|
29 Jul 10 - 04:58 AM (#2954323) Subject: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: mandotim As a response to the US generated thread about the Monarchy in the UK; Is the Presidency obsolete? It seems to an outsider from the UK that the USA is actually governed by a coalition of media owners, bankers, arms manufacturers, very rich people and right wing Christian pressure groups. Presidents seem to be elected by unreliable voting systems, and are effectively emasculated (by the vested interests detailed above) within a year of taking office, so what's the point of having one? Why not just let those with real power get on with it? I'm sure that there are some in the USA that might consider these questions impertinent and none of my business, but I thought I'd ask anyway... Tim |
|
29 Jul 10 - 06:46 AM (#2954366) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: Wesley S Yeah we need something more effective - like a queen. Got any suggestions? |
|
29 Jul 10 - 07:23 AM (#2954378) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: Arthur_itus Queen what a great idea |
|
29 Jul 10 - 08:09 AM (#2954397) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: Jack the Sailor So you are attacking Americans in general because one American said something with which you disagree? |
|
29 Jul 10 - 08:13 AM (#2954399) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: mandotim Jack the Sailor...please explain how I'm attacking Americans in general? Or attacking anyone in particular, come to that? Merely asking a question or two. Your response seems rather aggressive, you know. |
|
29 Jul 10 - 08:28 AM (#2954408) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: Alaska Mike I agree with Mandotim. Our government was well thought out and effective 234 years ago, but has been co-opted by the factions he mentioned. There are many here that believe fundamental change in how elections are funded and carried out must happen soon or we are in for some very bad times. Personally, I believe the bad times are upon us right now. |
|
29 Jul 10 - 08:59 AM (#2954418) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: mandotim The original Constitution was (imho) philosophically and practically one of the finest pieces of social and political thought ever committed to paper. The rest of the developed world rightly stood in awe and envy of how this new nation had taken the very best of what existed, discarded the worst and added their own unique set of values. I for one wish the UK had gone through the same process of revolution and soul-searching needed to produce such a document, instead of being stuck with the mish-mash of class and unearned privilege we have today. Unfortunately the principle of entropy seems to hold good in society as well as chemistry, and all great civilisations/political systems fall victim to hubris eventually. (Gibbon's 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' is so uncannily accurate today it seems more like a politics textbook than a historical study.) I'm surprised America can't hear the rumbling sound that accompanies most civic decisions announced recently; it's the sound of your Founding Fathers turning in their graves. |
|
29 Jul 10 - 10:27 AM (#2954463) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: Amos It is not the Presidency which is obsolete, but the systemic embodiments of ineptitude and greed which surround it. IF we could put justice back into the justice system and popular representation back into the House, and honest dialogue back into Congress, we would have no problems from the Presidency. The electoral system could use some tweaking. A |
|
29 Jul 10 - 11:58 AM (#2954516) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: Ebbie I'd like to see the presidency as a triumvirate. Or at least, have the option explored. Maybe with one being 'more equal than the others'. On the other hand, one could probably fairly say that's what we have now. As to political office, it always strikes me strange that 'candidate' has 'candid' in it. |
|
29 Jul 10 - 12:17 PM (#2954536) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: Jack the Sailor "please explain how I'm attacking Americans in general? Or attacking anyone in particular, come to that? Merely asking a question or two." "As a response to the US generated thread about the Monarchy in the UK;" Your stated reason for starting this thread SEEMS to be retaliation for another. I was attempting to point out my perception of what you had said and asking you to explain what you had already written. I used the same form that you did, a question. If there was aggression, it did not originate with me. |
|
29 Jul 10 - 02:41 PM (#2954632) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: mandotim Jack the Sailor; It's interesting that in your mind 'in response to' means 'attack'. The other thread got me thinking, that's all; as my later post might illustrate. I think it answers your question too. I wonder what you're so sensitive about? |
|
