Is the U.S. Republican system really better than other democratic countries?

[blackbird]

quote

All the unconstitutional behavior or enforcement illegality perpetrated by Trump — and therefore the galvanizing positive reaction to “Operation Metro Surge” in Minneapolis — has only been experienced because the Supreme Court anointed Trump as someone “above the law.”

Had it not been for that anti-constitutional decision, Trump would not have returned to the White House. Most importantly, this hideous decision empowered the racketeer- and insurrectionist-in-chief, enabling him to neuter the Republican Congress and neutralize the “checks and balances” that are supposed to govern our federal republic.

Perhaps Trump’s two most amazing “accomplishments” are:

 

・Turning the DOJ into his personal law firm and the FBI into his private investigative agency, as evidenced by the raid on a Georgia election office.

・Breaking the law on a regular basis without any accountability at all, even when ordered hundreds of times by courts of law to cease and desist.

In sum, what is and is not a “crime” is being defined by a certifiable sociopath. But that definition cannot last forever.

・Gregg Barak is an emeritus professor of criminology and criminal justice at Eastern Michigan University and the author of several award winning books on the crimes of the powerful, includingCriminology on Trump (2022) and its sequel,Indicting the 45th President: Boss Trump, the GOP, and What We Can Do About the Threat to American Democracy (2024). The third book in this Trump trilogy, Regime Change, Authoritarian Treason, and the Outlaw-in-Chief: President Donald Trump’s Struggle to Kill U.S. Democracy & Realign American Global Power, will be published after the 2026 midterm election.    unquote

Amid Trump's relentless criminality, he's desperate you don't learn this truth | Opinion

I believe it doesn't really matter whether a country is Republican, as the U.S. is, or a Constitutional monarchy, such as Canada.  What matters is the kind of people that are put in power.  Are they honest and respecting the rights of the people enumerated in the written constitution, or do they ignore those rights with impunity.  That would seem to be what really matters.  

Admittedly in Canada we have problems with government as well, including ethics violations.  Also we have problems with government massive overspending and running massive debts.  It seems some governments are better than others at times and more respectful of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

Edited February 7 by blackbird

[User]

More spam. 

Come back with an original thought of your own to share. 

[Legato]

Guess who wants to sell books, then guess which of those who never had an original thought will buy them.

[ironstone]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Turning the DOJ into his personal law firm and the FBI into his private investigative agency, as evidenced by the raid on a Georgia election office.

Would that be the same DOJ that was behind the raid at Trump's home in Mar-a-Lago where they were sifting through Melania's personal items?

Is the US system better than other democratic countries? Well, it can't be all that bad since millions of people throughout the world still are trying to get into the US, which is the world's largest economy and most powerful nation. There is that.

[herbie]

No it is not. A Parliamentary system is better, with a King or President that has extremely limited power (can't make laws)

A: the US system amounts to electing a King for 4 years if the President ignores, controls the other branches designed as checks and balances.
- the President is not at the mercy of the Party they represent while in office. The UK, Australia, NZ and Canada have removed a leader when the Party decided it is time to go. 
- Should a President go, they're replaced by a mini-me running mate for the remainder of that term.

B: there is no 'non-confidence' vote option. If a budget or extreme policy issue is rejected by Parliament a new election occurs elsewhere.

IMHO those are failings of the Republican system and while I am no great supporter of the Monarchy, the only change I'd go for is the Monarch's replacement by an elected GG with no additional powers.

 

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, ironstone said:

Would that be the same DOJ that was behind the raid at Trump's home in Mar-a-Lago where they were sifting through Melania's personal items?

Nope. The DoJ has been heavily transformed by Trump's multiple choices for leadership there (his personal lawyers)  and all the agents who've been fired or resigned.

Do you know that most all of the agents who worked on holding J6 insurrectionists accountable have been fired?

 

1 hour ago, ironstone said:

Is the US system better than other democratic countries? Well, it can't be all that bad since millions of people throughout the world still are trying to get into the US, which is the world's largest economy and most powerful nation. There is that.

It can be much worse than the reputation we had that attracted those people and don't understand it's CHANGED.

I'm surprised that you don't understand that since your country has been targeted for annexation by Trump.

Seems like you'd like that. LMAO

[John Johnston]

33 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Nope. The DoJ has been heavily transformed by Trump's multiple choices for leadership there (his personal lawyers)  and all the agents who've been fired or resigned.

Do you know that most all of the agents who worked on holding J6 insurrectionists accountable have been fired?

 

It can be much worse than the reputation we had that attracted those people and don't understand it's CHANGED.

I'm surprised that you don't understand that since your country has been targeted for annexation by Trump.

