BS: Qu for our American cousins

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 12 Sep 15 - 09:52 AM

I referred to the obvious meaning of the first
two sentences of your post, Allan. You mentioned
the Prime Minister and the President. In the next
sentence you referred to "One" and "the other".
Never a mention of a crowned head.

How could one interpret those sentences other than
as I did?

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 12 Sep 15 - 04:42 AM

Dave you have completely misread my post. I said there is no point in comparing the US President with the UK Monarch. The "other" I am referring to as being in reality more symbolic is the Monarch. I thought that was self evident but seemingly not! Power rests with the PM in the UK. That was my point.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: olddude
Date: 11 Sep 15 - 07:55 PM

Yeah but Kim Basinger can be my queen if she will let me... OH the legs

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: maeve
Date: 11 Sep 15 - 07:54 PM

As Ebbie said, and also- they were elected. The office is not a birthright.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Sep 15 - 07:44 PM

Not to keep beating this but, Raggytash, saying: "but father and son is hereditary." when father and son do not follow in close succession, is that hereditary? Another president held office between them.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 11 Sep 15 - 02:55 PM

Allan Conn told us, in relevant part,

comparing the UK Head of State with the American President isn't really the point. One is a political Head of State whilst the other is in reality more symbolic. Different systems completely. The real head of gvt in the UK is the Prime Minister.

You are mistaken in that comparison, Allan. "The other" you refer to is clearly the President of the U.S. Contrary to presidents of many countries (France, for example) the U.S. President is far from merely symbolic.

Whereas the prime minister is head of government (no mean position, admittedly), the president under the US system is BOTH the Head of State and the Head of Government.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Sep 15 - 01:59 PM

I simply can't imagine voting for anyone whose 'platform' is slogans and dissembling.

You forgot the largest plank in their current 'platform': Lies and Bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 11 Sep 15 - 02:30 AM

It seems to me that comparing the UK Head of State with the American President isn't really the point. One is a political Head of State whilst the other is in reality more symbolic. Different systems completely. The real head of gvt in the UK is the Prime Minister. There is surely a strong argument to say that as a child of (take myself) a low paid mill worker and a school dinner lady I'd have as much chance (probably more chance) of becoming the PM than my American equivilent would have of being President?. Though with the UK gvt having been awash with Eton boys of late it seems pretty unlikely too.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Sep 15 - 11:14 AM

Heirdom? That's a 'weasel word' which doesn't really cover what often happens..

Whether one likes the Kennedys & Clintons or not, and whether one dislikes seeming 'handing down' of offices or not, there are certain potential benefits to having a leader who has been on the inside... if they were also reasonably dedicated & intelligent.

The Kennedys, having money, were able to put a lot of time & effort into politics and into understanding the issues of the day... (yes, I know all the stories of supposed influence peddling..etc.)

In the same way, Hillary.. already involved as a staffer in politics.... spent years around Bill Clinton, talking over issues.... and whether you like Bill Clinton's policies & politics or not, few could match him for detailed knowledge of the issues.

Politics and high public office ... such as Congress...simply do not operate well without *institutional memory* where senior members know how the system & operating procedures work. Our job, as voters, is to do our best to sort out those who are not only smart & aware of the issues, but who also care about the interests of the public and country in general!
The problem (for me, anyway) is that very few Republicans these days seem to have those virtues.(I do remember when some did! I didn't always agree with their decisions, but there were both relatively honest & competent ones.) Now, all I see is narrow views pushing money, religion, guns and attacking everything Democrats say. I simply can't imagine voting for anyone whose 'platform' is slogans and dissembling.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: GUEST,#
Date: 10 Sep 15 - 10:10 AM

". . . and there has been only one Clinton. Where's the heirdom?"

Only Monica knows.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 10 Sep 15 - 09:51 AM

Where's the heirdom

* * *
If you don't get Trump over there, you might get another Bush, and he knows how to bias elections! Did I mention the Kennedys?

Kennedys? Where do you get "Kennedys"? One was okay, though not outstanding. But there was only one Kennedy president, I'm happy to say.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Mr Red
Date: 10 Sep 15 - 05:25 AM

Where's the heirdom

Money, influence and the public's perception that the old one was reliable (ish) so if in doubt go with the familiar. Being pretty gets votes, on the same spectrum. If you don't get Trump over there, you might get another Bush, and he knows how to bias elections! Did I mention the Kennedys?

One of the reasons we have the present UK government is because the voters had too much choice and in an economic uncertainty went with the familiar. And in a bizarre twist the leader was prettier (ish). Not the only reasons (before someone misreads my words) but remember: every vote doubles the delta!