29 Jul 10 - 03:04 PM (#2954646) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: Lox I was always intrigued by the Irony of Ho Chih Minh's adherence to the principles of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as best representing his political position - a position which America felt it had to do its best to prevent him from turning into Vietnamese policy. |
|
29 Jul 10 - 03:06 PM (#2954648) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: Amos The difference, if you are not aware of it, is that the PResident is a day-to-day leader in all the affairs of the Federal government, including law-making, execution thereof, and in forming the main character of the judiciary through Supreme Court appointments when needed. The Royal Family is not involved in the same way, although they work just as hard; they do a PR rather than executive function, I would hazard to say. Is that a fair description? I have no doubt as to its value, both within the nation and among it and other nations. But it is not--except in occasional and usually ceremonial ways--an executive position. ANother big difference is that for the most part the Royal person represents the country as a whole, except for a small element of grumps. But the President is lucky to keep 45% of popular sentiment with him once his inauguration is forgotten. This is a natural concomitant of the kind of work he has to do. I don't know what the Queen's polls are like but I suspect they are much less volatile than President Obama's, for example. A A |
|
29 Jul 10 - 03:32 PM (#2954662) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: GUEST,Peadar (formerly) of Portsmouth "in response to" = "attack" That's the mindset that we have been told we must have, and far too many of my countrymen have bought into it. |
|
29 Jul 10 - 03:43 PM (#2954667) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: WalkaboutsVerse Would it be better if the U.S.A. was run by a council of Amerindians/Native Americans/First Nations..? |
|
29 Jul 10 - 03:44 PM (#2954670) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: catspaw49 I'd give my "politics is a matter of methodology" rant again, but who cares. Tim is quite right that this government as it has evolved is obsolete and the framers of the Constitution pretty much expected that might be the case. Folks like Paine and Jefferson were smart enough to know they could not possibly see what the furure would hold. Sadly, many who followed were not so dynamic and once the methods are in place it don't matter a rat's ass who holds office and makes it very difficult for anyone truly different to advance without being "co-opted" to get there. So we have a two party system with only one party. Obama is a far better man than Bush to many of us but just exactly how much different has he been compared to what he promised? We have a Congress with very little cross aisle cooperation and yet for all the sniping there is fuck all difference and bills pass that are ineffective, unneeded, unwanted, and often illegal. Spaw |
|
29 Jul 10 - 04:00 PM (#2954682) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: Jack the Sailor >>"in response to" = "attack" ... Unfortunately, mandotim, that's a great illustration of political dialogue in America today -- "If you don't agree with me, you must be attacking me." << Let's clarify a little. After reading his response, its pretty clear that Mandotim's first post is thinly veiled sarcastic attack on the US political system. It is abundantly clear that this "Why not just let those with real power (media owners, bankers, arms manufacturers, very rich people and right wing Christian pressure groups) get on with it?" is thinly veiled attack on the US electorate. In my opinion, the US electorate can be generalized to refer to American's in general and that Mando has implied that Americans are so stupid that they cannot see what some Mando playing Brit can in his opinion easily see (that the US government is so run by >>media owners, bankers, arms manufacturers, very rich people and right wing Christian pressure groups<< that the Presidency is redundant and pointless) is most certainly an attack. And since the whole thing was in response to a question that Amos repeated, posed in an article in a UK publication, I think it is fair to say that Mandotim has said much more about his own short comings than America's. While "If you don't agree with me, you must be attacking me.",may well be a mindset that some Americans have bought into, that is certainly not the case in this thread. |
|
29 Jul 10 - 04:11 PM (#2954689) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: Joe Offer Yeah, the word "attack" gets used a lot - particularly by those who seem to see all discussion (particularly Internet discussion) as combat. It's difficult to maintain a forum for discussion when there are participants who go right for the jugular. Seems to me that there's a lot of wisdom in questioning whether the Presidency is obsolete. Right now, the Republicans seem to think it is. When they're in power, they utter all sorts of platitudes about "showing respect for the Office of President," but they're singing a different tune now. I have to admit that I was less than fully respectful when Ronald R and George W and Richard N were President. -Joe- |
