why do americucks think they have democracy?

>>53729271
>>one of them are socialists
>>the other ones are racists
congrats, you sound like a stereotypical third worlder/facebook intellectual when discussing our political system

>>53729510
>implying im wrong

whats your arguments fat boy

>>53729738
you are wrong though, democrats are not socialists and calling republicans 'racist' as the main thing of their party s retarded

>>53729271
You must be 18 to use this website.

>>53729973
>"democrats are not socialists"
>state-economy
>obamacare
>allowing immigrants

>"calling republicans 'racist' as the main thing of their party s retarded"
>literally made trump presidential candidate
>oxymoronical doesnt want immigrants and being historically immigrants in same time
>hate niggers so much they even caused civil war in past

>cuck
Stopped reading there, mememaster.

>>53730539
t. ronalidnho

>>53730101


is what typical usamerican retard says when he feels offended and cant answer back

>>53729271
>t. Cenk Uygur

>>53730450
>the republican party "made" donald trump a candidate
Yup, underaged b& confirmed.

>>53730450
>implying you have any idea what youre talking about

>>53730450
>hate niggers so much they even caused civil war in past
That was the Democrats you fucking idiot. Lincoln and the north were Republicans, the south Democrats.

"we invented democracy" - barack obama

>>53730450
>turkish education

>>53731174
i know, and that makes it even more stupid cuz today its the exact opposide

There are plenty of other choices, they just never garner any substantial votes.

Cuck.

>>53731174
You're retarded if you think either party related to the political parties of today in anything besides names.

>>53731321
>americans actually believe this

>>53731315

Whoaoaoaooaaaaoaaaaa

Did it ever occur to u, that sometimesss thingsssss....... change?

File: 1448643484187.jpg (339KB, 900x637px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 900x637px

The turkroach is retarded but the point he was trying to make is valid. The way two-party systems go, and this happens in Canada as well, is that one party gets elected and shits all over the citizenry. The other party takes advantage of this to claim this wouldn't have happened if you voted for them, so they do the next term, and in turn piss everyone off. Then once it's been long enough the other party gets elected again, and this goes on forever. In essence the two are in a symbiotic relationship, because without the other one to switch places with they'd get lynched by the mob a few terms in.

>>53731391

As far as parties go, yeah. There's the Green Party, libertarians, freedom party, etc. But they rarely win votes, and politicians often choose to run under democrat or republican even if politically they don't identify with it.

For instance, Bernie Sanders is an independent who is campaigning as a democrat, even tho he calls himself a socialist.

The political system is more about individuals, less about political parties.

Cuck.

>>53731464
t-thanks
but im not roach like others here in turkey, but anyways.. thx leaf

>>53731561
>For instance, Bernie Sanders is an independent who is campaigning as a democrat, even tho he calls himself a socialist.

thx for proving im right

We have multiple parties. You goddamn retard.

>>53731797
but you can chose only 2 idiot. youre like extended version of single party commie-state

>>53731664

I know cockroaches don't have advanced senses of sight, but you should really work on your reading comprehension if you're going to post here.

>>53731664
And Hillary is a neocon running as a Democrat.

There goes your point.

>>53731884

No, you can choose any.

File: jackblackrape.png (517KB, 984x688px) Image search: [Google]

517KB, 984x688px

>2-party system
>literally zero difference between them

>>53731561
>>53731897
>here's the Green Party, libertarians, freedom party, etc.

>sander is socialist

>sander has to campaining as a democrat

are you fucking stupid fat boy

>>53732207
Again, Hillary Clinton is campaigning as a democrat also.

>>53732033
This election at least seems to be establishment vs antiestablishment. If Trump/Sanders make it to the general they're almost definitely gonna kick the shit out of suits like GW and Bongo (This time it's Hillary, Jeb!, and Cruz)

>>53732246
idiot youre confirming me, they HAVE TO campaining as democrat cuz you can only vote for democrats or republicans.

>>53732439
Buy you said democrats are socialists, yet Hillary Clinton is most certainly not a socialist.

Which is it roach?

considering we are not actually electing the president, because of the way the system is set up. We simply elect someone to vote on our behalf. this is the electoral college.

