'Wha’ll be king but Charlie' - Scottish Jacobite Song

There's a lot of irony here in using a Jacobite song: especially since the movement is pretty much dead. Unless you're a septic or out of touch with the world. 

On the other hand, the current King is Charles, which was a poor choice for a name since Kings named Charles haven't had good runs so far.

He should have gone with Arthur.

But, the first Charles did rule during the start of the English Civil War, which is similar to the Civil War that is brewing in the US. One where the Constitutional power will be divided up to put paid to the myth of three equal branches. 

Any Parliamentary system needs to have the power in the legislative branch with a weak executive head of state.

Otherwise, it does seem appropriate since Trump isn't very much of a leader. He's the cartoon villain. The heel of World Wrestling Entertainment kayfaybe. 

The fallacious thinking of the "No Kings" anti-Trumpers

 It’s nice to say ignorant things like « no kings » when Canada has a king and things are much better. The even more important aspect of that is that Canada IS BRITISH NORTH AMERICA!

Anyway, your tweedledum-tweedledumber two party system is responsible for the issues you decry: not just Donald Trump.

As is the US Constitution, which gave you the first Trump administration through the electoral college.

And for that matter, you might want to look up the history of the insurrection act and how that « trumps » posse comitatus. 

So, you need to work to destroy the oligarchs and the two party system if you seriously want to get the power in the hands of the people.

Only a real multi party democracy will do that.

A Canadian view on "no kings"

Just remember that Canada is British North America and you don't need to take a guess about alternative history.

And you would be having new elections if you were like Canada and still had a king.

 

The fallacious thinking of the "No Kings" anti-Trumpers

They are ignorant of the fact that you would be having new elections if you still had a king because you would be under the Westminster system. Failure to pass a budget bill requires that the government disolve because of Loss of supply, which implies a loss of confidence in that system.

Toss in that Prince Andrew has been stripped of his titles and honours (except that of prince) because of his association with Epstein by King Charles.

Think about that when you say ignorant things about having a Constitutional Monarch.

Also, realise that the taxes levied by Britain on the Colonies were the bill for the war caused by George Washington. I'm sure things could have come to a screeching halt had the British asked for money up front instead of letting things slide during that conflict.

Just look up Benjamin Franklin's Albany Plan of Union for how the British could have stopped any seeds of independence arising.

Because you might be living under a French system where militarised police (Gendarmes) are the norm had the British not funded the defence of the colonies.

Think about that.

There's a reason this man is looking so smug.

Bring Down The Government!

Or why is this man looking so smug?

The bottom line is that if the US had a Westminster system, the government would be dissolved and there would be new elections.  One of the characteristics of a government run under this is a llegislative body with an ability to dismiss a government by "withholding (or blocking) supply" (rejecting a budget).

Loss of supply occurs where a government in a parliamentary democracy using the Westminster System or a system derived from it is denied a supply of treasury or exchequer funds, by whichever house or houses of parliament or head of state is constitutionally entitled to grant and deny supply. A defeat on a budgetary vote is one way by which supply can be denied. Loss of supply is typically interpreted as indicating a loss of confidence in the government. Not all money bills are necessarily supply bills. For instance, in Australia, supply bills are defined as "bills which are required by the Government to carry on its day-to-day business"

It's also amusing that septics in their ignorance don't realise that the English Civil War was about who had the power: the monarch or the legislature.

The legislature won.
The

Will Trump cause the collapse of the US Government?

 Perhaps it's time to admit that the US is a de facto Westminster Parliamentary Democracy. That is a system where the lower house of parliament has an ability to dismiss a government by "withholding (or blocking) supply" (rejecting a budget). This automatically leads to a call for new elections. 

Loss of supply occurs where a government in a parliamentary democracy using the Westminster System or a system derived from it is denied a supply of treasury or exchequer funds, by whichever house or houses of parliament or head of state is constitutionally entitled to grant and deny supply. A defeat on a budgetary vote is one way by which supply can be denied. Loss of supply is typically interpreted as indicating a loss of confidence in the government. Not all money bills are necessarily supply bills. For instance, in Australia, supply bills are defined as "bills which are required by the Government to carry on its day-to-day business". 

A similar deadlock can occur within a presidential system, where it is also known as a budget crisis. In contrast to parliamentary systems, the failure of the legislature to authorize spending may not in all circumstances result in an election, because some such legislatures enjoy fixed terms and so cannot be dissolved before a date of termination, which can result in a prolonged crisis. 

