Gennifer Flowers.

[Dill]

(10-07-2016, 10:57 PM)hollodero Wrote: OK, the first question already got thoroughly answered. For once I will avoid the Trapp trap I somehow always end up walking into. 

(Ja, ihr geht's mir mit den blöden Trapps schon ordentlich auf den Arsch. )

And yeah it's spelled with an "Ö" at the beginning. Ö as in Motörhead.

It's hard not to suggest you have a broader political spectrum then just red and blue. So people can vote their interest and not just the lesser of two evils. 
(And don't even mention primaries there. That's a semi-democratic process at best.) 

But concluding: Your system feels broken. When half of the people do not vote that seems like clear evidence.
I do not claim our parliamentary system or our proportional voting system is without flaws, there are tons. But when I vote, my vote counts for the party I voted for, I would be frustrated if that weren't the case. And I have at least four to five serious contenders who get their share of seats in the parliament if people vote for them. (Including the idiots who vote, which IS a flaw.) A Ralph Nader situation, where even supporters have to vote for someone else against their interest just to avoid a "bigger evil" - these instances feel utterly frustrating. Which leads to the fact that there are just Democrats and Republicans and really nothing else (except the clueless, yet entertaining clown Gary Johnson - I do know there are some, just no serious ones that don't just grasp wasted votes). 

Just imagine a "Sanders party", a Hillary party, a conservative party and a Trump party. Johnson can run too (if he makes 5%, then he gets a few seats, and why not. doubt he would in this scenario, though.) Wouldn't this election be more exciting, wouldn't that choice electrify more people? 

Damn, now I wrote a thousand words and didn't even get to the elephant. Which is you need to stop regarding your constitution as if it came directly from God. Things like an electoral college or the idea of forming a militia etc. had its real purpose in 1800, but now it's just pointless. I would have liked to stress this point about the constitution, but well. Already a thousand words. In a thread about Gennifer Flowers.

Thanks much Hollodero. This was above and beyond the call. (Die berumhte deutsche Gruendlichkeit gilt auch fuer Oesterricher, ich vermute!)

I share many of your views regarding the parliamentary system; I would add that the public becomes better informed when there is real, differentiated and articulated political spectrum before it. Without that we hear centrist Democrats regularly called "socialists"; our political discourse is often muddy, insufficient to the task of clarifying options and consequences.

My mention of "strength" was in scare quotes; a segment of our electorate believes we must affirm our power in word and deed or others will "test" us. If Putin invades a former satellite or Iran Pakistan threatens India or North Korea detonates a nuke or ISIS moves into the Levant it is because they all perceive Obama as "weak." Our European allies will feel safer if we bluster and rattle our saber. The bad guys will retreat. The addition of another aircraft carrier and two more nuclear subs to our navy will make ISIS think twice before attacking Americans.  Diplomacy=weakness. Even people in "petty" countries will no longer respect us if we seek peaceful solutions to conflict. No more apologizing for America!

Were I European, I would be anxious and wondering what sort of history is, or isn't, taught in U.S. Schools. Why is our press, with so little to fear compared to Russia or Iran, so timid?