>>53732439
Just because they're running under that party doesn't mean they're representing all of the ideas of the party. Trump is a populist/nationalist Sanders is a Socialist, Hillary is basically a neocon

Since voters pick who runs in the primary your point is invalid

this is why bush beat algore

>>53729271
American parties are far more ideologically diverse than European parties.

>>53732671
That has affected one election 200 years ago

>>53732550
>democrat party act like exactly socialist party.
>hillary has to act campaining as a democrat. bcuz that only way you can vote for her

is it clear now burger boy?

>>53731401
It's really just a consequence of having democracy for so long. Eventually, Europe will all have two party monopolies like we do, you can already see it happening in the UK.

>>53732784
No, it isn't because what you're saying is retarded nonsense.

>>53732792
this was meant for OP

>>53732792
No, we've had a two-party system for as long as we've had parties. That's more of a product of having a first-past-the-post electoral system than the amount of time we've had democracy, especially given that the UK has been effectively democratic pretty much as long as we have.

File: feel_kek.jpg (40KB, 634x650px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 634x650px

>>53732775
>American parties are far more ideologically diverse than European parties.

by limiting the number of choices through economics and a party system we are left with a poor choice. Either way the election should be unlimited and uncompromising however the party system makes it easier to buy people.

>>53732775
Definitely not true.

>>53732775
even in turkey is more diversed than u.s.

File: murican_democracy.png (37KB, 378x501px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 378x501px

>>53732775

>>53732889
>>53732952
>>53733002
>>53733150
It is true, though. In most countries in Europe, if you're a politician, you have to vote with the party if you want any chance of further political success. But in America, parties are far less strong, allowing for much more internal variation. The Republican party, for example has moderates like John Kasich, libertarians like Rand Paul, evangelicals like Ben Carson, and neo-fascists like Donald Trump. The Democrats have socialists like Bernie Sanders, moderates like Bill Clinton, and social democrats like Elizabeth Warren. All of these politicians are allowed to vote as they like without any consequence. Meanwhile, in places with parliamentary systems, all Conservative politicians and Labour politicians have to vote exactly the same , or else they face risk of becoming backbenchers.

>>53733212
While we may only have two parties, there is far more diversity within each party than in any European party.

WATCH HILLARY CLINTON WHIP AND NAE NAE (VIDEO) (GONE WILD) (IN THE HOOD)

>>53733265
so how do you choice your government if youre liberal for example? you have to vote for liberals, socialst (yeah liberals and socialist at the same time, youd be the fun source if you do this in europe) democrats etc. at the same time. so you actually dont vote for liberal, you vote for whole party for example Democrats here.

yes in europe its liess diversity in parties because, it has much more diversity BETWEEN parties like, anyone can establish a party.

there is less diversity in parties bcuz people from same ideology is united already. you cant find liberal in socialst party or conservatives. everyone is in his own ideological partu already

>>53733581
That's what primaries are for. So, all of the Republican voters can discuss and vote on whether they want a libertarian, evangelical, moderate, fascist, etc., as can the Democrats. Then, in the general election, you can vote for the whole party. That's what's happening in our presidential election right now, and also happens for most other seats (Senate, House, governor, etc.) From a European perspective, it might make more sense to view American parties as like coalitions more than parties, simply because of the differences in ideological views.

>>53733778
so basically, your party debates then chose if they want to be liberal/socailst etc... then you vote for parties decision?? or i guess you doing the 2-round vote system??

>>53733212
But its not true.

America has no freedom ahah.

>>53734013
Basically. Right now, voters who are Republican are choosing and voting on which candidate (and thus, ideology) they want to run for president, as are the Democrats. And, in November, voters as a whole will decide whether they like the Republican or the Democrat better. It's an idiosyncratic system, sure, but it works pretty well.

File: 1447632715537.jpg (39KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 500x500px

We're a Republic, not a Democracy.

>>53729271
we don't, we have a federal republic, although many state/local governments are quite democratic.

>>53734144
>Right now, voters who are Republican are choosing and voting on which candidate (and thus, ideology) they want to run for president, as are the Democrats

"by voters are republican/democrat" you mean the public or party members?

>can only chose 2 parties
This isn't true, in theory or in practice.

