Roger, do you side with these protestors?
https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/gfVIBXzG5i9DcHDB3G360A--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTEyNDI7aD02OTk-/https://media.zenfs.com/en/aol_cnn_articles_945/c0620f58dcebb9b6548c1b72a80061a0
On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 16:41:04 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
Roger, do you side with these protestors?
https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/gfVIBXzG5i9DcHDB3G360A--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTEyNDI7aD02OTk-/https://media.zenfs.com/en/aol_cnn_articles_945/c0620f58dcebb9b6548c1b72a80061a0Nope
I've outlined my basic lifelong opposition to anti-democratic dynastic monarchy several times but as the only viable alternative seems to be an elected President
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 12:24:42 PM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:
On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 16:41:04 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
Roger, do you side with these protestors?
https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/gfVIBXzG5i9DcHDB3G360A--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTEyNDI7aD02OTk-/https://media.zenfs.com/en/aol_cnn_articles_945/c0620f58dcebb9b6548c1b72a80061a0Nope
I've outlined my basic lifelong opposition to anti-democratic dynastic monarchy several times but as the only viable alternative seems to be an elected President
You don't need a president. Why can't the regular prime minister just be the head of state with no more monarchy?
On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 17:45:55 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 12:24:42 PM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:
On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 16:41:04 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
Roger, do you side with these protestors?
https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/gfVIBXzG5i9DcHDB3G360A--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTEyNDI7aD02OTk-/https://media.zenfs.com/en/aol_cnn_articles_945/c0620f58dcebb9b6548c1b72a80061a0Nope
I've outlined my basic lifelong opposition to anti-democratic dynastic monarchy several times but as the only viable alternative seems to be an elected President
You don't need a president. Why can't the regular prime minister just be the head of state with no more monarchy?
Not quite that simple. Our Prime Minister"---unlike your Prez---is NOT directly elected by the people. He just happens to be the leader of the elected party and therefore is only elected by high ranking members of said political party.
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 4:05:40?PM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:than Trump, but Trump won the election.
On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 17:45:55 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 12:24:42?PM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:
On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 16:41:04 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
Roger, do you side with these protestors?Nope
https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/gfVIBXzG5i9DcHDB3G360A--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTEyNDI7aD02OTk-/https://media.zenfs.com/en/aol_cnn_articles_945/c0620f58dcebb9b6548c1b72a80061a0
I've outlined my basic lifelong opposition to anti-democratic dynastic monarchy several times but as the only viable alternative seems to be an elected President
You don't need a president. Why can't the regular prime minister just be the head of state with no more monarchy?
Not quite that simple. Our Prime Minister"---unlike your Prez---is NOT directly elected by the people. He just happens to be the leader of the elected party and therefore is only elected by high ranking members of said political party.
Okay, so who says the leader of the country has to be directly elected by the people?
Our leader is not directly elected by the people. They are elected by the fucking ridiculous "electoral college." In 2000 Gore got more votes from the people than Bush, but Bush won the election. Same thing in 2016. Hillary got 2.7 million more votes
Correct. I am opposed to the "electoral college" which can be rigged
far easier than ballots by the people, as we should all know by now.
We haven't been 13 colonies for some time now. 1 person - 1 vote.
I've outlined my basic lifelong opposition to anti-democratic dynastic >monarchy several times but as the only viable alternative seems to be
an elected President (who would probably turn out to be some recognizable >political TV-passable hasbeen) my opposition in these latter years has been >somewhat muted
You don't need a president. Why can't the regular prime minister just be the head of state with no more monarchy?
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 4:05:40 PM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:
On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 17:45:55 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 12:24:42 PM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:
On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 16:41:04 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
Roger, do you side with these protestors?
https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/gfVIBXzG5i9DcHDB3G360A--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTEyNDI7aD02OTk-/https://media.zenfs.com/en/aol_cnn_articles_945/c0620f58dcebb9b6548c1b72a80061a0Nope
I've outlined my basic lifelong opposition to anti-democratic dynastic monarchy several times but as the only viable alternative seems to be an elected President
You don't need a president. Why can't the regular prime minister just be the head of state with no more monarchy?
Not quite that simple. Our Prime Minister"---unlike your Prez---is NOT directly elected by the people. He just happens to be the leader of the elected party and therefore is only elected by high ranking members of said political party.Okay, so who says the leader of the country has to be directly elected by the people?
On Sun, 24 Sep 2023 14:30:26 -0700 (PDT), Bruce <Sav...@aol.com>than Trump, but Trump won the election.
wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 4:05:40?PM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:
On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 17:45:55 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 12:24:42?PM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote: >> > > On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 16:41:04 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
Roger, do you side with these protestors?Nope
https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/gfVIBXzG5i9DcHDB3G360A--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTEyNDI7aD02OTk-/https://media.zenfs.com/en/aol_cnn_articles_945/c0620f58dcebb9b6548c1b72a80061a0
I've outlined my basic lifelong opposition to anti-democratic dynastic monarchy several times but as the only viable alternative seems to be an elected President
You don't need a president. Why can't the regular prime minister just be the head of state with no more monarchy?
