A single party in a minor European country is NOT the same as understanding how the two major parties in the world's second largest democracy and the world's main economic and military power selects it's nominees for office. Nice try, but FAIL!Thats just a lame way to debate, like me saying you know nothing about politics in Europe because you do not know about the labor party meeting in the smallest and most remote place in Norway. It was just a silly joke and me trying to demonstrate how lame this was becoming.
This is the THIRD different link I have provided and others have provided linkes and you have yet to provide counter examples. If there was an example where the party leadership had disqualified a candidate, you should have been able to come up with one. Thanks for the belated admission.That link is quite interesting details btw, but still it does not prove the process once you register as a primary candidate in either party, but its satisfying enough evidence for me actually. I will from here on assume you are right on the issue, but really bash you if it turns out to be wrong. Thank you for the link, FINALLY!!!!
I don't think the US system is broken, but it certainly can be improved. It is clear, however, that based on your description of European parliamentary democracies that party leaders have a lot more power in selecting nominees than in the US. I also dispute the US is on the way to a civil war. We had that once. It is still a tramautic event in the psyche of U.S. history. I don't think it will be repeated any time in my lifetime.When I am saying the US political system and other systems are broken, I am talking about the broad and complete context of the whole political process and everything surrounding politics, as opposed to a functioning intelligent system and an ideal system, and then I also compare to a worst case scenario and identify where exactly our systems are.. So, the only conclusion is that the system is broken.. I rather like to look at the broad context of everything, because I know a lot about a lot of things, but not necessarily small technical details about everything, which is why its more interesting for someone like me to philosophize on the broader picture and the completeness of something, rather than tiny technicalities which doesnt really matter in the broader context no matter if its right or wrong. I particularily hate getting stuck in petty arguments over details as this tend to dislodge the discussion from its original purpose and broader context, which I usually speak in..
Fine, but the selection of nominees is a crucial part of the US political system. I hope myself and others have helped to enhance your understanding of it.I think you would be surprised to know the amount of details I know about things even though thats not my specialty. Interesting question lastly, compared to what I know about US politics and the US in general, how much do you think people in general here on the forum knows about European and European politics in comparison?
Remember, the US is a FAR MORE important country than France is. Also, due to the proliferation of US media around the world (ie CNN) people have a much closer look at the US than any other country in the world. Even in the local media of the country I live in, at least half of all foreign news coverage is from the US. The US is the most important country in the world, so this is hardly a surprise.Its also fascinating for me to know for example that people in the US or the UK and most of the world knows little about France in comparison to what the same people knows about the US, this due to language barriers and such, and I do have an appreciation for my own languages in this context, that I really understand not only what you "Angloes" understand only, but also dusins of others nations and handfuls of other languages, really almost as much as you know the US in your own language. Something to think about when you deal with me and the broader context of things.