We have choice to bring a third party candidate into the final run off, we also have to option to vote for the other parties like Green and TEA and Independent. But we never do because we're stupid and the media plays off our stupidity by only televising the Republican and Democrat shit.

>>53734559
Well, it varies from state to state. It's always members of the public that choose, but whether they have to be a registered party member varies. Most states have closed primaries, meaning that only registered party members can vote in that party's election (e.g. only registered Republicans can vote in the Republican election). Other states have open primaries, so anyone, regardless of party affiliation, can vote in one election (or both, in a couple states).

>>53730450
>>hate niggers so much they even caused civil war in past
Yeah they fought AGAINST the Southern States' right to own slaves. Emancipation was pushed by the Republicans (like Lincoln) and opposed by the Democrats.
>inb4 that's not the same, I'm not talking about them!
Yes you are. If you want to talk about conservatism versus liberalism, be my guest, but when you're talking about the US's two party system you have to talk in terms of Republicans and Democrats.

>>53734752
duh thats fucked up, and i wont call this "democracy". it would be really democracy even better than europe if it was 2-round votes BY PUBLIC but, as i see, you chose the ones who party members wants you do choese.

so my point is true, you dont elect president in your own choice, you elect as "which one is less worse"

The biggest problem isn't the fact that there are two parties, it's the fact that there isn't one at all. No matter who you vote for, lobbyists have the most control and nothing ever major gets changed because of the constitution. Not having any constitution is the only way to ensure democracy, but it requires a certain amount of trust in the system that politicians won't abuse their power. Unfortunately, due to the size and relative young age of America this isn't viable.

>>53731383
Republican party has always believes in free market and the right to a constitutional system (in Europe, Republicans wanted constitutional monarchy, in America they wanted our weird representative democratic system). Democrats in Europe were the radicals, they called for absolute monarchies. In America, they wanted more government involvement. That stayed true then and it still does now.

>>53734962
No, it's only members of the public that vote. Sometimes, though, they just have to spend 10 minutes online beforehand to say that they are a Democrat of a Republican. Party politicians have as much say on the matter as regular citizens.

>>53734842
again, in civil war who was supporting The South is the voters of republican TODAY

>>53735047
>. Most states have closed primaries, meaning that only registered party members can vote in that party's election (e.g. only registered Republicans can vote in the Republican election).>>53734752

this is un-democratic

>>53735181
It is not hard to register as a party member. It, again, only takes about 10 minutes on the Internet, for example. I'm an 18-year old who just registered Democrat on the Internet a week ago, and it was no trouble at all. And they only have that requirement so that Democrats can't vote for whichever Republican is least likely to win in the general election, for example.

>>53735081
Boi

File: topkek.pg.jpg (24KB, 446x500px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 446x500px

>>53735425
so let say im republican. i can easily register on internet as "democrat" and elect the one who is least likely to win the general election.
then, in general election i can vote for republicans, and democrat has to vote for their weakest candidate

>>53736128
You could techinically, but 99.999% of Republicans are going to register as a Republican, because that's the party they care about more and likely have a particular candidate they support. The number of people who do what you describe is almost zero and has never had a bearing on who gets the nomination.

>>53736316
so, trump is actually elected by republican voters from public?

>>53736470
Yes. He really does have a lot of supporters. And besides, most Democrats would fear having Trump being in the general election, because that means that he could win--a liberal's worst nightmare.

>>53736557
damn i never knew americans were neo-fascists

>>53731383
The turk is wrong nevertheless.

People demonize the GoP even though it wasn't even that long ago that they were the "good guys".

>>53736730
Yep, though I think that's mainly because a lot of working-class whites' wages are going down because of globalization, and are angry at the Republican establishment for not getting anything done. That and racism.

Trump supporters would still say that they are against fascism, even though they are neo-fascists in every way except name.

>>53731797
But de facto you don't, do you?

>>53736922
Yeah, though independents do occasionally get elected.

>>53729271
America has unique democracy, freedom and Christianity's ideas.

>>53737014
their democracy is less "democratic" than european ones

There's actually a ton of different parties. Republicrats tend to win because they get the votes. Plain and simple democracy.