Seems like you'd like that. LMAO

The DOJ is now acting like the Palace Police. They are trying to be like SAVAK or the KGB, Luckily for America they are more like the Keystone Cops. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

No it is not. A Parliamentary system is better, with a King or President that has extremely limited power (can't make laws)

A: the US system amounts to electing a King for 4 years if the President ignores, controls the other branches designed as checks and balances.
- the President is not at the mercy of the Party they represent while in office. The UK, Australia, NZ and Canada have removed a leader when the Party decided it is time to go. 
- Should a President go, they're replaced by a mini-me running mate for the remainder of that term.

B: there is no 'non-confidence' vote option. If a budget or extreme policy issue is rejected by Parliament a new election occurs elsewhere.

IMHO those are failings of the Republican system and while I am no great supporter of the Monarchy, the only change I'd go for is the Monarch's replacement by an elected GG with no additional powers.

 

Overall I agree woith you generally speaking ( i know, twice in one day! )  but it's worth noting that the problem with the american system is that it didn't start out that way.  In fact the president's powers were exceptionally limited.  But the way it was designed made it easier and easier for more and more presidents over the years to steal more and more power and put it in the office of the president and nobody could do anything about it. 

And that is probably the biggest flaw. It has no version of a GG to act as a democratic circuit breaker and say "oh no you don't". 

We have had prime ministers who played similar games (i ain't lyon!) but we've had gg's stand up and smack them around a little, and it keeps our democracy from going off the rails. The us had no effective version of that and now as you say they elect a king, and there's no reason to believe that the problem won't contine to get worse over time 

So the Westminster based system is not only better in practice but it's better by design and more resistant to the kind of abuses we've seen take place in the American system. As a result even though the majority of people voted against Justin Trudeau and his last election you didn't see tons of people running around claiming the election was stolen

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, herbie said:

the US system amounts to electing a King for 4 years if the President ignores, controls the other branches designed as checks and balances.
.....

IMHO those are failings of the Republican system and while I am no great supporter of the Monarchy, the only change I'd go for is the Monarch's replacement by an elected GG with no additional powers.

All the same our PM only needs a majority and party loyalty to authorize him. That's it. There's no Congress to answer to and the PM can use the notwithstanding clause to sidestep the SCC.

Imagine if Canada had a military as powerful as America's and the PMO was in Trump's hands.

We'd need a mighty powerful GG. With the gravitas of a video about hookers and watersports.

[User]

4 hours ago, herbie said:

No it is not. A Parliamentary system is better, with a King or President that has extremely limited power (can't make laws)

A: the US system amounts to electing a King for 4 years if the President ignores, controls the other branches designed as checks and balances.
- the President is not at the mercy of the Party they represent while in office. The UK, Australia, NZ and Canada have removed a leader when the Party decided it is time to go. 
- Should a President go, they're replaced by a mini-me running mate for the remainder of that term.

B: there is no 'non-confidence' vote option. If a budget or extreme policy issue is rejected by Parliament a new election occurs elsewhere.

IMHO those are failings of the Republican system and while I am no great supporter of the Monarchy, the only change I'd go for is the Monarch's replacement by an elected GG with no additional powers.

 

It is either ignorance or just dishonesty with how you characterize the US system. 

 

2 hours ago, John Johnston said:

The DOJ is now acting like the Palace Police. They are trying to be like SAVAK or the KGB, Luckily for America they are more like the Keystone Cops. 

How so? Let's see a real argument, not baseless, absurd assertions. 

[herbie]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

All the same our PM only needs a majority and party loyalty to authorize him. That's it. There's no Congress to anThe Partyswer to

 

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

the PM can use the notwithstanding clause

Which was bever intended for the Feds to use and so far only PP tosses it about as an easy option to impose unsupported and unconstitutional bills. Harper wasn't that deplorable.

We also have the lovely tradition of MPs can 'cross the floor' if they're tpp dsmn chickenshit to stand up to the PM. Your MiniTrump scenario in Cabada is like an Ethiopian Emperor: Highly Unlikely.

I also forgot to add that there is little room for alternate political parties or coalitions in their system. How do groups like the NDP, the Bloc, the Greens get represented? We've seen many times how they can exert influence and get results. 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

All the same our PM only needs a majority and party loyalty to authorize him. That's it. There's no Congress to answer to and the PM can use the notwithstanding clause to sidestep the SCC.

Imagine if Canada had a military as powerful as America's and the PMO was in Trump's hands.

We'd need a mighty powerful GG. With the gravitas of a video about hookers and watersports.

False. 

First off,  ONLY a majority?  That's not so easy to come by these days and never would have been if ontario and quebec hadn't repressed growth in the west so long. How many actual majorities have we seen in the last 25 years? 2?

Secondly there have been plenty of back bench revolts over the years.  Nobody actually voted AGAINST trudeau, but do you think he WANTED to leave?

Then there's the senate which can delay an obstruct legislation and has done so in the past. In fact the only reason that Trudeau called off the emergency act is that the senate was about to vote on it and made it clear that they were going to vote it down

And if the pmo wanted to go to war even with the majority they would find it extremely more difficult and lengthy then trump does, unless we're actually being invaded.