Not quite that simple. Our Prime Minister"---unlike your Prez---is NOT directly elected by the people. He just happens to be the leader of the elected party and therefore is only elected by high ranking members of said political party.
Okay, so who says the leader of the country has to be directly elected by the people?
Our leader is not directly elected by the people. They are elected by the fucking ridiculous "electoral college." In 2000 Gore got more votes from the people than Bush, but Bush won the election. Same thing in 2016. Hillary got 2.7 million more votes
Correct. I am opposed to the "electoral college" which can be rigged
far easier than ballots by the people, as we should all know by now.
We haven't been 13 colonies for some time now. 1 person - 1 vote.
On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 23:02:22 UTC+1, Jim Colegrove wrote:votes than Trump, but Trump won the election.
On Sun, 24 Sep 2023 14:30:26 -0700 (PDT), Bruce <Sav...@aol.com>
wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 4:05:40?PM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:
On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 17:45:55 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 12:24:42?PM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote: >> > > On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 16:41:04 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
Roger, do you side with these protestors?Nope
https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/gfVIBXzG5i9DcHDB3G360A--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTEyNDI7aD02OTk-/https://media.zenfs.com/en/aol_cnn_articles_945/c0620f58dcebb9b6548c1b72a80061a0
I've outlined my basic lifelong opposition to anti-democratic dynastic monarchy several times but as the only viable alternative seems to be an elected President
You don't need a president. Why can't the regular prime minister just be the head of state with no more monarchy?
Not quite that simple. Our Prime Minister"---unlike your Prez---is NOT directly elected by the people. He just happens to be the leader of the elected party and therefore is only elected by high ranking members of said political party.
Okay, so who says the leader of the country has to be directly elected by the people?
Our leader is not directly elected by the people. They are elected by the fucking ridiculous "electoral college." In 2000 Gore got more votes from the people than Bush, but Bush won the election. Same thing in 2016. Hillary got 2.7 million more
before the people in a democratic country-wide open election and the one with most votes wins. It's hardly rocket science is it?Correct. I am opposed to the "electoral college" which can be riggedExactly!
far easier than ballots by the people, as we should all know by now.
We haven't been 13 colonies for some time now. 1 person - 1 vote.
And in the event of the UK ever adopting a Presidential model for an elected head of state then I agree it should be a "one person one vote" affair with no "electoral college" or other such add-ons. Those who stand for election as President must stand
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 2:48:15 AM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:votes than Trump, but Trump won the election.
On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 23:02:22 UTC+1, Jim Colegrove wrote:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2023 14:30:26 -0700 (PDT), Bruce <Sav...@aol.com>
wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 4:05:40?PM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:
On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 17:45:55 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 12:24:42?PM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:
On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 16:41:04 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
Roger, do you side with these protestors?Nope
https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/gfVIBXzG5i9DcHDB3G360A--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTEyNDI7aD02OTk-/https://media.zenfs.com/en/aol_cnn_articles_945/c0620f58dcebb9b6548c1b72a80061a0
I've outlined my basic lifelong opposition to anti-democratic dynastic monarchy several times but as the only viable alternative seems to be an elected President
You don't need a president. Why can't the regular prime minister just be the head of state with no more monarchy?
Not quite that simple. Our Prime Minister"---unlike your Prez---is NOT directly elected by the people. He just happens to be the leader of the elected party and therefore is only elected by high ranking members of said political party.
Okay, so who says the leader of the country has to be directly elected by the people?
Our leader is not directly elected by the people. They are elected by the fucking ridiculous "electoral college." In 2000 Gore got more votes from the people than Bush, but Bush won the election. Same thing in 2016. Hillary got 2.7 million more
stand before the people in a democratic country-wide open election and the one with most votes wins. It's hardly rocket science is it?Correct. I am opposed to the "electoral college" which can be riggedExactly!
far easier than ballots by the people, as we should all know by now.
We haven't been 13 colonies for some time now. 1 person - 1 vote.
And in the event of the UK ever adopting a Presidential model for an elected head of state then I agree it should be a "one person one vote" affair with no "electoral college" or other such add-ons. Those who stand for election as President must
So if you had the choice of they system the way it currently is, or the system the way it currently is minus the monarchy, which do you want?
