What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Dump Term 2 Part 5: He Didn't Specify Which Civilization Would Die...

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
Frankly, and maybe this will come off as nativist and silly given our (fading) superpower status, but I think it's usually a tacky and politically motivated choice to have any foreign leader, no matter how ceremonial, directly address our Congress. I hated it when they let Netan-yayhoo do it multiple times now. I didn't like it when Pope Francis did it. I didn't like it when Merkel did it. Doesn't matter who, it's always bugged me.
Click to expand...

I'd argue having a head of state (King Charles III) address Congress is a sign of respect and also reinforces that in the US sovereignty rests with the people, to whom the legislative branch is most immediately connected, and not President Homelander.

I agree that having a head of government (Keir Starmer) address Congress is inappropriate and a foreign intrusion on our politics.

IMO the United States would benefit from dividing the duties and symbolism of the head of state from the head of government. The Founders thought a head of state would diminish the power of the states vs the central government. How did that work out? In fact, I believe severing the head of state from the Presidency would help to shrink the executive branch back to a co-equal branch, as the gravitas of the office would no longer be associated with partisan political activism. While the head of state would be an elected office and thus partisan, its powerlessness would detoxify it from much of the outright bribery and dirty tricks used by the wealthy to capture and hold the government.

IMO.

I would create the office of Chief Executive to absorb most Article II powers, and make the President largely ceremonial as in France and Germany. Note that in those systems, it is the President who has the pardon power, not the head of government. The benefit thereof is obvious.

Fun fact: Pope Leo XIV is the head of state of the Vatican. The head of government is Raffaella Petrini, president of the Pontifical Commission and Governorate. She is the first woman to hold that position.
 
Last edited:
Kepler said:
IMO the United States would benefit from dividing the duties and symbolism of the head of state from the head of government. The Founders thought a head of state would diminish the power of the states vs the central government. How did that work out? In fact, I believe severing the head of state from the Presidency would help to shrink the executive branch back to a co-equal branch, as the gravitas of the office would no longer be associated with partisan political activism. While the head of state would be an elected office and thus partisan, its powerlessness would detoxify it from much of the outright bribery and dirty tricks used by the wealthy to capture and hold the government.
Click to expand...
This is how Israel does it. How well has it worked out for them?
 
Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
so this is how they want more trumptards to get passports
Click to expand...
Supposedly, it is for a limited time and there will only be around 25,000 of them issued.....

Like how many people in the DC area going to go to renew IN PERSON? Or how many people in the US going to go to the DC office and apply/renew IN PERSON?

Oh, wait, these are MAGAts we are talking about. Bibles, cell phone, crypto, sneakers, flags, caps..... so I guess...... I am surprised Trump has tacked an extra "fee" onto it for his mugshot. Or maybe they just conveniently left that part out?
 
Russell Jaslow said:
This is how Israel does it. How well has it worked out for them?
Click to expand...

It is how almost everybody with a Parliamentary system does it. Israel sucks for other reasons than political institutional structure.

TBH I do not understand how the Israeli electorate got so stoopid. I think 50 years ago they were probably the most educated, savvy, and nuanced polity on Earth. 50 years of tit for tat guerrilla war apparently turns human beings into animals.

The natural habitat of an authoritarian government is civil disorder. No wonder they provoke it wherever they get a foothold. It's not Left vs Right. It's all of us against the Fasc.
 
Kepler said:
TBH I do not understand how the Israeli electorate got so stoopid.
Click to expand...

When something like a third of the country doesn't have to work outside of studying the Torah and is exempt from military service while receiving government support to live, there's your built in MIGA voter base.
 
go ahead, diaper don, close all our Germany bases because you're mad at Merz.

not like our bases there are strategic, where will our cannon fodder go for treatment when they get a booboo from a bomb?
 
Kepler said:
It is how almost everybody with a Parliamentary system does it. Israel sucks for other reasons than political institutional structure.

TBH I do not understand how the Israeli electorate got so stoopid. I think 50 years ago they were probably the most educated, savvy, and nuanced polity on Earth. 50 years of tit for tat guerrilla war apparently turns human beings into animals.
Click to expand...
Hint: No Prime Minister ever won a clean majority in any election in Israel's history. Not one. Not Ben-Gurion, the "George Washington" of Israel. Not Golda Meir. Not one. Every election has ended with the need to negotiate a coalition to form a government.

It is my understanding that the Israeli parliamentary system has the lowest voting threshold for a party to win a seat. It is this reason that so many parties exist and so many parties get representation in the Knesset. And thus, the people's voice, on a national level, never really gets heard. It's whatever hodge-podge set of agreements the politicians can come up that ultimately determines power. Conversely, it's also why so many governments fall apart and the need for so many elections.
 
Russell Jaslow said:
Hint: No Prime Minister ever won a clean majority in any election in Israel's history. Not one. Not Ben-Gurion, the "George Washington" of Israel. Not Golda Meir. Not one. Every election has ended with the need to negotiate a coalition to form a government.

It is my understanding that the Israeli parliamentary system has the lowest voting threshold for a party to win a seat. It is this reason that so many parties exist and so many parties get representation in the Knesset. And thus, the people's voice, on a national level, never really gets heard. It's whatever hodge-podge set of agreements the politicians can come up that ultimately determines power. Conversely, it's also why so many governments fall apart and the need for so many elections.
Click to expand...
Interesting, thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top