|
29 Jul 10 - 04:20 PM (#2954693) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: Jack the Sailor Maybe "attack" was not quite the right turn of phrase, but "sarcastically and bitterly utter condescending remarks about" is so much less succinct and is so much more clumsy. |
|
29 Jul 10 - 04:46 PM (#2954708) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: gnu Ebbie... As to political office, it always strikes me strange that 'candidate' has 'candid' in it.`` Good one! |
|
29 Jul 10 - 04:49 PM (#2954712) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: Wesley S Is it because so many of them have been caught on candid cameras? |
|
29 Jul 10 - 04:51 PM (#2954714) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: Jack the Sailor Is it because they "ate" their candidness? |
|
29 Jul 10 - 05:03 PM (#2954724) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: gnu Amos... they do a PR rather than executive function, I would hazard to say. Is that a fair description?`` Nope. They network with the people that owned this earth hundreds of years ago and still own it... in deed and in force. Wave your hands freely in the air but if you touch their noses you will have a shitload of hurt rained down on your ass. Ahhhh... just read the newspapers. Her Majesty and hers don`t take kindly to even being threatened a punch in the nose. Sadman had the 4th largest standing army in the world and he made a grave error... pun intended. As for Imanutjob or Kingjobill... or ``challengers``... The Beth Network is about neck and neck with Rome Crowd in not allowing such idiots to get too looney. Certainly, if Beth and her ilk were completely cut out of the equation and we had to rely on BOUGHT by corporation politicians we be fucked two ways from Sunday. But, that`s just the opinion of a backwoods bog country boy... who likes the idea of Beth having her name on my property. She`s kinda like a wise mother that looks after things... nasty shit too. |
|
30 Jul 10 - 01:19 AM (#2954950) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: DougR No. Our president is obsolete. DougR |
|
30 Jul 10 - 01:26 AM (#2954952) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: Arthur_itus Maybe Mudcat should take over. |
|
30 Jul 10 - 02:12 AM (#2954963) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: mousethief Puppet strings need a puppet on the gravity end. |
|
30 Jul 10 - 06:30 AM (#2955039) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: mandotim Thank you, Jack, for your penetrating (if fanciful)analysis of my motives for my original post. Your personal attack on me and the generally vitriolic tone of your posting is also noted, with regret. In my third post to this thread I think I made clear my admiration for the American political system as originally intended. Did you read it? I also have great admiration for the ordinary people of the USA, and I have tremendous faith in their wish to change what has become a system which is no longer fit for purpose. This task is made much more difficult by the stranglehold that the vested interests I listed appear to have upon the system as it currently stands. Hence my question about whether the Presidency is obsolete; from an outside perspective, the ability of any President (irrespective of political persuasion) to change things is severely limited. Please stop making your unwarranted personal attacks on me. I think that the debate this has stimulated is worth better than that from you. |
|
30 Jul 10 - 12:20 PM (#2955214) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: McGrath of Harlow Where was there any attack on Americans in general? Just wasn't there. |
|
30 Jul 10 - 02:44 PM (#2955298) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: Joe Offer Is peaceful, intelligent discussion impossible on an Internet forum? This topic and the monarchy topic seem like worthwhile subjects for discussion. I'm amazed that they could cause so many people to get so offended. Why? -Joe- |
|
30 Jul 10 - 03:32 PM (#2955319) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: Smokey. Why? Many people have a tendency to reinforce their sense of identity at every opportunity. |
|
30 Jul 10 - 03:49 PM (#2955330) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: Lox "Let's clarify a little. After reading his response, its pretty clear that Mandotim's first post is thinly veiled sarcastic attack on the US political system." What you infer and what someone else implies are not the same thing. Mandotim has clarified his position. The rest Jack is your paranoia. To undestand the meaning of MY post I suggest you DON'T read between the lines. You got it wrong. |
|
30 Jul 10 - 03:52 PM (#2955332) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: mandotim With respect, Joe; most of the discussion, at least on this thread, has been constructive. One poster has unaccountably taken offence, but I'm sure calm reflection will take care of that. I agree; the current state of our respective political systems is indeed worthy of discussion. Tim |
|
30 Jul 10 - 04:08 PM (#2955343) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: Jeri I would think the US President has more in common with the British PM than the Queen. Maybe that will be the next thread, then we can move on to Congress and really get somewhere. Obama showed great promise, but hasn't been able to do much. I don't know if that's because of the next election or something else. A dynasty(||: can you say "Bush") might reduce that, but mightily screws the country when they turn out bad. (:||) Benefits vs. drawbacks of a longer term or a U.S. monarch. Maybe if we just had an 8-year term, it would eliminate all that posturing and pussy-footing. Of course, at this point, I wouldn't doubt somebody's planning a TV show called "So You Think You Can Run the Country?" or "American President," starring... I don't know. So who should be the judges? |
|
30 Jul 10 - 04:22 PM (#2955352) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: gnu Well, Jeri... perhaps if the Pres was able to hold more than two terms and the mandate was for five years each, with the ability to call an election when important matters needed to be decided by the people, and if the opposition could kick the arse of the government when they mess up on budgets and lose confidence.... oh, wait, that would be the British Parliamentary system. The one that, "often", gets shit done when it needs to be done. Nevermind. |
|
30 Jul 10 - 04:32 PM (#2955362) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: Joe Offer I still think Obama's a good man, but he hasn't been able to reach the "tipping point" where he has the overwhelming popularity required to really accomplish something in this complex nation of ours. Will he reach that point? I'm not sure. Much as I disliked him, I think Ronald Reagan was one of the few who was able to achieve real change in the U.S. And Tim, I agree that much of the discussion in this thread has been constructive, and I appreciate your starting the thread. -Joe- |
|
30 Jul 10 - 04:58 PM (#2955372) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: mousethief Obama has been hindered by Republican intransigence. If the Democrats in Congress acted the same way under Bush, we might be a lot better off now, because so many of the foolish things he did might not have gotten done. Of course I agree with a lot of the things Obama wants to do and disagree with most of the things Bush did, so I would say that. But still, the lopsided intransigence of the Republicans has hindered Obama, so to say, "Let's vote for the Republicans because Obama has gotten so little done" is to reward evil with good. |
|
30 Jul 10 - 05:01 PM (#2955375) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: McGrath of Harlow "Let's clarify a little. After reading his response, its pretty clear that Mandotim's first post is thinly veiled sarcastic attack on the US political system.". Even if it had been, how on earth would that be an "attack on Americans in general"? Any more than a "sarcastic attack" on the politixcal system of any other country should be seen as an attack on the people of that country? |
|
30 Jul 10 - 05:02 PM (#2955376) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: Emma B Chartism "possibly the first mass working class labour movement in the world." was a movement for political and social reform in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland during the mid-19th century, between 1838 and 1850. It takes its name from the People's Charter of 1838, which stipulated the six main aims of the movement - only one of these has not been obtained 1 A vote for every man twenty-one years of age, of sound mind, and not undergoing punishment for crime. 2 The secret ballot. - To protect the elector in the exercise of his vote. 3 No property qualification for members of Parliament - thus enabling the constituencies to return the man of their choice, be he rich or poor. 4 Payment of members, thus enabling an honest tradesman, working man, or other person, to serve a constituency, when taken from his business to attend to the interests of the Country. 