Quote from: Tamas on Today at 03:16:17 PMDo you think that is conceiveable?!
Seriously what kind of a comment is that, if we are only allowed to comment on speculate on things that we have the most detailed understanding of of anyone on the planet, there won't be much left to discuss.
Quote from: Valmy on Today at 05:14:44 PMDidn't she actually sail there are get arrested or something? Seems bizarre to have such sneering contempt for somebody who actually put their ass on the line.
Also what exactly is your criticism here? Is there some concrete action one individual person can do that would instantly solve all these problems? I mean if US Presidents have flailed importently for decades it seems insane to direct your ire at some random powerless private person. Seems like the people who actually have power, money, and resources and still miserably fail at everything would be more worthy of your contempt.
Quote from: crazy canuck on Today at 11:03:25 AMAgain, that is a very American centric view if the world. A parliamentary system does have competing branches of government. The flaw in the US system is it did create competing branches and hoped each branch would be a check on the others.
The Parliament system encourages cooperation. For a third time (because you keep ignoring this point) a non confidence vote, like a budget vote, means there is a new general election. That tends to focus the mind on what compromises are possible.
It also gives a lot of power to back benchers if someone like Trump (or Vance) were to arise.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on Today at 02:32:29 PMClearly Greta Thunberg needs to chant from the river to the sea some more.
Like the previous dozen times.
They obviously have to do it again. Next time it'll definitely work and Hamas will stop killing Palestinians by sheer moral force.
Quotejust seems like Presidential systems have authoritarianism much more baked into them
Quote from: Tamas on Today at 03:19:58 PMA parlamentiary as opposed to presidential democracy is better no argument there, but just from my limited knowledge I can raise Hungary as a parlamentiary democracy that has failed. It even had a very modern two-rounds election system which was far superior to something like the British first past the post nonsense but once an actor like Orban got a constitutional majority it all went to hell.
Quote from: crazy canuck on Today at 11:03:25 AMQuote from: Tamas on October 11, 2025, 01:13:47 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 09, 2025, 03:16:13 PMQuote from: Tamas on October 09, 2025, 01:32:57 PMConcentrating power just concentrates power - you concentrate power in a few hands with no checks in balances to fight the rich and suddenly you have created your own enemy.
Checks and balances are annoying when your guy is being checked and balanced but the best system invented so far to maintain a democracy.
Where are the checks and balances to which you refer? Sounds great in theory - it's in practice that it starts crumbling. Take the US as the most recent tragic example.
Sure but no matter what system you build (and this is in reply to Sheilbh as well), anything beyond sheer physical coercion requires the consent of the ruled and the powerful to accept the rules.
First stop is the ones in power agreeing implicitly not to use their power to diminish other branches of power. If they try those other branches should push back before it is too late. Failing that, the electorate should step in to stop those efforts.
Obviously if all those steps fail then the system fails but this is not something you can remedy except by giving up and just going straight for your preferred form of autocracy.
Again, that is a very American centric view if the world. A parliamentary system does have competing branches of government. The flaw in the US system is it did create competing branches and hoped each branch would be a check on the others.
The Parliament system encourages cooperation. For a third time (because you keep ignoring this point) a non confidence vote, like a budget vote, means there is a new general election. That tends to focus the mind on what compromises are possible.
It also gives a lot of power to back benchers if someone like Trump (or Vance) were to arise.
Page created in 0.046 seconds with 16 queries.