The senate, is literally the House of Lords. If the House of Lords had zero rules, and was based around everyone being, “gentlemanly,” to each other. Nothing exemplifies this than the fucking three month transition period bullshit. The Brits do it in a DAY, but we need 3 months?
-
-
Replying to @JSPartisan @arthur_affect and
The American Senate has way more power than the House of Lords. The HoL can't even reject money bills. Also, the amount of power the president has, which was directly based on how much power King George III had. I've seen people say Americans re-elect George III every four years.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @WenSchw @arthur_affect and
It has more power, but it literally has more unwritten rules than fucking baseball. It’s nothing but unwritten rules and it’s driven by this idiotic civility. Also, all the damn presidential power was basically held in check, by idiotic civility, then dubya happened, and...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JSPartisan @WenSchw and
There are written rules, in the form of parliamentary procedure, to which the HoL is also subject There are no unwritten rules that are inherent to the American system; there are unwritten rules that are inherent to the bipartisan consensus, which exist in every system
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @epistemophagy @JSPartisan and
And the consensus is bipartisan even in systems which are superficially multipartisan Look, again, at Australia — there are about seven parties in each chamber and they make up a decent portion of the legislature, but most Australians would agree they have a two-party system
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @epistemophagy @JSPartisan and
Taiwan explicitly works this way - there are many parties, including tiny single issue parties, but the parties are officially sorted into two coalitions labeled by color, the Pan-Blue Coalition (conservative) and Pan-Green Coalition (progressive)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @arthur_affect @JSPartisan and
Each one being led by one big party (the Pan-Blue Coalition is led by the KMT, the Chinese Nationalist Party, the Pan-Green Coalition is led by the DPP, the Democratic Progressive Party) whose names are usually just used synecdochically for the coalitions in the news
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @JSPartisan and
It's funny because there is an actual Green Party, as part of the international "Green Party movement", that does caucus with the Pan-Green Coalition, but is not what it's named after and is not very important in it
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @JSPartisan and
Green parties: almost always irrelevant the world over.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @WenSchw @JSPartisan and
One of the smallest parties in Taiwan to be big enough for a Wikipedia page is the Trees Party, which was founded by one of the founders of the Taiwan Greens who broke with them for compromising too much and no longer being truly Green
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Their signature issue is, literally, planting more trees in Taipei (Well, "their", it's just him) To be fair they've never wavered or compromised on it
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @WenSchw and
Chinese does not have a grammatical distinction between singular and plural nouns but when people told him "Trees Party" is an awkward English translation and it should be "Tree Party" he refused to change it Because one tree is not enough
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @arthur_affect @JSPartisan and
/r/trees would agree that's an excellent name.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.