• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump's Second Term

And looks as if France is in politcal turmoil, with Le Pan eventually coming power a real possiblity.
Misery loves company, I guess.
But another example as to why I am not a huge advocate of the US switching over to a pure Parliamentary form of government.
 
dudalb said:
And looks as if France is in politcal turmoil, with Le Pan eventually coming power a real possiblity.
Misery loves company, I guess.
But another example as to why I am not a huge advocate of the US switching over to a pure Parliamentary form of government.
Click to expand...
Ya I mentioned that earlier--and I aint a big fan earlier. Not sure it means Le Pen coming to power though given that the left wing surprisingly got the most seats. But I was pondering how it might foreshadow Trump's second term, cause maybe if the conservatives in Congress finally came to their senses (after Trump does something even too outrageous for them) it could derail his ambitions. On the other hand they might keep course and lead us into dictatorship....
 
dudalb said:
And looks as if France is in politcal turmoil, with Le Pan eventually coming power a real possiblity.
Misery loves company, I guess.
But another example as to why I am not a huge advocate of the US switching over to a pure Parliamentary form of government.
Click to expand...
??? The USA already IS a parliamentary form of government, is it not?
 
stanfr said:
Ya I mentioned that earlier--and I aint a big fan earlier. Not sure it means Le Pen coming to power though given that the left wing surprisingly got the most seats. But I was pondering how it might foreshadow Trump's second term, cause maybe if the conservatives in Congress finally came to their senses (after Trump does something even too outrageous for them) it could derail his ambitions. On the other hand they might keep course and lead us into dictatorship....
Click to expand...
And the French Left has not shown much intelligence by their antics playing right into Le Pen's hands.
 
Meanwhile Hegesth nomination for Defense seems to be in real deep trouble;
One telling thing; Trump is not rushing out to defend him.
 
For the 2026 election he wants paper ballots, one day voting and proof of citizenship. Most people do not carry around birth certificates, now to be asked for. My state will get those free for all voters.
There are many states that register voters while getting a drivers license. The states can check those. But many people forgot to check the "I am a citizen" box. They will get a letter.

www.threads.net

Aaron Rupar (@aaron.rupar) on Threads

Trump, speaking after being named "Patriot of the Year" by Fox -- note the Fox "hard news" anchor in the crowd applauding him -- says "we are gonna do things that have been really needed for a long time. And we are gonna look at elections."
www.threads.net www.threads.net
 
TragicMonkey said:
Ha! If that were the case then Trump would still just be a crappy businessman, and not a crappy ex-and-returning president.
Click to expand...
I would not be so sure about that, given some of the people who have risen to power in countries with pure parliamentary systems.
I give you Italy, where Bursecolini, a politican often compared to Trump rose to be Prime Minister, was forced out of office, then got back in.
Problem is no system works when the voters have voters have a fit of stupidity. There is no easy, mechanical fix for that.
 
dudalb said:
You need to look up parliamentary system and see the US does not have it.
Click to expand...
You have a parliament (Congress), and they are elected by the people. They form a government and make laws, etc. That is a parliamentary system. There is the separation of executive power to a head of state in the USA - the president.

The only difference you might be thinking of is the notion that executive power resides with that government in non-US situations. I think you will find, as we did in 1975, that true executive power resides with the head of state. In our case, it's the Governor-General, the monarch's representative. In short, our executive power resides with the UK monarchy.

That's pretty much the same as the USA. And vice versa.
 
Norman Alexander said:
You have a parliament (Congress), and they are elected by the people. They form a government and make laws, etc. That is a parliamentary system. There is the separation of executive power to a head of state in the USA - the president.

The only difference you might be thinking of is the notion that executive power resides with that government in non-US situations. I think you will find, as we did in 1975, that true executive power resides with the head of state. In our case, it's the Governor-General, the monarch's representative. In short, our executive power resides with the UK monarchy.

That's pretty much the same as the USA. And vice versa.
Click to expand...
From Wiki:
A parliamentary system, or parliamentary democracy, is a form of government where the head of government derives their democratic legitimacy from their ability to command the support of a majority of the legislature, to which they are held accountable.
Click to expand...
That is not how it works in the U.S.
 
General opinion now is that Hesgath will not make it; that Donnie i not rushing out to defend him is telling.
 
Paul2 said:
That is not how it works in the U.S.
Click to expand...
A parliamentary system, or parliamentary democracy, is a form of government where the head of government derives their democratic legitimacy from their ability to command the support of a majority of the legislature, to which they are held accountable.​
Click to expand...

You are referring to what is know in British Commonwealth parliaments as the Prime or First Minister. So how does the position of the US Speaker of the House of Representatives compare? That position requires the support of a majority of the legislature, is accountable to Congress, and steers Congress. Essentially the same, yes?
 
Last edited:
Norman Alexander said:
You are referring to what is know in British Commonwealth parliaments as the Prime or First Minister. So how does the position of the US Speaker of the House of Representatives compare? That position requires the support of a majority of the legislature, is accountable to Congress, and steers Congress. Essentially the same, yes?
Click to expand...
In the US, the "head of government" is the president, not the Speaker of the House. The president does not require the support of the majority of the legislature which is why the POTUS can be from one party while Congress is controlled by the opposing party. So, not essentially the same.
 
Stacyhs said:
In the US, the "head of government" is the president, not the Speaker of the House. The president does not require the support of the majority of the legislature which is why the POTUS can be from one party while Congress is controlled by the opposing party. So, not essentially the same.
Click to expand...
In our parliamentary system, the "head of government" is the King of England, not the Prime Minister. The king's representative in-country is our Governor General. The King holds a similar position in the government that the US president does. Although their powers and duties are significantly different, of course. Generally, the British monarch doesn't give a fig about Australia and doesn't get involved at all, and the local government is left to run stuff. Also, the monarch is not a member of any political party.

While they are elected by the people, the name "Prime Minister" designates that office as being a minister to the monarch, to whom they make the oath of office (unlike the USA, where the oath is to uphold the constitution). The PM is the notional leader of the government of the day and is afforded considerable authority, privilege, and levers of power to get things done. So much so that they have often considered themselves unassailably "head of government" and behave as such.

But while they are generally left alone to run and represent the country, any ministers including the PM can still be directly dismissed by the monarch at any time (they "serve at His/Her Majesty's pleasure"). This happened for us in November 1975, suddenly highlighting this hierarchy of power. Rude wake-up call.

Granted, this is a complicated colonialist hangover, and a patently ridiculous arrangement. I'm one of those Australian Republicans who would prefer an Australian Head of State and much better government design.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom