On Monday, 19 March 2018 3:11:02 PM AEDT Trent W. Buck wrote:
Mexicans who don't speak English will find it difficult to follow US politics. Even though there's a huge Spanish-speaking minority in USA? :-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_language_in_the_United_States
"United States [is] the third-largest Hispanophone country in the world, after Mexico and Colombia."
I think it's easier for a Mexican to follow the politics of USA than the politics of Spain.
People who don't speak English will find it difficult to follow American politics.
My point was to poke holes in your (apparent) implication that because Australia is an English-majority country, we can only understand and hang out with other English-majority countries, and (therefore) that Mexico and USA can't understand one another because USA is English-majority and Mexico is Spanish-majority.
I never said that we could only associate with English speaking countries. Merely that it's a lot easier for the majority of Australians who only speak English. Try reading articles about Spanish politics through Google Translate some time. I've tried it and it's difficult, unpleasant, and gives the impression of being inaccurate.
Of course there will be significant interest in US politics given how much US politics matters to them, compared to Spain for example where they can easily follow the news but it won't matter much to them.
Why do you think it's at all controversial that the US has a major influence on Australia?
That was not my intention.
You initially started talking about the US, and when I asked why, you said (paraphrasing) they're a shit anglophone country, and when I asked why you focused on anglos, you said (paraphrasing) they're the only ones we have a relationship with.
So I was like: "hang on, yes, we interact with the US, but not ONLY them. China drives our economic policies and Indonesia drives our military policies".
Name the last 3 occasions that we went to war to support Indonesia. The TPP was not foisted upon us by China. While the US has stopped pushing it, that's where it appears to have originated.
Having a PM elected by parliament instead of an elected president makes a significant difference to politics.
Er, if you mean here in Australia, AFAIK the way it works is this:
1. party X elects a leader Y (i.e. only party X members vote) 2. party X gets a majority of seats 3. party X goes to the Queen (via GG) and says
Dear Queenie, We'd like to form a government, with Y as your PM, is that OK?
4. The Queen (via GG) rubber-stamps it (unless she's REALLY REALLY REALLY angry).
In this system, if the ALP has a majority, other elected MPs (e.g. from the Greens or Nationals) have no say in who the PM is.
Unless of course you have a coalition government in which case whoever forms the coalition gets a say. Usually they won't want to make an issue out of who is PM as they have other things they want to push. But they could. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/