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 10 Sep 15 - 04:59 AM

Ebbie .......... I don't know how to explain this ....... but father and son is hereditary.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Sep 15 - 06:28 PM

"...hereditary rulers already. Roosevelt, Bush & Clinton..."
I wouldn't call any of those examples as hereditary, Mr.Red

The Roosevelts were cousins, a generation apart, the Bushes, father and son, the same and there has been only one Clinton. Where's the heirdom?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Mr Red
Date: 09 Sep 15 - 05:08 PM

It keeps other things away, like cultural submission.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Sep 15 - 04:33 PM

Hey, those Canadians have the right idea. It's nice to have a Queen, but nicer still to keep her an ocean away.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Mr Red
Date: 09 Sep 15 - 11:48 AM

Canada already has a Queen.
And US of A has a lot of hereditary rulers already. Roosevelt, Bush & Clinton come to mind. Ignore or deny it, you got it anyway. Hollywood serves the eye-candy aspect.
Mexico has drug barrons.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Sep 15 - 09:20 AM

"...we don't need another George III."


...and "King Jeb" just has a bad ring to it from the start.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: GUEST,Bert
Date: 09 Sep 15 - 02:02 AM

No we don't want a Royal Family.

The Bushes were way too much.

We had a George I and a George II, we don't need another George III.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: LadyJean
Date: 09 Sep 15 - 01:33 AM

We don't wantour own royal family. Though many of us enjoy other people's. My cousin Ruby Caldwell began keeping a scrapbook on Princess Elizabeth when she was serving as a nurse in Shrivenham in the second world war. She spent most of her life in rural Kentucky, reading up on the British royals.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Sep 15 - 07:30 PM

One expects that they'll get rid of themselves. Quite possibly by Prince Charles doing what he does best, opening his big mouth once too often about something he knows nothing about (which is everything), or doing something disreputable. He has form on both accounts, which means we can live in eternal hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 08 Sep 15 - 07:26 PM

CND, That sounds like our national news 24/7/52. Little wonder that some of us are not enthralled by it.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Sep 15 - 07:25 PM

If you do get rid of your royalty, how will you do it?
Guillotine?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Sep 15 - 07:23 PM

McGrath is right. We Americans are very happy having the Windsors as royalty, and we're very happy they're an ocean away from us. We'd be most upset if you English did away with your royalty, though.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: cnd
Date: 08 Sep 15 - 06:34 PM

Personally, no desire for royalty here. I remember being in the British Virgin Islands when that baby boy was born in 2012/3... George, was it? Anyway, I got a kick out of it at first. Every customs office we went through, and all the stations on radio, etc, everything was focused on this one little boy. I got pretty sick of it to be honest. Then, for 2 weeks, I was largely out of communication with the outside world, and when we hit land again, they were still blathering about him!

I'd like to think that if the serving president had a baby we wouldn't be so focused on it, but then again, you never know.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Sep 15 - 05:28 PM

The thing is, while Americans might get obsessed at time with British stuff like the Royal Family, and the British get the same about American personalities, including the President, and Hollywood royalty, I doubt very much if there is any appetite for swapping. It's very much a love-hate relationship, on both sides.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Cool Beans
Date: 08 Sep 15 - 04:14 PM

Never heard anyone here in America express a desire for a royal family; I think we once fought a war about that. We are a bit obsessed with celebrities, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Sep 15 - 01:20 PM

Thanks !

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: GUEST,Brucking Bronco
Date: 08 Sep 15 - 01:06 PM

Only some of you Keith are feeble minded as you've shown time and time again

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Sep 15 - 01:02 PM

Not much enthusiasm for royalty in US then.
If you read the thread about our queen, you will learn that it would soon change with a bit of spin, and coverage of weddings and births.
Apparently, that is the only reason that most people here are happy to keep ours.
We are so feeble minded!

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Sep 15 - 12:54 PM

yeah, that could be called a dynasty.

No, that would be called an effing disaster.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Sep 15 - 12:09 PM

I'm always bemused when I read of the Bush dynasty or the Clinton dynasty or, for that matter, the Kennedy dynasty. Doesn't it take more than a second heir to make a dynasty? And doesn't a dynasty require a somewhat closer series of events?

I grant you that if Hillary Clinton became president and then Chelsea became president immediately after, given Bill Clinton's presidency, that might constitute a dynasty, but just barely.

Or if, with Geo HW receding into the past but here and W still on the scene, JEB became president and followed into the presidency by his son George Prescott Bush- yeah, that could be called a dynasty.

Heaven forfend.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 08 Sep 15 - 10:39 AM

mg, I'll point out that we've only had ONE Kennedy
president. I suppose that if Robert K. had not been
assassinated he would have run for that office, but
there's no way to know what his success might have
been. I'm a Democrat, but I doubt that I'd have voted
for Robert even had he lived and secured the nomination.
I could be mistaken, but I seem to recall there was another
member of the Kennedy tribe who was trying to get there
but fell far short of being even a remotely possible
candidate.