Wouldn't calling for an election to see how popular the government make far more sense than this? 

Other than it would put paid to the myth that the US system lives with compromise. Your governments would make Belgium or Italy look stable if you went to a parliamentary system.

Is Project 2025 the start of the US version of the English Civil War?

 Short form: the English Civil War was a series of civil wars and political machinations between Royalists and Parliamentarians in the Kingdom of England from 1642 to 1651. To put it in US terms: those who wanted power in the Executive vs those who wanted a popular voice. It was even more radical in France, but the US is closer to England than the continent in its political nature.

According to this video, project 2025 seeks to make the executive branch the more powerful one.

 

 I go a lot further than this video in that I would like to see the executive branch be basically that: administration of the laws passed by the legislature with a very minimal voice in the legislation process.

That would make the president basically an official greeter.

Owen Jones on why Joe Biden Is a terrible choice.

I don't totally agree with him, but he has quite a few good points.



The only real choice if you don't like the duopoly candidates is Jill Stein. She is on enough ballots to get the 270 votes needed to win the electoral college.

And stop blaming the Russians, unless the DNC is run by Russians.

Congressman Makes HUGE Admission About Bernie's 2020 Primaries

OK, we now have it out in the open what we guessed happened all along: Sanders was going to win the nomination. So, the Democrats circle their wagons and run two of the worst possible candidates. Of course, they "won" the nomination if you really want to believe that. But doesn't it stink that the DNC that year was VIRTUAL??? I mean an unpopular candidate somehow manages to beat a popular one.

REALLY?

No, vote blue no matter who and get someone who belongs in a memory care unit, not the white house. It's time to look to another party that really represents the people.

As I said, I Demexited in 2016 because the Democrats became too obvious that they don't want to represent me.

And, elections are rigged in the US. The primaries being a really glarring example of it. The US needs to stop funding private elections with public money.

Let me repeat, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS NOT A PARTY OF THE LEFT!!!!!!

How Do You Do, Fellow Progressives?

That should be obvious by now, but they prefer to run candidates of questionable ability: even if that means losing to Trump.

It's been nearly two weeks and Dementia Joe is still the Democratic candidate for president: despite it being REALLY obvious that he isn't fit for the job.

He wasn't in 2020. In fact, both Biden and Harris were weak candidates who somehow managed to defeat a popular candidate from the "left".

Bernie Sanders.

The thing is that Bernie Sanders represents a solidly Red state, with the possible exception of Burlington. In fact, a Sanders candidacy would have shaken the US political landscape quite drastically. But he was suppressed for good reason if you want to keep the joke that is the US political system.

And despite what Fox News and their ilk will tell you, the Democrats are not a party of the left. Otherwise, they would have run Sanders. But the Democrats have a long history of making sure candidates like Sanders don't win (look up Henry Wallace).

There's a reason that "Hot button" issues are the ones being discussed rather than the real issues facing the United States country. This means that pretty much anyone who sides with the Democratic party doesn't have a lot of support from me.

And they are not what I consider to be true progressives.

Because voting "blue no matter who" is what led to this mess.

George Monbiot EXPOSES Keir Starmer’s Hollow Victory

OK, this is concerns British politics, but it relates to the rise of the "right". Especially since he talks about "Killer Clowns", which is embodied in the United States by someone like Donald Trump (ici par Marine LePen).

The problem was that the Dems could have run Bernie Sanders who is lefty, yet represents a solidly red state, who would have brought a kind of left wing politics. But Bernie is hardly left outside of the United States.


The real takeaway is that the same lesson can be learned in the United States.

And some Jonathan Pie, who I pretty much forgot about post-Brexit.

No Scandal for Joe Biden???

As someone who has been asking about Hunter's laptop for some time, I know that Joe is as slimey, if not more so than Trump (disclaimer: my cousin uses the same computer repair company for his business).

Trust me, we would have two candidates with felony charges if Biden didn't have dementia. That makes any comment about Trumps being a "man of his convictions" seem ridiculous.

"Trump is a convicted felon..."
"Yeah, well, Biden probably would be as well if he didn't have dementia..."

Jaysus, and you wonder why I am voting for the only third party candidate who stands a chance of winning?

How the media turned on Biden

Actually, it was obvious in 2020. I want to write about how rigged US politics happens to be, but Biden "beating" Sanders in the 2020 Democratic primary was a case in point. The "Hidin' Biden" thing came from the liberal media because Biden wasn't doing interviews with even friendly pundits.

