Trump's Second Term

[welshdean]

It'll be as fine as the Taj Mahal. Not the one in India, the restaurant on Clacton High Street.

It looks a bit tatty now, since the gammons painted a George cross over the shutters.

 

[psionl0]

Well, he could be referring to something like the westminster system (used in the UK and adopted in places like Canada.)

Frankly, I think Trump would be even more dangerous under the westminster system. Under the US system, he does have to contend with congress to at least some degree. (Granted the GOP is largely acting like trained seals to applaud everything Trump does, but in theory they could grow a spine and oppose him.) But if Trump were head of government in the westminster system, not only would he have executive power, but he would also have control over the legislature.

The difference is that if the prime minister goes off the rails (ie looks like costing the party votes at the next election) the parliamentary wing of the party can simply replace him with somebody else. You are stuck with Trump for 4 years come hell or high water.

 

[a_unique_person]

I don't think anyone is suggesting replacing any form of government with another.

I think the point that was being made was that no system of government is perfect and immune from the type of corruption that exists in the states. Probably any government can descend into authoritarianism/fascism, if a particularly evil group of characters get power and those with the ability to stop them decide to do nothing. Every successful political system is successful in large part because politicians and the general electorate are not completely evil or stupid. The US is failing as a democracy not because their government design is inherently bad, but because of the people who are currently involved in government.

The problem with the US is that it is so effective a stopping policy implementation. It's better to let governments implement policy and fail than have a permanent log jam. That's partly why Trump has happened. They have been building up to this for years and it's overwhelming.

The quality of candidates is another pet peeve of mine. Who would be a politician these days. The pay is lousy for the responsibility, no job security, you and your family are now public properly and will be publicly pilloried and threatened. If you're smart and want to give your family a good life trade bonds or stocks.

 

[Resume]

 

[zooterkin]

The difference is that if the prime minister goes off the rails (ie looks like costing the party votes at the next election) the parliamentary wing of the party can simply replace him with somebody else. You are stuck with Trump for 4 years come hell or high water.

Another major difference is that in the US system, there is no equivalent of the leader of the opposition.

 

[Segnosaur]

Well, he could be referring to something like the westminster system (used in the UK and adopted in places like Canada.)

Frankly, I think Trump would be even more dangerous under the westminster system. Under the US system, he does have to contend with congress to at least some degree. (Granted the GOP is largely acting like trained seals to applaud everything Trump does, but in theory they could grow a spine and oppose him.) But if Trump were head of government in the westminster system, not only would he have executive power, but he would also have control over the legislature.

The difference is that if the prime minister goes off the rails (ie looks like costing the party votes at the next election) the parliamentary wing of the party can simply replace him with somebody else. You are stuck with Trump for 4 years come hell or high water.

And the U.S. could impeach and remove a president. Or they can invoke the 25th amendment. That they are choosing not to is a failure of the republicans rather than of "the system". If the members of Parliament chose not to act against a corrupt prime minister you are just as screwed as in the US.

(And things are even worse here in Canada. We have a similar parliamentary system to the UK, but the party leader has more control over who can run as a candidate. Step out of line and you could find yourself out of a job.)

 

[psionl0]

And the U.S. could impeach and remove a president. Or they can invoke the 25th amendment. That they are choosing not to is a failure of the republicans rather than of "the system". If the members of Parliament chose not to act against a corrupt prime minister you are just as screwed as in the US.

Those are more extreme measures than a quiet party room meeting behind closed doors.

 

[Mike!]

The difference is that if the prime minister goes off the rails (ie looks like costing the party votes at the next election) the parliamentary wing of the party can simply replace him with somebody else. You are stuck with Trump for 4 years come hell or high water.

Hell? High water? Have you watched the news lately? Between wildfires and floods, the U.S. already has both all over.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Those are more extreme measures than a quiet party room meeting behind closed doors.

In multiparty system there is also constant fight for survival. You won election one term .. you can be out of the parliament 2 terms later. In US, parties only compete for victory, not for elimination.

 

[a_unique_person]

And the U.S. could impeach and remove a president. Or they can invoke the 25th amendment. That they are choosing not to is a failure of the republicans rather than of "the system". If the members of Parliament chose not to act against a corrupt prime minister you are just as screwed as in the US.

(And things are even worse here in Canada. We have a similar parliamentary system to the UK, but the party leader has more control over who can run as a candidate. Step out of line and you could find yourself out of a job.)

I don't know about Canada but in Australia we seem to have a habit of regularly replacing Prime Ministers and Opposition Leaders.

We did a "25th" to Kevin Rudd. Not because he was insane but because everyone agreed he was an ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.

 

[GlennB]

In multiparty system there is also constant fight for survival. You won election one term .. you can be out of the parliament 2 terms later. In US, parties only compete for victory, not for elimination.

UK parties can be soundly beaten but never 'eliminated', apart from maybe a weirdo fringe party that only managed to gain a seat or two in parliament.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Bessent: We are going to put in what we call a geographical-out targeting order. So there is something called a suspicious activity report. We’re lowering that to $3,000. And if you are on public assistance, we are going to start pushing that you cannot wire money out of the country

https://twitter.com/x/status/2009419990248903118

 

[Andy_Ross]

UK parties can be soundly beaten but never 'eliminated', apart from maybe a weirdo fringe party that only managed to gain a seat or two in parliament.

Tell the Liberals or the Whigs.

 

[Andy_Ross]

U.S. Department of Labor
@USDOL
Globalism has failed.

Americanism will Prevail

 

[Andy_Ross]

Three year extension of ACA subsidies passes in the House

https://twitter.com/x/status/2009390007556165987

 

[Hans]

I would note the coincidence that the page number of this thread is now '1940', looks like WWII is coming

 

[Tero]

Thousands of antifa on the streets of Minneapolis. Why isn't Trump arresting them?

 

[junkshop]

I would note the coincidence that the page number of this thread is now '1940', looks like WWII is coming

It's a page late.

 

[arthwollipot]

Has C-Span been using the same on-screen captioning technology since the 80s?

 

[dudalb]

All I can think of is how I've recently run into my fair share of people insisting the US is the greatest country in the world. What they all seem to have in common is they seem to be incredibly thin-skinned about it, to the point where they will get really frustrated with you if you doubt this or ask too many questions. It's almost as if they base this idea on paper-thin narratives rather than solid facts, or they know it's not as solid an idea as they like to think. Or they just use it as an excuse to deflect criticism: 'Oh yeah? Well if it's so bad, why do so many people want to come here?'

Yeah, the super patriots are very annoyning. But then you have some overseas who cannot see ANYTHNG good about America.

They are desperately clinging to what is at this point practically a religious belief, and like religious beliefs they will get very angry if you try to prove it wrong.

Hey, political ideology is no better then religous ideology when it comes to making people act stupid.