You have no idea how politics works

 

 

 

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, herbie said:

Your MiniTrump scenario in Cabada is like an Ethiopian Emperor: Highly Unlikely.

I totally agree, I'm just saying...under the worst case scenario for sure.

[John Johnston]

11 hours ago, User said:

It is either ignorance or just dishonesty with how you characterize the US system. 

 

How so? Let's see a real argument, not baseless, absurd assertions. 

Tulsi Gabbard's presence at the FBI's Georgia election office raid , 

This is where it starts. 

[John Stone]

...........U.S. citizens have a belief that it is the citizens that elect the political candidate that represents them  - in truth it is the Candidate that picks the citizens. lol

........ a nod to Political  Action Committees, endorsed by SCOTUS that flood the zone of a desired Party/Candidate - the juice would astound most people. 

Electoral College?

Def not proportional.

.............who is responsible for changing electoral rules?

Congress! 

See the problem. 

Edited February 8 by John Stone

[Nationalist]

58 minutes ago, John Stone said:

...........U.S. citizens have a belief that it is the citizens that elect the political candidate that represents them  - in truth it is the Candidate that picks the citizens. lol

........ a nod to Political  Action Committees, endorsed by SCOTUS that flood the zone of a desired Party/Candidate - the juice would astound most people. 

Electoral College?

Def not proportional.

.............who is responsible for changing electoral rules?

Congress! 

See the problem. 

I do see the problem.

59 minutes ago, John Stone said:

U.S. citizens have a belief that it is the citizens that elect the political candidate that represents them  - in truth it is the Candidate that picks the citizens. lol

You're nuts.

[John Stone]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

I do see the problem.

You're nuts.

Gerrymandering protects the party lines and greatly helps the incumbent remain incumbent. 

oh, yeah - political hacks (both stripes) pick the citizens. 

 

[John Stone]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

I do see the problem.

You're nuts.

................dude, I prefer controversial, not consistently boring  like some. 

[Nationalist]

36 minutes ago, John Stone said:

Gerrymandering protects the party lines and greatly helps the incumbent remain incumbent. 

oh, yeah - political hacks (both stripes) pick the citizens. 

 

They try to stack the deck. But they cant force people to vote one way or the other.

[Nationalist]

29 minutes ago, John Stone said:

................dude, I prefer controversial, not consistently boring  like some. 

What purpose does controversy serve? 

[User]

5 hours ago, John Johnston said:

Tulsi Gabbard's presence at the FBI's Georgia election office raid , 

This is where it starts. 

This is not an argument. It is a link, and you are saying it starts here.

 

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, John Johnston said:

Tulsi Gabbard's presence at the FBI's Georgia election office raid , 

This is where it starts. 

But isn't evidence 

You haven't made any case, no argument, nothing. 

Are you saying you don't have a rational argument for it but you just 'feel' it or something?

41 minutes ago, User said:

This is not an argument. It is a link, and you are saying it starts here.

 

LOL great minds,  seems like i'm posting about 30 minutes behind you today but having the same thoughts  

[John Stone]

18 hours ago, Nationalist said:

What purpose does controversy serve? 

OMG...................... played a huge role in getting Trump  elected maybe? 

 

[John Stone]

18 hours ago, Nationalist said:

They try to stack the deck. But they cant force people to vote one way or the other.

I'm assuming you're familiar with the Electoral College ........... so-called, 'safe' districts and  Electors?

Gerrymandering  favors the electoral college by creating so-called, 'safe' districts that ensure a particular party's candidates consistently win elections. Implementation is simple - spread voters who support the opposition thinly across multiple districts, diluting their voting power and by extension preventing them from forming  a majority in any single district. Another strategy involves concentrating  a large number of opposition voters into a few districts, ensuring they win those districts and by overwhelming margins but minimizing their influence in surrounding areas. 

 

If u understand the electoral college process then u immediately realize that even small gerrymandering adjustments can have a huge impact on being that ideology being  awarded that States electors and by extension a general election win. 

 

The popular vote is meaningless .................

 

It is a corrupt maneuver - legal - both the black and white cat employ it but it underlines the point that the political hack (ideology)  picks the voters. 

 

........... arguably what is even more corrupt are Political Action Committees 

 

PAC's are going to get totally out of control - if they aren't already.

 

U know it's corrupt when one individual, indirectly, can support an ideology by hundreds of millions of dollars - seeking political favors. 

 

Democracy is an industry - it employs thousands of people and generates and consumes billions. 

 

The voters are the 'marks'. 

 

 

 

Edited February 9 by John Stone

[Nationalist]

51 minutes ago, John Stone said:

OMG...................... played a huge role in getting Trump  elected maybe? 

 

So...making America great and closing the border is controversial to you?