranchisement along with a side helping of crapping on civil rights. The hallmark achievement of judicial recall elections, for example, has not been rooting out corruption. It's been rooting out justices who have dared to rule in favor of gay rights in states where that action was unpopular.
 
When the election of judges actually hits the radars, be they recall or to get in office in the first place, the minority views of the rich and extra-enfranchised are not going to be ameliorated by those campaigns. You have the extra-enfranchisement along with a side helping of crapping on civil rights. The hallmark achievement of judicial recall elections, for example, has not been rooting out corruption. It's been rooting out justices who have dared to rule in favor of gay rights in states where that action was unpopular.
Lots of blanket statements in here that I'll need citations for...
I bold-faced them.
 
Do you think giving the Koch brothers more say in judicial elections will have the effect of decreasing the enfranchisement of the rich? It's starting to heat up now with the first real political spending of note hitting the judicial branch.

A short bit of google fu will take care of anti-homosexual recall campaigns.
 
Do you think giving the Koch brothers more say in judicial elections will have the effect of decreasing the enfranchisement of the rich? It's starting to heat up now with the first real political spending of note hitting the judicial branch.

A short bit of google fu will take care of anti-homosexual recall campaigns.
Ok, so, no citations provided...
You posted it, you back it up.

As for elections, are you just defaulting any election to corporations and the evil Koch brothers?
Because that's pretty niave.

I doubt that the Koch brothers are spending a lot of $$$ in county or city judge elections.
 
I almost never source, I don't like that game. You can take it for what it's worth or pitch it. Your call.

The Koch brothers aren't evil btw, they're just big players.
 
Then you shoot your credibility in the foot.

Sourcing isn't a "game".

It isn't even saying you are wrong... but that your original source could be wrong, or that it was misread, etc.
 
Top Bottom