• 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

zooterkin said:
Another major difference is that in the US system, there is no equivalent of the leader of the opposition.
Click to expand...
Maybe not officially, but unoffcialy the Minority Leader in the house has that function.\

But then, we are now that the Westminster System is perfect, and God Is And Englishman.
 
Shooting by ICE Agent in Portland. I can see a situation where local law enforcment and the ICE have stand off..Lexington Green 2026.
"We will not fire the first shot, but if they mean to have a war let it begin here".

Correction> the Portland shooting was by a Border Patrol agent. BUt amouns to the same thing.
 
Last edited:
On streaming, I rewatched the film of Stephan King's "The Dead Zone" and the scene where the main charecter sees the future with Greg Stilson as Presidnet scared the hell out of me. I can really see Trump acting like that.
 
Segnosaur said:
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.
Click to expand...
Because the US system is effectively fossilised into the format of the pre-reform English system, it is uniquely vulnerable to a corrupt administration. The worning signs that something like the TACO regime being inevitable were there since at least the Grant cabinet.
 
The problem of Democracy has been solved as much as it can: most modern constitutions have working checks and balances and strong separation of power.
The US constitution has been a patchwork from the start, and gotten worse since.

Weird that all the tech bros don't want to update the governmental system they live under to current standards.
 
dudalb said:
Maybe not officially, but unoffcialy the Minority Leader in the house has that function.\

But then, we are now that the Westminster System is perfect, and God Is And Englishman.
Click to expand...
Do you want some salt for that chip on your shoulder?

I was simply pointing out a difference. In the UK, there is no opposition figure to the head of state, because the post is essentially ceremonial. In the current USA situation, where the same party controls both houses and the presidency, there is no formal leader of the opposition.
 
Andy_Ross said:
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
Click to expand...

IIRC that's the limit at which banks have to notify the authorities if a customer moves more than $10k in a single transaction. Dropping it to $3k. Seems like that's going to generate a lot of noise to sift through just from people getting paid each month. And what "start pushing that you cannot" means I can't quite tell. It sounds a bit like trying to appear to be doing something.
 
dudalb said:
Exactly, Nothing can shield a nation from really stupid voters in great numbers.
And it is not like countries with Parliamentarian systems have not often falling into the pit. Appretnly their check and balances did not work any better then ours did.
Click to expand...
No system is immune, but some systems have more resilience than others.

Having so much power vested in an individual with such a high barrier to their removal is a problem.

I suspect that if it was easier, the GOP in Congress would have replaced their leader because he is obviously incapable now.

Whatever you say about the British governmental system (and there are a lot of problems) it is easier to get rid of an individual leader. And the UK speaker seems better than the speaker in Congress
 
jimbob said:
No system is immune, but some systems have more resilience than others.

Having so much power vested in an individual with such a high barrier to their removal is a problem.

I suspect that if it was easier, the GOP in Congress would have replaced their leader because he is obviously incapable now.

Whatever you say about the British governmental system (and there are a lot of problems) it is easier to get rid of an individual leader. And the UK speaker seems better than the speaker in Congress
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if I have already posted this before but this clip from West Wing shows interesting debate on parliamentary vs presidential systems. The claim is that the US presidential system is "one of this country's most dangerous exports responsible for wreaking havoc on over 30 countries".

 
Last edited:
jimbob said:
No system is immune, but some systems have more resilience than others.

Having so much power vested in an individual with such a high barrier to their removal is a problem.

I suspect that if it was easier, the GOP in Congress would have replaced their leader because he is obviously incapable now.

Whatever you say about the British governmental system (and there are a lot of problems) it is easier to get rid of an individual leader. And the UK speaker seems better than the speaker in Congress
Click to expand...
That's because the rule that underlies the Westminster based parliament (don't forget we have more than one parliament and more than one system) is that parliament is supreme, it can't be constrained so we work on a set of checks and balances which are nothing more than a "gentleman's agreement". I think what has surprised people about the breakdown of the USA's "checks and balances" is that it used to be claimed they were an intrinsic part of the governance, that they were robust, and that their written and codified Constitution prevented overreach and guaranteed rights. I know I have said to folk in the USA over the years that saying "but the constitution" was not a magic spell. Trump has shown and is continuing to show that the USA's checks and balances were no more than the gentlemen's agreements we have in the Westminster parliament, and that a constitution is worth no more than the paper it is written on if there isn't someone with the might to enforce it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom