The Reign of Trump

[Animavore]

Of course Trump posting outrageous bollox is really just to distract you from the real things.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 106cec4704
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/us/po ... .html?_r=0

Don't let him side-track you, American chums.

[Seth]

Good news for Seth:
Man charged with removing Obamacare will maximize doctor income and minimize the number of patients they have to treat:
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN13N1Y3

You lie.

Besides, one of the primary problems with the UK's NHS is underpaid, overworked government doctors, who are abandoning the NHS in droves and are even abandoning the UK and moving to places like...wait for it...the US, where they can be fairly compensated for their work and not be overworked by government bureaucrats.

Bad for the UK, great for America!

[Tero]

I thought the poor, weak people were supposed to die in Seth World.

[Seth]

I thought the poor, weak people were supposed to die in Seth World.

You are wrong, as usual.

[Tero]

You are going to give them food stamps? You are on food stamps? Sorry, did not know.

[Seth]

You are going to give them food stamps? You are on food stamps? Sorry, did not know.

Non sequitur.

But why do you assume that only government is capable of providing care for the poor?

Probably because you've drunk the Marxist Kool-Aid.

[Tero]

Because there is no god. Get with rhe program!

[Seth]

Because there is no god. Get with rhe program!

But there are people who believe there is a God and that their God commands them to care for the poor, which they do, by the hundreds of millions, out of their own pockets, by the tens of billions of dollars, without resort to a single government-provided penny.

Besides, do you think that government is comprised of something other than people?

[Cunt]

I would respect a leftie more if they demonstrated respect for their political opponents. Seth does this, from the right. I disagree with plenty, but would be happy to do so in person, while he was armed with an untraceable firearm, in a remote bush camp.

I would not want to even raise the subject with most liberals, in any 'safe space'. Most people don't talk to liberals about their differences, they just pontificate.

[Animavore]

[Seth]

I would respect a leftie more if they demonstrated respect for their political opponents. Seth does this, from the right. I disagree with plenty, but would be happy to do so in person, while he was armed with an untraceable firearm, in a remote bush camp.

I would not want to even raise the subject with most liberals, in any 'safe space'. Most people don't talk to liberals about their differences, they just pontificate.

[Seth]

Jesus Christ! Someone shut him up. I thought the secret service confiscated his Twitter.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... wsrc%5Etfw

Fun Fact: Hillary Supported Punishing Flag Burners In 2005
Photo of Justin Caruso
Justin Caruso
12:45 PM 11/29/2016

Hillary Clinton once proposed punishing those who burned the American flag with jail time. Then-Sen. Clinton, along with Sen. Bob Bennett, proposed the “Flag Protection Act of 2005.”

The bill reads, in part:

“Any person who destroys or damages a flag of the United States with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, and under circumstances in which the person knows that it is reasonably likely to produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.”...

Where's your faux outrage now?

[Hermit]

Yes, but they vest him with "Prime" Ministership, and he is the head of government and the holder of supreme executive power. ... They are not 100% the same, but they serve much of the same functions.

Yes, there are similarities between your government and hours, but to say they are not 100% the same is a gross understatement. You don't seem to appreciate the extent of the structural and procedural differences between our government and yours and our Prime Ministerial powers and functions and your Presidential ones that I tried to outline.

I appreciate them fine, and I did not suggest that the "governments" were the same. I suggested the President and the Prime Minister serve similar functions. I know far more about the Parliamentary system than most people, not only conceptually but in practice (as I interned for an MP in Ottawa. In constitutional monarchies, like the United Kingdom, the prime minister often assumes the role of a chief executive while the official executive—the monarch—only holds symbolic authority. A President is also the chief executive. A prime minister acts as head of government, ensuring the passage of bills through the legislature and managing the civil service. In this respect, he is similar to a president, who is the head of his country's executive branch.

The main difference is that in parliamentary systems the executive branch and legislative branch are combined, whereas in the American constitutional republic system the executive branch and the legislative branch are separate.

There certainly are significant similarities between the US and parliamentary style governments. I don't intend to downplay, let alone deny them, even though it may seem so when I highlight some significant differences the extent and import you still don't seem to sufficiently grasp. Yes, the fact that the executive and legislative branches are combined in the latter while they are split in the former government structures makes a huge difference, but it is not the main difference. There are others, the differences between the heads of government being one. Of course it can be cogently argued that the differences between the heads of government flow from the differences regarding the legislative/executive setup, but leaving it at that provides a worse than inaccurate picture. In particular, it leaves out the fact that a Prime Minister is significantly more tied up with, and a mere part of parliament than a president is with and of congress. I won't repeat the details I outlined earlier unless you want me to.

To recapitulate: Neither executive nor legislative power is vested in our Prime Minister as Prime Minister. Both are vested in parliament as a whole, of which he is just an ordinary member for those purposes. He has no formal legislative, let alone executive powers that any other member in the house of reps does not also have. Without the concurrence of a majority in the lower house and the approval by the majority of the upper he can do nothing whatsoever.

This is rather an understatement. The Prime Minister is head of your executive branch (Australian government) as distinct from the legislative branch and the judiciary. The ministers report to him, and the ministries do quite a lot without having to obtain approval from the legislature (parliament). Authority is delegated to the ministries just as in the US authority is delegated by the legislature (Congress) to the executive agencies (ministries, but we don't use that term). So, your Prime Minister is head of government, leader of the Cabinet (of senior ministers), and the chairperson of the National Security Commission - he or she acts as the chief representative of the country for international affairs.

No, I am not understating the PM's powers. I am highlighting the limits of them. Keeping in mind that your president's powers are circumscribed by the constitution and by what congress will let him do, and keeping in mind that our Prime Minister does have greater scope to act than cabinet ministers, ordinary ministers, parliamentary members who are also members of the government and lastly parliamentary members who are members of the opposition or are independents, he (on one occasion, she) is even less autonomous than your president. This boils down to the fact that first and foremost he is a member of parliament and that he has few privileges and powers that every other member of the lower house has not. His powers, unlike your president's, are not so much ex officio as they are by virtue of being a member of parliament. Any extra powers he does have are not granted by the constitution but by parliament. That would explain why our constitution never acknowledges the existence of a Prime Minister even once, but deals with the role of parliament at length.

Unlike your president he cannot decree anything either.

Well, the President's authority is limited to that which is within his constitutional powers, and that which was delegated to the executive branch. But, yes, indeed, the "executive order" thing is not present in most parliamentary systems.

You are, perhaps unwittingly, getting close to the main difference I'm trying to get you to understand: Your president's role is constitutionally acknowledged. Our constitution does not even see a Prime Minister. It does see parliament of which he is a member.

He can be sacked in any number of ways before the expected term of his office is over, and the only way he can attempt to get stalled legislation through after failing to do so in three readings is to declare both houses vacant (including his own seat), which means calling an election. It's called a double dissolution. If the previous government gets re-elected, it can try getting the stalled law(s) passed again. (We had one of those a year ago. The previous government got re-elected, but because it has not won a majority in the upper house it faces the same problems getting legislation ratified as before without the help of several independent senators.) Yes, the Prime Minister is the head of government, but his powers and importance is not comparable to your President. The office is so insignificant in relation to the rest of our governmental structure that it is not even mentioned in our constitution.

Indeed, the positions are not the same, but they do share similarities, and it is, in my view, an understatement to suggest that the PM is insignificant. However, I agree with the substance of your highlights of the differences.

You think you see the substance, but the fact that you focus on the word "insignificant" and leave out the context demonstrates that you don't. "the PM is insignificant" strips out all meaning of what I am trying to say. Less generous people would accuse you of quote mining. Read the words I highlighted above, please, before trying again.



Note: And try not to fuck up the quote tags so comprehensively in future. Most of your replies were buried among my text, as a result of which I almost missed them, and it took me quite some time to fix the mess you created.

[JimC]

Who reads twitter?

Twits!

[pErvinalia]

I would respect a leftie more if they demonstrated respect for their political opponents. Seth does this, from the right.

My fucking God, the level of delusion in some here is hilarious (and scary).