I know a Russian doctor (so not stupid) who lives near me who is still convinced that Stalin was a top bloke. Well, that's what she was taught at school for years. Worse, she's not actually Russian but Ukrainian.
In some ways America is not unlike North Korea - the real world is very different than their citizens believe, and neither country is quite the utopia it's leadership would like its citizens to believe
Glid - I know Americans that still believe that JFK was a top bloke, and not a nutter that brought the world to the brink of nuclear conflict, was personally responsible for the Bay of Pigs fiasco, lead America into the Viet-Nam war, and had serious connections with the criminal underworld including the mafia. There are people in the UK who would have you believe that Tony Blair was a great guy too... Funny what people believe...
I agree Boots... The problem is that the American "right" have got the government that they deserve, but not the one they want...
Thats not the case in the states it would appear, they voted Obama but the others are taking control anyway. Maybe the condemsaren't that bad after all
Were the 'others' not elected also. Maybe The Founding Fathers new what they were doing when they created the US and built in checks and balances that we do not have in our elected dictatorship. Government in the US is split into the Executive run by the President and Congress which is the legislative body.
The elected US President holds executive power as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, but does not have legislative power. The power to finance government and collect taxes requires legislative authority, which depends on the elected Congress. Thus Congress cannot control the executive directly but always has the power to refuse finance. Normally Congress does not wish to appear irresponsible by shutting down government finance, but just occasionally a group of nutters gains enough influence for a time to do so. Reminds me of the problem faced by King Charles I in 1640, and the similar problem faced by King Louis XVI of France in 1789. Neither event turned out well. We in the UK have a different lot of checks and balances. A Prime Minister can be thrown out at any moment, if he loses the confidence of the House of Commons. There has to be a Commons majority for government finance, because if not there has to be a new government which does have a majority.
In the US the President is elected by a separate vote from Congress whereas in the UK the Prime Minister is the leader of the party gaining a majority (or coalition) and thus is head of both the executive and law making elements of government. I think the US system is more likely to curtail extremes than the UK system.
That is the trouble with democracy. What is curtailed is the President, when they have lost the House.
Great! A Tea Party spokesman (at least as far as this forum is concerned). Can you explain what the Tea Party is beefing about? What gets their goat about Obama Care (sic) - enough to shut down the country rather than it becoming law?
Sorry I cannot explain anything as I have not decided which side of the fence I want to argue for. Neither have I decided which opinion i might or might not use as a starter.
