timelines:arhotf_america
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Next revision | Previous revisionLast revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
timelines:arhotf_america [2016/06/04 19:29] – created petike | timelines:arhotf_america [2016/06/04 20:12] – [See Also] petike | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
- | ==== See Also ==== | + | ====== |
+ | ---- | ||
- | | + | **//What do you mean by " |
- | | + | |
- | * [[timelines/ | + | |
- | * [[timelines/ | + | |
- | * [[timelines/ | + | |
- | * [[timelines/ | + | |
- | * [[timelines/ | + | |
- | | + | |
- | | + | |
- | * [[timelines/ | + | |
- | * [[timelines/ | + | |
- | * [[timelines/ | + | |
- | * [[timelines/ | + | |
- | * [[timelines/ | + | |
+ | Pan-American. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The situation in the Americas is a little complicated...but best described as fully dominated by the close relationship between the USA and UNASUR. I haven' | ||
+ | |||
+ | One way to look at it is similar to the relationship between US and NATO today: critics will call it dominated by an American agenda, but the truth is a bit more complicated and boils down to both Europe and America having VERY similar agendas. That's kinda what's going on here. | ||
---- | ---- | ||
+ | **//What is the USA's relation with the EU? What is their response to the idea of their neighbour possibly becoming part of it? And if its favourable, then what is the USA's stance on joining and combining their blocs? Or is the US looking towards other regional organisations (eg deepening NAFTA, accepting more states etc)?//** | ||
+ | |||
+ | The USA is still a close ally of the EU, and NATO remains an active organization even though it hasn't really done much throughout the century. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Despite that, America isn't entirely comfortable with Canada joining the European Union...mainly for the same reasons a North American Union hasn't formed: Americans don't like the idea of the US government answering to an organization higher than itself. The bigger fear, however, is that since support for joining the EU has slowly grown in Canada that there' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The USA is still interested in forming a Free Trade Area of the Americas (they' | ||
+ | ---- | ||
+ | |||
+ | **//How successfully has South America integrated?// | ||
+ | |||
+ | You could argue they' | ||
+ | |||
+ | While outsiders think of the European Union as a " | ||
+ | |||
+ | Really, the big difference is between US federalism and UNASUR federalism is that there' | ||
+ | ---- | ||
+ | |||
+ | **//How much has South America and Europe stepped out of the shadow of US dominance over this time?//** | ||
+ | |||
+ | Europe has stepped out of America' | ||
+ | |||
+ | South America, meanwhile, has had a harder time. As I mentioned in a previous post, the two have very similar goals and are closely allied, so their foreign policies are very similar. America is the one with the history of diplomatic ties to much of the world, though, and South America is in most cases piggy-backing off of that. A lot of times, you could say " | ||
+ | |||
+ | ---- | ||
+ | |||
+ | **//What are the Democrats and Republicans of the 2080s like? Are the Democrats still regarded as ' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Sort of. Not really. | ||
+ | |||
+ | What's ended up happening is that the two parties have traded demographics and positions in a number of areas. Thanks to President Whitman and President Burkowski in the '20s, the GOP shifts more to the center and you see politicians like Meghan McCain become prominent. By the '50s, the party faces a split between the Whitman/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | Purity, however, was the last gasp for the GOP as we, today, know it. When Purity falls from grace in the late ' | ||
+ | |||
+ | By the '80s, we're in the middle of a political shift that won't become apparent until the 2090s. The Dems have shifted from Center-left to Center-right (it started in the '40s and has about finished), while the GOP is most of the way from Right to center-left (would have happened faster if not for the Purity Movement). | ||
+ | |||
+ | ---- | ||
+ | |||
+ | **// | ||
+ | |||
+ | No, actually. In fact, three major expected earthquakes - Los Angeles, Tokyo, and New Madrid - have not struck as of 2090. There' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Tokyo' | ||
+ | |||
+ | ---- | ||
+ | |||
+ | **//I was just curious as to how the Democratic and Republican Parties managed to stay relevant for so long? By 2090, the Democratic Party will have been around for roughly 170 years, and the Republicans 130. Haven' | ||
+ | |||
+ | They stayed relevant by maintaining their duopoly over the American political system - they oppose each other normally, but whenever a 3rd Party starts to gain any traction there' | ||
+ | |||
+ | I'm rather pessimistic about the chances of any 3rd Party to break into the current system, so that's translated into the TL. | ||
+ | |||
+ | I'd say that the general public IS sick and tired of seeing the Dems and GOP for so long, but like today there isn't really much movement to do anything about it on the national level. On individual state levels and local levels things are a bit more open (as they are today), but nationally the Democrats and Republicans are basically it. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The biggest chance for a split in the TL was probably between the Violet Republicans and Purity in the '50s - it would be neat to imagine an AH where that does occur. I wonder if the '60s would' | ||
+ | |||
+ | ---- | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== See Also ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | * [[timelines: | ||
+ | * [[timelines: | ||
+ | * [[timelines: | ||
+ | * [[timelines: | ||
+ | * [[timelines: | ||
+ | * [[timelines: | ||
+ | * [[timelines: | ||
+ | * [[timelines: | ||
+ | * [[timelines: | ||
+ | * [[timelines: | ||
+ | * [[timelines: | ||
+ | * [[timelines: | ||
+ | * [[timelines: | ||
+ | * [[timelines: | ||
+ | |||
+ | ---- | ||
==== Navigation ==== | ==== Navigation ==== | ||
timelines/arhotf_america.txt · Last modified: 2019/03/29 15:13 by 127.0.0.1