5 Equal Constituencies, securing the same amount of representation for the same number of electors, instead of allowing small constituencies to swamp the votes of large ones…….well 'almost' obtained but folks keep moving 6 Annual parliaments, thus presenting the most effectual check to bribery and intimidation, since though a constituency might be bought once in seven years (even with the ballot), no purse could buy a constituency (under a system of universal suffrage) in each ensuing twelve-month; and since MEMBERS, WHEN ELECTED FOR A YEAR ONLY, WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DEFY AND BETRAY THEIR CONSTITUENTS AS NOW. - Wiki While it was argued that a government needs more than a year to show how it has improved society it was also said that the Chartist desire to see Members of Parliament elected every year would have turned them from representatives into delegates 'This delegate principle was also practised by the Chartists themselves within their own organisations and meetings. At most of these the chairing of meetings was rotated amongst the membership as a basic principle. This also, however, promoted their ideal of participation, giving all who attended the chance to exercise power and know what it felt like' The Chartist movement believed that people had no one else but themselves to blame for the actions of their politicians and that annual parliaments would allow the electorate to vote out unpopular or unsatisfactory candidates At least one contemporary historian concludes had an annual election been implimneted as well "The framing of legislation and its acceptance by the will of the people would have been unrecognisable and would probably have fulfilled the wishes of the Chartists in their quest to combat the 'politics of the excluded'. Furthermore… 'If Chartists were to bring their scrutiny further upon our modern system they would also feel compelled to criticise how our MPs have ended up as representatives rather than as the delegates they sought to institute. They would criticise the presumption of MPs to think, speak and vote 'on behalf ' of the electorate as a species of arrogance, with the result that 21st-century Britain has succumbed to the rule of a professional governing class. From this, the Chartists would argue, stem many contemporary ills. The scandal over MPs expenses is a clear consequence of a failure to pay members properly, but more importantly a token of the surrender of the principles of accountability and the regular renewal of Parliament's covenant with those it was established to serve. These two factors, so Chartists would argue, encourage and actively promote cynicism towards Parliament and politicians, resulting in an electorate increasingly estranged from the political process. In such an unhealthy political climate, interest and participation becomes the grudgingly unusual exception rather than the virtuous norm' - David Nash . fellow of the Royal Historical Society and an officer of the Social History Society of Great Britain. WHICH IS ALL A VERY ROUNDABOUT WAY OF DISAGREEING WITH THE IDEA OF AN 8 YEAR FIXED TERM JERI :) |
|
30 Jul 10 - 06:02 PM (#2955410) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: Jeri OK, EMMA. THANKS FOR SUMMING UP BECAUSE I GENERALLY WON'T READ LENGTHY COPY-PASTES, ALTHOUGH... ahem...although opinions, I will. I'm not too serious, and my main point was presidents have only 2.5 years or so of actual presiding and spend a pile of time campaigning. Even when they can't be in the election, they're trying to get someone from their party elected, so even a 1-term limit won't work, and shorter terms would mean more elections. And we can stretch those buggers out for at least a couple years... |
|
30 Jul 10 - 06:11 PM (#2955412) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: Emma B I was in the US for the last presidential primary elections Jeri - I suppose annual elections might leave you'all in some form of political chronological negative equity :) |
|
30 Jul 10 - 07:26 PM (#2955450) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: The Fooles Troupe "BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA?" As an outside observer, I would say that 'truth' and 'rationality' have been obsolete there for decades. |
|
30 Jul 10 - 07:30 PM (#2955452) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: Lox "political chronological negative equity" ... nice! |
|
30 Jul 10 - 11:45 PM (#2955522) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: katlaughing gnu...I wanna move to Canada! |
|
31 Jul 10 - 12:28 AM (#2955529) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: dick greenhaus THe political system in the US has been remarkably successful because it's pretty damn cumbersome----meaning it's difficult to force precipitous government action. Generally, this is a very good thing...although it becomes a problem in severe national emergencies. When these occur, we can usually depend upon someone in power grabbing a bit more of it and actually accomplishing something. |
|
31 Jul 10 - 12:43 AM (#2955537) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: Jack the Sailor These are the questions that went through my mind as I read the first post of the thread >>>As a response to the US generated thread about the Monarchy in the UK;<<< Why does such a thread need a response? >>Is the Presidency obsolete? It seems to an outsider from the UK that the USA is actually governed by a coalition of media owners, bankers, arms manufacturers, very rich people and right wing Christian pressure groups.<<< This seems like sarcasm to me. If it is seriously meant I'd like to know. Perhaps were could discuss political science. But it does not read like a serious statement to me. It seems like an insult in response to an "impertinent" American questioning his political system. If you don't like the word "attack" that's fine. But it is pretty dismissive and insulting wouldn't you agree? >>>Presidents seem to be elected by unreliable voting systems, and are effectively emasculated (by the vested interests detailed above) within a year of taking office, so what's the point of having one? Why not just let those with real power get on with it?<<< This is an insult to everyone who votes in the US. He is saying you are stupid to vote because your political system is a sham. What is worse, through the whole thing he is implying that in comparison, his political system has no faults. Having read this, I asked him if he was attacking. He did not say he was not attacking, on the contrary, he attacked me. Which brings me to.. "Even if it had been, how on earth would that be an "attack on Americans in general"? Any more than a "sarcastic attack" on the politixcal system of any other country should be seen as an attack on the people of that country? " In my opinion in a democracy the people are responsible for the political system. Ad that to "Why not just let those with real power get on with it?" I see an attack on the voters of the US. As I said, I was simply asking if that was what was intended. Mandotim has more than fully answered that question to my satisfaction. I am done discussing this with him and if no one else has anything to say to me on this topic, I am done with this thread. |
|
31 Jul 10 - 12:50 AM (#2955540) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: Jack the Sailor OK maybe I am not done with the thread, just with the topic of the thread as stated by Tim. >>I still think Obama's a good man, but he hasn't been able to reach the "tipping point" where he has the overwhelming popularity required to really accomplish something in this complex nation of ours. Will he reach that point? I'm not sure. Much as I disliked him, I think Ronald Reagan was one of the few who was able to achieve real change in the U.S.<< I think Obama has accomplished a lot in a year and a half. I'm pretty confident that Health Care on its own will overshadow anything Reagan did. Obama will also oversee the sunsetting of the Bush tax cuts. By the end of two terms the budget will be balanced again. Lets just hope that by then, whoever the Democrats nominate will be smart enough to beat Sarah Palin. |
|
31 Jul 10 - 01:32 AM (#2955547) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: Joe Offer I dunno, Jack. I think there's an element of truth in the thinking that America is run by the Power Elite, and that it is not very responsive to the needs of the people. And the people themselves seem to be controlled by the propaganda of the Power Elite - things like talk radio and FoxNews are very powerful influences in the U.S. Of course, the same is true for the U.K., and for most other nations. -Joe- |
|
31 Jul 10 - 08:01 AM (#2955636) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: olddude I dunno, I also am a country boy but I have seen way too much stuff in my lifetime to not think that a handful of people control everything. Here, there and everywhere .. As far as a Pres ... give me Thomas Jefferson please .. but that ain't gonna happen .. You have to be selected to run for office by the machine .. and that means as Bobster says "The boss hogs" and that is true everywhere in every country anymore. Now as for the queen, who does she hurt? I know nothing about the royal family but it sure seems to me her foundations are all about helping people and kids and the sick and the elderly. It is an embracing of historical roots of the people to keep her as a figure head. One needs to know where they came from (all good all bad aside). What does it hurt? |
|
31 Jul 10 - 08:14 AM (#2955640) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: olddude I would like the good folks from England to correct me if I am wrong but this is my opinion or observation. For us folks in the United States, if anyone pokes fun at the President most of us will laugh, and either agree or disagree but generally will not take offense .. For the symbol of our nation is not the President. That office is passed to someone new every 4 to 8 years. However, if someone makes comments on the bill of rights .. generally the wrath of God is brought on them. Why, the symbol , the foundation of the nation and all those who died for it is in that document. For England, they have the Queen, the symbol of their freedom and their history as a nation, as all those who fought and died to make it what it is rests not in a document as we have but in the symbolic figure. Not because of power she holds (which now really is not an issue) but history. That is why people take offense on comments about the Queen. Poke fun at the prime minister and it is the same as we with our President. But the queen is the symbol of the country and nothing at all wrong with that. Am I right? |
|
31 Jul 10 - 08:35 AM (#2955644) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: Emma B No! There has been a long history of poking fun at the Royal Family as any peek at the work of a look at the graphic art of Gillray, Rowlandson and George Cruikshank will demonstrate. While Victorian satirists would never dare to treat their royals or prime ministers with the contempt with which their grandfathers had lampooned the Prince of Wales a mainstay of the Spitting Image series, a British satirical puppet show which ran on the ITV television network from 1984 to 1996, was the British Royal family 'One will survive' |
|
31 Jul 10 - 08:48 AM (#2955649) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: olddude Thank you ... I stand corrected, that is why I asked the question |
|
31 Jul 10 - 12:08 PM (#2955740) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: Jack the Sailor Yes Joe, Of course there is an element of truth. But it is still obviously an insult and an obviously an attack. Just as if an American were to call Prince Charles "Tampon Chuck" there would be an even greater element of truth because the man famously said that he wanted to be Camila's tampon. It does not have to be untrue to be an attack. In fact true or partly true things are usually the most effective verbal attacks. Its pretty clear that the title of the tread is a tit for tat attack on Amos' thread. Keeping in mind that the Presidency heads the executive arm of the US government and that the government departments need to be run, it is obvious that much of the President's responsibility cannot be obsolete as long as there is a US government and as as long as those responsibilities are not assigned to another office. It may also be noted that Mandotim's argument that "coalition of media owners, bankers, arms manufacturers, very rich people and right wing Christian pressure groups., very rich people and right wing Christian pressure groups." are running the country to the exclusion of the voters has nothing to do with the viability of the office of President. In fact I find his point to be very ironic. The House of Lords is an institution in the UK government specifically meant to give a voice to the rich and powerful. It is indeed a coalition of media owners, bankers, arms manufacturers and very rich people. Is Mandotim saying that the Presidency should be replaced by a local version of the House of Lords? It might be a good idea to cut out the middlemen, the lobbyists and the media, but that would put a lot of smart people out of work. Remember that idle hands do the Devil's work. ;-) |
|
31 Jul 10 - 06:20 PM (#2955912) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: McGrath of Harlow Emma's right there - people poke fun at the Royal Family all the time. Even if someone objects to that it's generally because they feel sympathy towards the targets as human beings, not because of some sense of offended patriotism. There are always exceptions of course, but they'd be likely to be seen, correctly, as oddballs, and you get those anywhere.) ............... In my opinion in a democracy the people are responsible for the political system. That would imply there was some practicable way of changing that system - and that certainly doesn't really seem to be the case with the US system, even more so than in other places. For example, if the Scots decide they want independence, and vote for it, they'll get independence. (The English have learnt a bit from their Irish experience.) If a majority of people decide they want rid of the monarchy, and vote in a Parliament where the majority is committed to abolishing it, the monarchy will be eliminated. |
|
31 Jul 10 - 06:39 PM (#2955919) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: Jack the Sailor McGrath of Harlow >>>In my opinion in a democracy the people are responsible for the political system. That would imply there was some practicable way of changing that system - and that certainly doesn't really seem to be the case with the US system, even more so than in other places.<<< If things in the US were as bad as Mandotim has said and as simple as Mandotim has implied that it is, it would be a relatively simple for 51% to take back the country. The fact is that it is difficult to change because 51% cannot agree on what change they want. Of course Tim has conveniently forgotten that the "right wing Christian pressure groups." actually do represent by and large the views of about a quarter of the country. I do not often agree with these people but I can't dismiss them out of hand like Tim has. I also would never agree with his prescription >>Why not just let those with real power (media owners, bankers, arms manufacturers, very rich people and right wing Christian pressure groups) get on with it<< |
|
