I believe that he is a good person (out of politics) and does have good intentions, but bad ways of doing things. I think his healthcare law had a lot of potential in it but he killed it right off the bat by making it one large package. I fully support the parts about being able to stay on your parent's plan (wonder why...), plan covered birth control, etc. I also applaud the effort of trying to lower insurance costs. But in reality, many, many people saw a rise in their insurance costs, they lost the ability to go to medical centers they had been going to for years, and it is/was all blanket forced upon everyone, including those who religiously oppose it (I am not very religious myself, but I respect their right to hold beliefs). If they had passed it in 10 separate pieces, it would not only be easier to deal with, it would have had a chance of being bipartisan. From the beginning it was just a trap. It made the Democrats look good, but at the same time not allowing the Republicans to justifiably join in on it. By having so many things all together, the only way to fix it efficiently is to repeal it and start over, which is branded as a negative thing, again, purposely structured to make republicans look bad. By requiring private industry to do things in ways specifically not allowed in the Constitution, thus leading to private industry speaking up (mostly about how insurance plans have/had to cover birth control), they made it seem as if private industry is the devil. Again, purposely structured to smear. That is all American politics is, a big smear fest. Obama looks good and has a well projected image out of the states because his general foreign policy is to get our hands out of other people's business. It is a grand idea, but the way he has done it has been far too fast, as can clearly be seen in how the Middle East turned out. Should we have been there in the beginning? Almost certainly not. Does that mean we should hastily exit? Absolutely not. Obama's team sacrificed better stability (not perfect, but better) in favor face-saving. He as also inappropriately fueled the gun and race debates. He is a smart guy and he should know better than to create even more unrest about race before anything has been releases (Ferguson). He should also know that his campaigning against guns based off of emotions, shaming, and misunderstanding is completely unacceptable. Evidence of this can clearly be seen in the continued use of the term "Assault Weapon", which was politically created to be confused with "Assault rifle." Another thing he touted was cutting our deficit, which is not true. Any factors associated with reducing the deficit come from external happenings or short-term, party-image-boosting, unsustainable things that do nothing to reform areas of the government that actually need it. I will just leave it there. /rant lol Edit: Most of American politics (both parties) is lies, but promising change and then producing none (especially transparency/corruption wise) is just bad.
Question: Does the US have proportional representation? The UK has First Past the Post, which isn't democratic at all. An example of how screwed it is is this year's election: The SNP got 1.4 million votes and got 56 seats, UKIP got 3.7 million and 2 seats, and Labour had a 1.4% greater share of the vote than they did in 2010 and LOST 25 of their seats. There's a big petition happening right now to change to proportional representation, but since the Tories love it because it gets them into power, I don't see anything changing.
Depends how you look at it. We technically have proportional representation when it comes to congressional seats, but the electoral college (used for the presidential election) is not so proportional.
I'm in full support of a new electoral system. I just hate UKIP, because Farage is quite frankly an unpleasant man.
Good thing Nigel Farage resigned with Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg today. I'm sure he enjoyed getting bladdered in an interview last night and using 'I have a black friend' as an excuse for not being racist. Still: UKIP earned the seats they're supposed to have, whether people like it or not. Voting should be fair and democratic - that's the whole point of voting. Getting 2 seats but 2.2 million more votes than someone who got 56 seats is not fair, even if your party is made up of racist, sexist and homophobic nutjobs. With the current system, your vote doesn't matter as much as it should. The only reason why the Tories won is because of this bad system. If you want to stop the Tories getting into power, you have to level the playing ground and risk letting parties like UKIP in. Also, if you haven't seen it yet, this is the largest petition ever made that wishes to introduce proportional voting in the UK: http://chn.ge/1KRKY5E Sign it if you want a chance for your vote to matter in 2020 pls.
1. Doesn't save hostages in Syria. 2. Cares more about golf than a rising terrorist group 3. Wants to sell internet to either China or Russia and I could go on
And without even a glimpse at your other posts, I can automatically tell you are a left-wing biased. Here's a nice link for all you haters: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...l/1429295050/UKIPManifesto2015.pdf?1429295050
I am a Central Communist. I support Luxemburgism and Leninism. I am worse than Soul, in your opinion. I hold EXTREMELY leftist views. Haters? No, it is politics.
And what would the Republicans do? I dare say they would be worse in a hostage crisis. Just my opinion.
I've seen the manifesto. It's a good manifesto for the most part - if the people in UKIP actually stuck to it, stopped making stupid statements like 'immigrants caused traffic on the M56', 'immigrants caused London floods', and sorted their stuff out, I reckon they'd make a good party and be great candidates. IMO there's not much he can do about the hostage situation, and if that terrorist group is ISIS - he should be leaving them alone. They want him to go after them and get attention. Unless they start posing an actual threat to the US or its allies, they should keep their nose out. On the internet note: Its not his to sell, since its an international network (hence the 'inter' part in its name)- unless you're referring to him wanting to sell internet 'services' to both countries - that would be perfectly justified, since their governments censor a lot of stuff online (not sure about Russia, actually).
Well, if they are not haters, then what are they? Also, if they are racist for wanting to tighten the immigration policies and leave the EU, it's totally acceptable to let Brussels have high power over our laws and democracy and let immigrants come to the UK with no boundaries, hundreds of thousands upon hundreds of thousands of them, and demand benefits?
People who oppose the views of UKIP. Brussels are usually right, so yes. After all, we are finally under control of our German friends.
Because they clearly support discrimination. Haven't you seen the crap that some of their party members come out with? 'Women should only breastfeed in corners', 'women should only wear skirts', blah blah, 'immigration did [insert problem here'. Sausage-face. He doesn't even have a deputy PM with him this time ;(
