Seems like these forums are saturated with political discussions about American politics. ESPECIALLY now that our elections are coming up.

How are things outside of our little cocoon?

How are our "socialist" friends across the pond dealing with the global recession?

How are the wealthy and the poor fairing in the Euro zone?

Does the Romney/Obama outcome affect anyone outside of the cocoon?

Wrong forum.

Stymie said:

Wrong forum.

Sorry...Mods; a little help please?

.

[Edited 9/21/12 11:35am]

SHAZAAAM!!!

RenHoek said:

SHAZAAAM!!!

I found UK politics refreshing and I was glad that I was in the UK for the last US election. It was so easy doing absentee ballots and not getting messages on my mobile phone every day about voting.

Thankfully only 40 some more days of this circus!

Oh and a side note, most ppl in the UK were very happy when Obama won, they thought GW Bush was an idiot.

[Edited 9/21/12 6:49am]

Shanti0608 said:

I found UK politics refreshing and I was glad that I was in the UK for the last US election. It was so easy doing absentee ballots and not getting messages on my mobile phone every day about voting.

Thankfully only 40 some more days of this circus!

Oh and a side note, most ppl in the UK were very happy when Obama won, they thought GW Bush was an idiot.

[Edited 9/21/12 6:49am]

Few people DIDN'T.

PurpleJedi said:

Shanti0608 said:

I found UK politics refreshing and I was glad that I was in the UK for the last US election. It was so easy doing absentee ballots and not getting messages on my mobile phone every day about voting.

Thankfully only 40 some more days of this circus!

Oh and a side note, most ppl in the UK were very happy when Obama won, they thought GW Bush was an idiot.

[Edited 9/21/12 6:49am]

Few people DIDN'T.

Funny how someone can get 2 terms yet no one liked him or voted for him.

Shanti0608 said:

PurpleJedi said:

Few people DIDN'T.

Funny how someone can get 2 terms yet no one liked him or voted for him.

No...plenty of people voted for him...he was our "savior" from gays, terrorists, and hybrid human-animal clones.

Question for the Brits: does the Prime Minister have final say over everything? When does the monarchy flex its muscle?

PurpleJedi said:

Shanti0608 said:

Funny how someone can get 2 terms yet no one liked him or voted for him.

No...plenty of people voted for him...he was our "savior" from gays, terrorists, and hybrid human-animal clones.

Question for the Brits: does the Prime Minister have final say over everything? When does the monarchy flex its muscle?

Prime Minister would have to go to Parliment for things like going to war. The process of "electing" a PM is totally different than in the US and his term limit is not set to an actual day like it is here. A PM has to call an election within five years. They vote for a party there where as we vote for a person.

The monarchy (Queen) can flex her muscles but it is a constitutional monarchy.

This website is helpful to understanding it all:

http://www.royal.gov.uk/M...ament.aspx

Shanti0608 said:

PurpleJedi said:

No...plenty of people voted for him...he was our "savior" from gays, terrorists, and hybrid human-animal clones.

Question for the Brits: does the Prime Minister have final say over everything? When does the monarchy flex its muscle?

Prime Minister would have to go to Parliment for things like going to war. The process of "electing" a PM is totally different than in the US and his term limit is not set to an actual day like it is here. A PM has to call an election within five years. They vote for a party there where as we vote for a person.

The monarchy (Queen) can flex her muscles but it is a constitutional monarchy.

This website is helpful to understanding it all:

http://www.royal.gov.uk/M...ament.aspx

thanks!

PurpleJedi said:

Shanti0608 said:

Prime Minister would have to go to Parliment for things like going to war. The process of "electing" a PM is totally different than in the US and his term limit is not set to an actual day like it is here. A PM has to call an election within five years. They vote for a party there where as we vote for a person.

The monarchy (Queen) can flex her muscles but it is a constitutional monarchy.

This website is helpful to understanding it all:

http://www.royal.gov.uk/M...ament.aspx

thanks!

I am sure a real Brit orger can be more helpful. I wish the US elections were more like theres. Less drama and less yard signs, bumper stickers....

PurpleJedi said:

Shanti0608 said:

Funny how someone can get 2 terms yet no one liked him or voted for him.

No...plenty of people voted for him...he was our "savior" from gays, terrorists, and hybrid human-animal clones.

Question for the Brits: does the Prime Minister have final say over everything? When does the monarchy flex its muscle?

As Val said, we vote for a party, not a PM. If a party has a majority in the commons, then yes they in essense have free rein to implement their manifesto. As such, UK policy directions can change quite drastically from one period of parliament to the next.

You guys obviously have much more in-built limitations on presidential/party power. So we get the benefit of having a clearer direction and accountable govt, but you guys get, arguably, more stability and consistency. We also dont have a formal constitution to further limit govt action.

The monachy really only have a symbolic role.

[Edited 9/21/12 8:16am]

razor said:

PurpleJedi said:

No...plenty of people voted for him...he was our "savior" from gays, terrorists, and hybrid human-animal clones.

Question for the Brits: does the Prime Minister have final say over everything? When does the monarchy flex its muscle?

As Val said, we vote for a party, not a PM. If a party has a majority in the commons, then yes they in essense have free rein to implement their manifesto. As such, UK policy directions can change quite drastically from one period of parliament to the next.

You guys obviously have much more in-built limitations on presidential/party power. So we get the benefit of having a clearer direction and accountable govt, but you guys get, arguably, more stability and consistency. We also dont have a formal constitution to further limit govt action.

The monachy really only have a symbolic role.

[Edited 9/21/12 8:16am]

It is a great idea to vote for a party instead of a person. Wish we would do that here. It would be less like American Idol if we were to do that.

Shanti0608 said:

razor said:

As Val said, we vote for a party, not a PM. If a party has a majority in the commons, then yes they in essense have free rein to implement their manifesto. As such, UK policy directions can change quite drastically from one period of parliament to the next.

You guys obviously have much more in-built limitations on presidential/party power. So we get the benefit of having a clearer direction and accountable govt, but you guys get, arguably, more stability and consistency. We also dont have a formal constitution to further limit govt action.

The monachy really only have a symbolic role.

[Edited 9/21/12 8:16am]

It is a great idea to vote for a party instead of a person. Wish we would do that here. It would be less like American Idol if we were to do that.

Well...we do actually.

FIRST, the party elects a candidate, then when a candidate has been formally nominated by the party, you vote for that candidate/party.

Example; I was a Hillary supported for 2008. When she failed to get the nomination for the Democratic party, I voted for Obama because I wanted a DEMOCRAT in office. The same could be said for millions I'm sure. People tend to vote along party lines.

There are exeptions of course...I mean I'm not a registered Democrat so you can best believe that I'll vote Republican or Independent if the occassion calls for it. And you can always write-in your vote...so say I was staunchly AGAINST Obama in '08, I could've written in a vote for Hillary (just to prove a point).

PurpleJedi said:

Shanti0608 said:

It is a great idea to vote for a party instead of a person. Wish we would do that here. It would be less like American Idol if we were to do that.

Well...we do actually.

FIRST, the party elects a candidate, then when a candidate has been formally nominated by the party, you vote for that candidate/party.

Example; I was a Hillary supported for 2008. When she failed to get the nomination for the Democratic party, I voted for Obama because I wanted a DEMOCRAT in office. The same could be said for millions I'm sure. People tend to vote along party lines.

There are exeptions of course...I mean I'm not a registered Democrat so you can best believe that I'll vote Republican or Independent if the occassion calls for it. And you can always write-in your vote...so say I was staunchly AGAINST Obama in '08, I could've written in a vote for Hillary (just to prove a point).

I am not registered for any party. I just get tired of the flip flopping. A candidate will say one thing during a debate then do a different thing when in office.

In the UK God/religion doesn't come in to play during an election either.

Just little things I would change here along with the BS electoral college stuff that is so outdated.

Shanti0608 said:

PurpleJedi said:

Well...we do actually.

FIRST, the party elects a candidate, then when a candidate has been formally nominated by the party, you vote for that candidate/party.

Example; I was a Hillary supported for 2008. When she failed to get the nomination for the Democratic party, I voted for Obama because I wanted a DEMOCRAT in office. The same could be said for millions I'm sure. People tend to vote along party lines.

There are exeptions of course...I mean I'm not a registered Democrat so you can best believe that I'll vote Republican or Independent if the occassion calls for it. And you can always write-in your vote...so say I was staunchly AGAINST Obama in '08, I could've written in a vote for Hillary (just to prove a point).

I am not registered for any party. I just get tired of the flip flopping. A candidate will say one thing during a debate then do a different thing when in office.

In the UK God/religion doesn't come in to play during an election either.

Just little things I would change here along with the BS electoral college stuff that is so outdated.

Yeah that gets me...!

We are taught since we're little that America is all about Freedom of Religion, and that we have Separation of Church & State.

AND YET...Obama has to sit there and defend his religion???? The nuts on the right keep referring to him as "the Muslim"...because, you know, that's EVIL right?

Are there other first-world countries out there where the religious affiliation of the candidates is so important?

RenHoek said:

SHAZAAAM!!!

The reason Margaret Thatcher had to support the National Health Service was because of pressure from labor, when it was labor.

2freaky4church1 said:

The reason Margaret Thatcher had to support the National Health Service was because of pressure from labor, when it was labor.

"Labor" as in Labor Unions?

I'm not sure if this is what you are looking for but here in Canada we have had a fairly right-wing Prime Minister for about six years now. I mention this since some Americans view us as godless, socialist pinkos.

in england, no one really gives a shit about the economy, everyone is freaking out over the badger cull. i tell ye! there gonna be riots!!

plus we make videos when politicians mess up, this made front page news last week

http://www.youtube.com/wa...wFKZiV5wUw

ZombieKitten said:

Politics OUTSIDE of the states??? No such thing

I am confused as to what they mean about "outside the states"

rialb said:

I'm not sure if this is what you are looking for but here in Canada we have had a fairly right-wing Prime Minister for about six years now. I mention this since some Americans view us as godless, socialist pinkos.

Does the right wing in Canada try to get rid of your "socialist" healthcare???

OnlyNDaUsa said:

ZombieKitten said:

Politics OUTSIDE of the states??? No such thing

I am confused as to what they mean about "outside the states"

PurpleJedi said:

rialb said:

I'm not sure if this is what you are looking for but here in Canada we have had a fairly right-wing Prime Minister for about six years now. I mention this since some Americans view us as godless, socialist pinkos.

Does the right wing in Canada try to get rid of your "socialist" healthcare???

Contrary to what myths some desperate opponents to the system -- mostly American, incidentally -- try to weave together, no.

Criticism tends toward repairing inefficiencies (e.g. costs and wait times) and, at most, championing somewhat more relaxed regulations on privately funded provision of otherwise publicly insured services. But federally mandated, provincailly insured public care as the basis of Canada's model is consistently supported by the majority of all Canadians, per several independent research findings through the years.

PurpleJedi said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

I am confused as to what they mean about "outside the states"

Lammastide said:

PurpleJedi said:

Does the right wing in Canada try to get rid of your "socialist" healthcare???

Contrary to what myths some desperate opponents to the system -- mostly American, incidentally -- try to weave together, no.

Criticism tends toward repairing inefficiencies (e.g. costs and wait times) and, at most, championing somewhat more relaxed regulations on privately funded provision of otherwise publicly insured services. But federally mandated, provincailly insured public care as the basis of Canada's model is consistently supported by the majority of all Canadians, per several independent research findings through the years.

This American would appreciate and welcome a healthcare system like you have. Sadly here it is presented as being a Socialist thing and the S word is bad in this country. We wold rather see our citzens starve and die from lack of health insurance than raise taxes to pay for things like healthcare.