Sorry, right wing media, but the Democrats are in no way a party of the "left". They went with Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2020. They would rather lose with candidates like these than run someone like Bernie Sanders.

And Sanders is pretty moderate if one leaves the US.

The exact moment Biden lost the debate | About That

From the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Just remember, if you want a real opposing opinion, you need to leave the United States.

And I suggest you vote Green if you don't like Trump.

Kings and Queens

I was thinking that the current national anthem of Great Britain, and a few other places, is no longer "God Save the Queen" since the Queen died. It is now "God Save the King". But that thought has me thinking in truly republican terms: since the only real difference between a republic and democracy is that the republic doesn't have nobility.

That means a democratic monarchy can have a hereditary head of state who can be totally out of it, which in the case of Britain was King George III. Republics can have out of touch heads of state as well. Case in point: the United States for most of this century.

The truth of the matter is that the US Constitution was a waste of time and paper since the reality is that it is meaningless. Most people have no idea what it means. Toss in that there are dangerous sections which have been misinterpreted to the detriment of public safety. Yet, the Judges did not say this was a case of desuetude, but reinterpreted the constitution.

The reality is that there will not be a bloody civil war between parliamentarians and those who wish to keep the old system in the US as happened in the Commonwealth period under Cromwell. It may be more of a Glorious Revolution where the people make the changes from the bottom up.

Having idiots and  lunatics as leaders has shown that the executive is pretty much a ceremonial post, the way having a King, Queen, Duke, Duchess, or other ceremonial leader is in a monarchy. The real power is in the legislature. And, as Tip O'Neill said, "all politics is local".

The way to really get change is to elect local legislators who are committed to change.

And the documentation will follow.

The United States is a De Facto Parliamentary political system.

 I've been wanting to write this for a long time, but haven't. Current events are pushing me to point out the reality of the US political system.

Despite the founders intent of three separate branches and checks and balances: The real power is in the legislature

De facto describes practices that exist in reality, even though they are not officially recognized by laws. De jure is according to the law. 

Law does not always reflect the reality. 

The reasons I say that the US is a de facto parliamentary system should be obvious, but most people are distracted by the president that they miss the body with any real power is the legislature. The legislature holds the power of the purse, among many others that make it the strongest and most powerful branch.. 

The failure to pass a budget in any true parliamentary democracy would lead to automatic dissolution of the government. This is due to the concept of "loss of supply":

A defeat on a budgetary vote is one way by which supply can be denied. Loss of supply is typically interpreted as indicating a loss of confidence in the government. Not all "money bills" are necessarily supply bills. For instance, in Australia, supply bills are defined as "bills which are required by the Government to carry on its day-to-day business".

When a loss of supply occurs, a prime minister is generally required either by constitutional convention or by explicit constitutional instruction to either resign immediately or seek a parliamentary dissolution.

Some constitutions, however, do not allow the option of parliamentary dissolution but rather require the government to be dissolved or to resign. 

The US system has specified term limits, which is one way that dissolution of government resulting in new elections can be prevented. On the other hand, the US government could conceivably go into a prolonged budget crisis and government shutdown. That's one reason that US Budget crises tend to be short.

On the other hand, if one party really didn't like the other one. The budget crisis could last until the end of the legislative session.

Next reason why the US is actually parliamentary is that the legislature can remove the executive. While the criterion for doing this is "high crimes and misdemeanours": the reality is that it can be for frivolous reasons  if one political party dislikes the executive of the other party. While the criterion is "high crimes and misdemeanours", the reality is that the process is blatantly political. That is because other executives have engages in "high crimes and misdemeanours" by violation of international law (e.g., illegal war) with little or no consequences.

On the other hand, don't lie about blowjobs.

Not sure where this comes into the strength of the argument, but the legislature offers the best place for representing the people. The legislature is directly elected and proportional to the population (at least in the house of representatives). On the other hand, it is one place where alternative parties can have a voice.

The president is not a directly elected, which is another place the legislature has control over that office. In a way, the current situation is like the English Civil War where the question was which body had the power: the monarch or the legislature? 

The legislature (parliament) won the battle.

Those of us who feel the current system is not representative should put our efforts into getting alternative parties into congress: not being hopeful that either party will change. Tip O'Neill said "all politics are local". 

Realising that the real power in the US is in the legislature is the beginning of the battle to bring about a change in US politics.