>>53733212
That's so far from the truth it's fucking hilarious.

We literally have a party in the parliament RIGHT NOW which campaigned on the platform of "anti-capitalism" uses the colour red and a fucking 5 pointed star as it's symbol. Granted they only got 6% but they're in the fucking parliament.

>>53737845
What you just said does not contradict my earlier statement. What I was saying was that you have more parties, each with their own ideology, where the party screws politicians over if they vote against the party platform, while here there is more diversity within each party, and there is little consequence to voting as you like.

I was just using the UK Parliament as an example, I should have specified.

File: USA.jpg (127KB, 900x506px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 900x506px

>>53729271
It never ceases to amaze me how much the world knows about us when I haven't the faintest-fuckin' clue about anything that happens outside of our border. I mean, most of you recognize and know a few lines of our National Anthem or know the Pledge of Allegiance.

Like shit, are we really that relevant?

>>53735081
All people who supported the south during the civil war are long dead

>>53734361
You are an idiot, not a clever person

File: ayy.jpg (55KB, 700x349px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 700x349px

Who /edgy/?

>>53731116
Underrated

File: 1368826915944.gif (675KB, 137x186px) Image search: [Google]

675KB, 137x186px

>>53731464
>that pic

>>53738074
But you're wrong and even if you weren't it always boils down to one fucking candidate from each side that you have to vote and the congress is always democrat vs republicans either way.

>>53739453
>but you're wrong
k

In both Congress and for the presidency there are elections beforehand to vote for which kind of candidate each party runs, so it really doesn't work exactly the way you say it does.
>let me tell you about your country

>>53739612
>for the presidency there are elections beforehand to vote for which kind of candidate each party runs
Oh, great, does that mean the candidate I vote for gets to represent me or do I have to vote for another candidate I didn't want to because the previous one didn't get to the "next round"?

>>In both Congress
Ah, so Congress isn't split on democrats vs. republicans then? Is that so?

>so it really doesn't work exactly the way you say it does.
I get the feeling you aren't even aware.

>>let me tell you about your country
Funny you say that right after schooling us on how things, not just in my country, but "Europe" in general are.

File: 1920px-EIU_Democracy_Index_2014_green_and_red.png (351KB, 1920x848px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 1920x848px

That's rich, coming from T*rkey

>>53729271

Look I know there's plenty wrong with our political system. We all know this. It's not like you're posting breaking news here. But it's pretty obvious you haven't the faintest idea what you're actually talking about.

File: 747484848.jpg (24KB, 495x495px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 495x495px

>mw no one bothers us for pretty much having a 2 party system because we have 1 extra irrelevant party that will never win and just splits votes.

>>53739804

Congress is split between dems and reps because the people voted them in that way.

If everyone simply voted third party then it wouldn't be like this.

>>53736895
People are just sick of the establishment in general, not just the GOP.

>>53738319
We're a big guy.

>>53739804
>Oh, great, does that mean the candidate I vote for gets to represent me or do I have to vote for another candidate I didn't want to because the previous one didn't get to the "next round"?
You get to vote for a candidate that suits your particular ideology, but if nobody else really likes him, you again get a chance to vote someone from the same area of the spectrum you are. Not every ideology gets represented, but then again, it's not like your "anti-capitalist" party influences policy either.
>Ah, so Congress isn't split on democrats vs. republicans then? Is that so?
Again, there's a primary system for Congress, so there's a lot of variety within the Republican and Democrat parties.
>I get the feeling you aren't even aware
I get the feeling that you've never even taken a political science course.
>Funny you say that right after schooling us on how things, not just in my country, but "Europe" in general are.
I was just using parliamentary systems, the most common in Europe, as a contrast to better explain our system. And besides, I was really only specifically using the UK system because that's the one I'm most familiar with. I wasn't pretending to know the particulars of each European country's political system, and you're fucking retarded if you think I was.
>>53740138
True, but I think Republicans are more sick than Democrats. Bernie is far more appealing to the Democratic establishment than Trump.

>>53740046
>Congress is split between dems and reps because the people voted them in that way.
That's not the point.

