Democrats=Losers? There's now proof.

The real difference between a parliamentary system and the American system is that in a parliamentary system, you form coalitions AFTER the election, not before, (the American system).

It IS true that the activist Christian element is a big chunk of the Republican Party, and that it could prove divisive, but it hasn't yet.

But that's a small problem compared to the Democratic Party collapse.

I've been saying for two years that the Democratic Party, in a parliamentary system, would have already collapsed, and have been replaced by two parties.

One would be a 'progressive' wing : mostly professionals, and possessed of the literate, theorhetical wing of the party. Something like the NDP. It's interesting that the word 'progressive' started cropping up, resurrected from long ago, as a term used by those overly-concerned, moralizing, Democrats, at about 2002 or 3. This wing would include the environmentalists and the various X-rightsists.

The other wing would be the old labor and city machiene Democrats, who still have power in various local elections but no real theory behind them beyond getting government contracts and divying up the patronage.

The past two presidential elections, the progressive, American NDP side has managed to push their kind of candidate into the party nomination, and both times the party has ended up with someone who looks like a president from Hollywood central casting, but who has been emphatically boring.

Or, I could be completely wrong.

.

You're wrong about the religious element of the Republicans. It's been very decisive as of late as evidenced by the incessant pandering by Mullahs DeLay and Frist who seem to think that the religious right are a vehicle to greater office.

La religion et la politique ne devrait JAMAIS se mélanger... :roll:

Les démocrates aurraient dut gagner. Les USA aurraient peut-être pus réparer une partie des pots cassés!

En passant, voici un p'tit vidéo bien amusant!

http://www.ericblumrich.com/idiot.html

Here's a note from one of the liberal judges on the most liberal Federal Court in the USA - the Ninth Circuit. Excerpts below...

http://open-spaces.com/article-v3n1-oscannlain.php

[quote=Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain]
"The role of the judge is thus limited to determining whether the law has been enforced "correctly." This determination is traditionally conceptualized as having two elements. First, the relevant facts must be wholly and accurately established; second, the law must be faithfully applied to the relevant facts."

"One can view the guarantees of individual rights in the Constitution as our nation's documented consensus on where to draw the limits of law."

"When a judge is swayed by his own sentiment rather than considerations of deference, predictability, and uniformity, he fails by definition to apply the law faithfully. This is the essence of judicial activism."

The remedy for a bad law is to change the law through legislative action, not to depart from it one way or the other in the courts. The solution, in short, is democracy-the political process-and not judicial activism.
[/quote]

Judicial activism is a short-circuiting of the democratic process. It is the creation of laws without proper debate, it is, in short, dictatorship in a black robe.

The Democrats use judicial activism to push the more radical aspects of their agenda that even Democrat controlled legislatures like those in California, Massachussetts, and New York will never support!

It is a tyranny of the minority.