Historically, we had the Adams father and son, back in
the early days. We had the two Roosevelts, not father and son
but related. We've had two Johnsons, but unrelated,
so no dynastic threat. We've had two Bushes (so far),
but we may be able to avoid a third if we're lucky and
have learned our lesson. We just might get another
Clinton, and I would vote for that. Have I missed
any in my inventory?

In most of the above I see no threat of a continuing
"royal family". I'm not aware of any more Clintons
who might follow a possible President Hillary. The
Bush family seems to be the only candidate for
hereditary royal status lying in the weeds. Again
I say, "luck to avoid".

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 08:55 PM

Hey leenia... http://nationalzoo.si.edu/animals/webcams/giant-panda.cfm Live cam

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: mg
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 08:27 PM

bushes and clintons are out out out. Kennedys...have not been heard from in a while. They would have to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 06:32 PM

So instead you have a couple of families taking turns at providing a President.

I've always been keen in the idea of countries having animals as head of state. The British could have a horse, and the existing royals could stick around to ride it on state occasions, like the opening of parliament, and the Trooping of the Colour (which is fun, so I'd hold on to it.)

The Americans might do better to have a grizzly bear.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 06:26 PM

As a USAian, I say we don't need 'em. I've never
heard one of my countrymen express any such yearning.

Of course the Royals we're most familiar with
are those of Great Britain, which in this era have
no real power, other than that of exasperating the
public* (alternating with entertaining them) so perhaps the hereditary feature wouldn't do all that much harm.

As to the entertainment value, if it were to be a
hereditary position the American people would get bored
and want to change the channel.

*Charles, for example

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 06:19 PM

Some prefer paying homage to entertainment celebrities, like movie stars, sports folks, and wacky singers.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 05:38 PM

there is not one of their offspring to follow them ad infinitum. Bush excepted.

Yup- them Bushes just keep a-comin' & comon' & comin'..... like a plague of bedbugs.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Amos
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 05:36 PM

Raggy:

We don't do monarchies; we have found them a bit risky over time.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 05:33 PM

The difference being Joe is that they shuffle off this mortal coil there is not one of their offspring to follow them ad infinitum. Bush excepted.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 04:59 PM

I dunno. I kinda like the idea of having a President like Ireland has. Irish presidents seem to be above the political squabbles, people who are widely respected and who can serve as a human symbol of the ideals of the nation.
Jimmy Carter was a failure in the squabbles of politics, but he has been an admirable symbol of our nation's ideals since then. Indeed, several of our former presidents have served the country far better once their term had ended - Dwight Eisenhower, Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter, Jerry Ford, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton. So, maybe the American equivalent of a Queen or an Irish President, is our list of ex-presidents.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 01:18 PM

I do not want a royal heir.
I do not want it anywhere.
A free elected democracy,
should replace all sovereign legacy.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 10:53 AM

When we have the urge to support expensive, dysfunctional families...

Like the Republican Party.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 09:31 AM

Nah she won't. She'll be up in Scotland watching her husband shoot at specially-bred silly birds on a big fenced-off estate stolen from the Scottish people. She'll get somebody else to cut your head off.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: gnu
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 08:58 AM

A payment to the owner of mineral rights for the privilege of extracting the mineral from the ground based on a lease agreement. The royalty payment is based on a portion of earnings from production and varies depending on the type of mineral and the market conditions.

You dig it up and process it and Her Majesty gets a cut or cuts your head off.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: GUEST,#
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 08:48 AM

I fail to understand what the term 'royalty' really means.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 08:21 AM

Just as good a parallel are the Kims in North Korea. Royalty should be elected for a fixed term, not for life and not hereditary.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 06:03 AM

Oh dear... under our electoral system and court system, I'm afraid any royals might be named Koch

Well our royals are not called Koch but the heir to the throne is the biggest cock in the country. In fact, he could have been invented to define the word. Can we do a deal? Leave all the rest of 'em here but just take him? Please?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu for our American cousins
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 07 Sep 15 - 01:04 AM

It sounds like some in the UK wish the residents of the US envied them their royal overlords. Not so. Americans like to visit to take a look-see at the bounty your royals have raked in, but never would wish for such a relationship with powerful unelected individuals. (It's bad enough these days with rich industrial leaders - who needs royals?)

Mexico tried it and it didn't turn out well. At. All. "Off with his head" unwell. They could have executed him for his facial hair alone. By this time, Texas had fought itself free of Mexico, and there is no way Texas would have craved a UK overlord. In this instance, you can safely assume that as Texas goes, so goes the rest of the US.

The Hawaiians had royal rulers and from reports I've heard, wanted to keep them. But the US interferred. President Denali had a hand in that particularly bungled appropriation of sovereign lands. As you can see, the tumultuous history, briefly represented here, shows no inclination for the weight of an overlord royal family. Disabuse yourself of the idea.