>>53740361
>You get to vote for a candidate that suits your particular ideology, but if nobody else really likes him, you again get a chance to vote someone from the same area of the spectrum you are.
Aha, until it boils down to Trump vs Hillary. Top fucking lel. Who the fuck are you fooling here you god damn idiot?

>Again, there's a primary system for Congress, so there's a lot of variety within the Republican and Democrat parties.
Is there a Republic and Democrat bloc or not.

>I get the feeling that you've never even taken a political science course
You probably did, didn't rub off on you though. I'd take it was also liberal coloured, with Trump being a neo-fascist and all that.

>I wasn't pretending to know the particulars of each European country's political system, and you're fucking retarded if you think I was.
Your quote: "It is true, though. In most countries in Europe"

>>53740361
>Bernie is far more appealing to the Democratic establishment than Trump.
No, college kids aren't the establishment. A year ago when I was in college, I'd probably be a berniefag like you. Once you move out, you'll change your mind.

>>53740824
This.

>>53740710
>ha, until it boils down to Trump vs Hillary. Top fucking lel. Who the fuck are you fooling here you god damn idiot?
A lot of people like Trump and Hillary. I don't see the issue with them being the nominees if that's how the majority feels.
>Is there a Republic and Democrat bloc or not.
There are, but because Republican and Democrat parties are ideologically diverse, and because there are primary elections, it doesn't present an issue in terms of the US being democratic.
>You probably did, didn't rub off on you though. I'd take it was also liberal coloured, with Trump being a neo-fascist and all that.
>Trump
>not a neo-fascist
Fuck off to /pol/ senpai. It's fine if you support him but don't act like he's anything other than a fascist.
>Your quote: "It is true, though. In most countries in Europe"
Again, I was making broad generalizations about parliamentary systems to better explain our own system. I was not pretending to inform anyone about how European political systems function.
>>53740824
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/stop-comparing-donald-trump-and-bernie-sanders/
Most Democratic Senators simply say they think Hillary has the talents to be president, while Bernie doesn't. The Republican establishment, on the other hand, openly fears a Trump nomination.

>>53741371
>A lot of people like Trump and Hillary. I don't see the issue with them being the nominees if that's how the majority feels.
It's not about what the majority feels you fucking idiot, it's about representation. What if none of them align with my view or in fact the view of, let's say, 20% of the population? Boo fucking hoo right? Just vote for one like a fucking idiot and deal with it while a fat fuck on the internet explains to you how you really have "plenty of choices".

>Fuck off to /pol/ senpai. It's fine if you support him but don't act like he's anything other than a fascist.
If I have to go to /pol/ for calling out your Nazi card you should go back to fucking reddit and stay there.

>I was not pretending to inform anyone about how European political systems function.
Yet it was precisely what you did. Not only that but you are also fucking wrong. You also based your shit on the fucking UK.

>>53741727
>What if none of them align with my view or in fact the view of, let's say, 20% of the population? Boo fucking hoo right? Just vote for one like a fucking idiot and deal with it while a fat fuck on the internet explains to you how you really have "plenty of choices".
Then you and those 20% vote for someone else.

>>53737132
Just die you fucking retard. Learn some shit before you start a shitfight

>>53741727
>It's not about what the majority feels you fucking idiot, it's about representation. What if none of them align with my view or in fact the view of, let's say, 20% of the population? Boo fucking hoo right? Just vote for one like a fucking idiot and deal with it while a fat fuck on the internet explains to you how you really have "plenty of choices".
It's not like voting for an anti-capitalist party that will never get a majority or be part of a coalition is true representation, either. In a democracy, there are going to be people who are upset with the current situation and not being properly represented, no matter the system.
>If I have to go to /pol/ for calling out your Nazi card you should go back to fucking reddit and stay there.
Tell me one way Trump's ideology differs substantively from a fascist's.
>Yet it was precisely what you did. Not only that but you are also fucking wrong. You also based your shit on the fucking UK.
Guess what? Every country that has a parliamentary system bases it on the UK's system! What an idea, right? And, despite the fact that you're taking every opportunity you have to call me an idiot, you have yet to demonstrate how what I said about parliamentary systems was wrong.

>>53740710

Yeah, it's not the point because it directly contradicts your narrative. I understand.