31 Jul 10 - 07:35 PM (#2955940) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: McGrath of Harlow "In my opinion in a democracy the people are responsible for the political system." That was a quote on which I was commenting, not something I had said myself - that's why I had it in italics. My point was that it's not really true. So far as I'm aware there is no constitutional way for setting up a fresh Constitutional Convention in the USA. And without that, there seems no way that "a 51% majority" (or something a lot larger for that matter) would be able to make too much difference). And it appears that no kind of majority would allow a part of the USA to leave the Union. |
|
31 Jul 10 - 08:20 PM (#2955949) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: Jack the Sailor McGrath of Harlow Obviously you and I have completely different concepts of what democracy is. That's OK, I don't have anything else to say. |
|
31 Jul 10 - 09:18 PM (#2955964) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: gnu Ya can't leave the union (any union) unless you have the money or you make a money deal. |
|
01 Aug 10 - 06:27 AM (#2956051) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: McGrath of Harlow Of course you can, gnu. Happens all the time. Not a good idea most times, but it happens. Sometimes it is a good idea. ....................... As for democracy, Jack, my view is that being imperfect does not mean a country's political system may not be a democracy, and that being a democracy does not mean that a country's political system is perfect. The USA and the UK are both examples of democracies with political systems that are a long way from perfect, but that's par for the course. |
|
01 Aug 10 - 06:52 AM (#2956061) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: Howard Jones Someone once explained to me that the American constitution was deliberately designed to ensure that too much power could accumulate in one place. Separation of powers means just that, and requires the co-operation of all the constitutional elements for something to be achieved. Just because a president is periodically elected at great expense and fanfare tends to obscure that fact that in reality his hands are largely tied. To compare the US Presidency with the British Monarchy is misleading - their roles are quite different just as the two countries' constitutions are very different. The British system has evolved, and keeps evolving, over time in response to circumstances. The Monarchy has proved remarkably resilient, and although it has handed over most of its powers to Parliament these are still exercised in the name of the Crown. It is worth bearing in mind that the Crown has changed hands many times, and sometimes the System has been quite ruthless in making changes - bringing in the Stuarts, for example, before executing one and throwing out another and bringing in a foreigner. No one designing a constitution from scratch would invent the House of Lords. Nevertheless there is something to be said for having an overseeing body made up of people with experience and expertise, and who are not subject to the short-termist and populist pressures of politics. It's powers were limited, and in any contest the elected House of Commons would invariably win (usually this would turn out to be a mistake). It is now being reformed to make it more democratically accountable, but no one is really sure how this will affect the balance of power between the two Houses. Of course, both systems, as in any country, are in practice susceptible to influence by people who want to make the system work to their advantage and who can provide what the politicians want, whether that's money or popular support. It's hard to prevent that, and all the voter can do is to punish the politicians at the next opportunity. |
|
01 Aug 10 - 01:02 PM (#2956174) Subject: RE: BS: Is the Presidency obsolete in the USA? From: Jack the Sailor In the US the head of the government (administration) is the President The Head of State is the President The Head(s) of the Legislature are The Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority leader In UK the Prime Minister is the Head of Governement and the legislature. The Queen is the Head of State. In many other countries The President is the Head of State while the Prime minister runs the Government and the legislature. In some countries, notably Russia, The roles are more fluid. Generally Head of State is more ceremonial and symbolic but those ceremonies and that symbolism is nearly universally seen to be essential. Keeping that in mind it is obvious that the roles of the Presidency and the Monarchy are not obsolete. But the is legitimate room for debate as to who can best serve those needs. Countries like Canada fill the need of Head of state without either expensive, elections, or The cost of the upkeep of a royal family. So at least there are more practical ways to fill the need. On the other hand, while people Visit London to see the Palaces and Washington to see the White house, almost no one cares about seeing the Governor General's mansion. |