Democracy isn't perfect, it's not even great. But it's democracy.

>>53742286
BUT MY CHOICE AND BIG DIVERGENCE

>>53742317
>It's not like voting for an anti-capitalist party that will never get a majority or be part of a coalition is true representation
Oh but it can be easily if % are needed to form a government which usually means deals are struck and some of the parties programs are implemented. What do I get in the US? Jack shit?

>In a democracy, there are going to be people who are upset with the current situation and not being properly represented, no matter the system
Ahh, yes, might as well default to dictatorship, can't please every one, why even try. We should keep faulty and retarded systems while also defending them on the internet like somebody is paying me to do it.

>Tell me one way Trump's ideology differs substantively from a fascist's.
Yeah, more Nazi more nazi slander, was I an american I would not vote for him now.

>Guess what? Every country that has a parliamentary system bases it on the UK's system!
Wrong, you fucking idiot. Might as well call it based on fucking ancient Athens while you're at it. The UK is the furthest from a "general European parliament".

>you have yet to demonstrate how what I said about parliamentary systems was wrong.
Literally everything. But this isn't about European parliaments.

For starters, no one can force a party member on a seat to vote the "party line" and in fact kicking him out means losing a seat.

>>53742320
You're a fucking idiot. The entire point is about how there's allegedly a huge "ideological divergence" within the party yet you have a primitive left-right bloc. Fucking retard.

>>53743900
>Oh but it can be easily if % are needed to form a government which usually means deals are struck and some of the parties programs are implemented. What do I get in the US? Jack shit?
But most of the time, they are not going to be part of the ruling coalition, which means they can't do anything until next election. Meanwhile, in America, every Congressman can affect policy, regardless of whether their party is in power.
>Ahh, yes, might as well default to dictatorship, can't please every one, why even try. We should keep faulty and retarded systems while also defending them on the internet like somebody is paying me to do it
That's not a fucking argument. The parliamentary system's representation is flawed, just as America's is.
>Yeah, more Nazi more nazi slander, was I an american I would not vote for him now.
If you're going to act so high and mighty and least perfect your fucking English. I have no idea what you're trying to say.
>Wrong, you fucking idiot. Might as well call it based on fucking ancient Athens while you're at it. The UK is the furthest from a "general European parliament".
Are you going to argue that the UK did not originate the parliamentary system? Sure, different country's systems do vary, but in the end they are all based on the UK's, with some modifications.
>Literally everything
And yet you haven't come up with a single example.
>But this isn't about European parliaments.
You're the one who fucking brought it up.
>For starters, no one can force a party member on a seat to vote the "party line" and in fact kicking him out means losing a seat.
I never even said that. All I said was that if a politician doesn't vote the way the party wants him to, then the party can deny him any chances of becoming a cabinet member, etc. He gets to keep his seat, but most politicians do not want to lose all chances of political promotion, so the party forces him to vote against his views.

>>53744781
>which means they can't do anything until next election.
Wrong again, they're part of the opposition and thus usually vote against the coalition, and coalitions are not rock solid, thus even a 5 seats (out 90) can make a difference. In fact the latest gay rights law (which ultimately failed in a referendum) was proposed by the very same Commie party and WAS backed by the coalition. Wrong again. Not only that but individuals CAN vote with the government.

>Meanwhile, in America, every Congressman can affect policy, regardless of whether their party is in power.
How is that again?

>That's not a fucking argument. The parliamentary system's representation is flawed, just as America's is.
Every system is flawed, but we don't pretend ours is perfect like you do, and literally make up bed time stories for yourself.

>Are you going to argue that the UK did not originate the parliamentary system? Sure, different country's systems do vary, but in the end they are all based on the UK's, with some modifications.
Yes, I will argue, as the parliamentary system wasn't unique to the UK, and even if it was it has no fucking bearing on this discussions as those modifications are not "minor" neither is the parliamentary system of today like that of the 18th century. Bringing up the fact it may or may not be based on a certain system has no bearing on the fucking subject.

> All I said was that if a politician doesn't vote the way the party wants him to, then the party can deny him any chances of becoming a cabinet member, etc
No it can't, the party will lose his seat and he can just as easily join another party or start his own.

> He gets to keep his seat, but most politicians do not want to lose all chances of political promotion, so the party forces him to vote against his views.
Is why you have several, if not dozen, parties and a politician is not forced to be a republican or a democrat cuckold to achieve anything.

>>53735425
>for example. I'm an 18-year old who just registered Democrat on the Internet a week ago

Sound argument for why the voting age should be put back to 21.

>>53741371
>A lot of people like Trump and Hillary.

>a lot of people like Hillary
Uh...

>>53731116
fuck that guy, I want to punch his name

>>53745450
>Wrong again, they're part of the opposition and thus usually vote against the coalition, and coalitions are not rock solid, thus even a 5 seats (out 90) can make a difference. In fact the latest gay rights law (which ultimately failed in a referendum) was proposed by the very same Commie party and WAS backed by the coalition. Wrong again. Not only that but individuals CAN vote with the government.
Cool, that doesn't change the fact that most of the time the Commie party has little sway on what legislation gets passed. It's not perfect representation.
>How is that again?
Almost every Congressman has a committee seat, so he can vote on whether a bill lives to be voted on by the House/Senate as a whole, in addition to making modification to them. In addition, in order to win majorities, Congressmen's votes need to be won, regardless of party.
>Every system is flawed, but we don't pretend ours is perfect like you do, and literally make up bed time stories for yourself.
I literally just said that our system has its own flaws.
> Bringing up the fact it may or may not be based on a certain system has no bearing on the fucking subject.
Again, you were the one was fucking obsessed with the particulars of how European systems work. We could have just discussed the American system, but you didn't want to.
>No it can't, the party will lose his seat and he can just as easily join another party or start his own.
Just because the party doesn't instantly ban him from promotion doesn't mean that they wouldn't choose someone who is more faithful to the party doctrine than he is for a higher position. So, he might just have to cuck himself out to another party, or form another where he can stay irrelevant forever. Meanwhile, American politicians can vote as they want, no matter if their party likes it or not.

>>53745721
She is the Democratic frontrunner and is the person most likely to be our next president. As much as I hate her, a lot of people do support her.

>>53746295
>It's not perfect representation
It IS representations.

>Almost every Congressman has a committee seat, so he can vote on whether a bill lives to be voted on by the House/Senate as a whole in addition to making modification to them. In addition, in order to win majorities
You mean JUST LIKE every seat holder?

>Again, you were the one was fucking obsessed with the particulars of how European systems work. We could have just discussed the American system, but you didn't want to.
Because your retarded ass brought the European system into this.

>Just because the party doesn't instantly ban him from promotion doesn't mean that they wouldn't choose someone who is more faithful to the party doctrine than he is for a higher position.
They might as well, but they also lose a person, thus possibly votes, and he has more options than a fucking 2 party system.

>or form another where he can stay irrelevant forever
This is not the US. Our largest party leading the government is newly founded.

>>53729271
Propaganda is a powerful tool

>>53746726
>It IS representations
Just like our system is "representations."
>You mean JUST LIKE every seat holder?
Does your system really guarantee each seat holder a committee seat AND allow them to make decisions independent of their party's views? I kind of doubt that your country's system lets the latter happen, though I could be surprised.
>Because your retarded ass brought the European system into this.
I was using it to explain the American system. You're the one who fucking fixated on it for a dozen posts.
>They might as well, but they also lose a person, thus possibly votes, and he has more options than a fucking 2 party system.
Just because a person doesn't get promoted within the party doesn't mean he jumps ship and joins another instantly. And if he does, then he's fucking retarded for joining a party that doesn't even match his own views. And, like I said before, our two-party system doesn't penalize politicans like that at all.
>This is not the US. Our largest party leading the government is newly founded.
Yeah, because your country has only had democracy for a few decades. I bet that party was simply formed to replace other party(s) that had similar views anyway. And besides, just because the party represents his views specifically doesn't mean it wouldn't cuck other politicians into voting against their views, anyway.
Anyway, now we're debating minutiae. Just because our parties are looser than yours and are generally used just to sort politicians by which end of the spectrum they belong to doesn't mean we're not democratic. Our system works, as does yours.