On Monday, 25 September 2023 at 16:41:51 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:votes than Trump, but Trump won the election.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 2:48:15 AM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:
On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 23:02:22 UTC+1, Jim Colegrove wrote:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2023 14:30:26 -0700 (PDT), Bruce <Sav...@aol.com> wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 4:05:40?PM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote: >> On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 17:45:55 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 12:24:42?PM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:
On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 16:41:04 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
Roger, do you side with these protestors?Nope
https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/gfVIBXzG5i9DcHDB3G360A--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTEyNDI7aD02OTk-/https://media.zenfs.com/en/aol_cnn_articles_945/c0620f58dcebb9b6548c1b72a80061a0
I've outlined my basic lifelong opposition to anti-democratic dynastic monarchy several times but as the only viable alternative seems to be an elected President
You don't need a president. Why can't the regular prime minister just be the head of state with no more monarchy?
Not quite that simple. Our Prime Minister"---unlike your Prez---is NOT directly elected by the people. He just happens to be the leader of the elected party and therefore is only elected by high ranking members of said political party.
Okay, so who says the leader of the country has to be directly elected by the people?
Our leader is not directly elected by the people. They are elected by the fucking ridiculous "electoral college." In 2000 Gore got more votes from the people than Bush, but Bush won the election. Same thing in 2016. Hillary got 2.7 million more
stand before the people in a democratic country-wide open election and the one with most votes wins. It's hardly rocket science is it?Correct. I am opposed to the "electoral college" which can be rigged far easier than ballots by the people, as we should all know by now. We haven't been 13 colonies for some time now. 1 person - 1 vote.Exactly!
And in the event of the UK ever adopting a Presidential model for an elected head of state then I agree it should be a "one person one vote" affair with no "electoral college" or other such add-ons. Those who stand for election as President must
So if you had the choice of they system the way it currently is, or the system the way it currently is minus the monarchy, which do you want?I suspect you've framed the question slightly wrongly----the way you've put it I'd stay with the system as it is.
The system as it is minus the monarchy still leaves us with an "unelected by the people" head of state
That would be a good case surely of "better the devil you know"
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 3:27:23 PM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:more votes than Trump, but Trump won the election.
On Monday, 25 September 2023 at 16:41:51 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 2:48:15 AM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:
On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 23:02:22 UTC+1, Jim Colegrove wrote:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2023 14:30:26 -0700 (PDT), Bruce <Sav...@aol.com> wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 4:05:40?PM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:
On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 17:45:55 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 12:24:42?PM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:
On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 16:41:04 UTC+1, Bruce wrote: >> > > > Roger, do you side with these protestors?
Nope
https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/gfVIBXzG5i9DcHDB3G360A--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTEyNDI7aD02OTk-/https://media.zenfs.com/en/aol_cnn_articles_945/c0620f58dcebb9b6548c1b72a80061a0
I've outlined my basic lifelong opposition to anti-democratic dynastic monarchy several times but as the only viable alternative seems to be an elected President
You don't need a president. Why can't the regular prime minister just be the head of state with no more monarchy?
Not quite that simple. Our Prime Minister"---unlike your Prez---is NOT directly elected by the people. He just happens to be the leader of the elected party and therefore is only elected by high ranking members of said political party.
Okay, so who says the leader of the country has to be directly elected by the people?
Our leader is not directly elected by the people. They are elected by the fucking ridiculous "electoral college." In 2000 Gore got more votes from the people than Bush, but Bush won the election. Same thing in 2016. Hillary got 2.7 million
stand before the people in a democratic country-wide open election and the one with most votes wins. It's hardly rocket science is it?Correct. I am opposed to the "electoral college" which can be rigged far easier than ballots by the people, as we should all know by now. We haven't been 13 colonies for some time now. 1 person - 1 vote.Exactly!
And in the event of the UK ever adopting a Presidential model for an elected head of state then I agree it should be a "one person one vote" affair with no "electoral college" or other such add-ons. Those who stand for election as President must
So if you had the choice of they system the way it currently is, or the system the way it currently is minus the monarchy, which do you want?I suspect you've framed the question slightly wrongly----the way you've put it I'd stay with the system as it is.
The system as it is minus the monarchy still leaves us with an "unelected by the people" head of state
That would be a good case surely of "better the devil you know"
So then you must see the monarchy as some sort of a plus if you'd rather keep it then junk it with everything else staying the same
On Monday, 25 September 2023 at 20:50:28 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:more votes than Trump, but Trump won the election.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 3:27:23 PM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:
On Monday, 25 September 2023 at 16:41:51 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 2:48:15 AM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:
On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 23:02:22 UTC+1, Jim Colegrove wrote:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2023 14:30:26 -0700 (PDT), Bruce <Sav...@aol.com> wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 4:05:40?PM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:
On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 17:45:55 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 12:24:42?PM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:
On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 16:41:04 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
Roger, do you side with these protestors?Nope
https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/gfVIBXzG5i9DcHDB3G360A--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTEyNDI7aD02OTk-/https://media.zenfs.com/en/aol_cnn_articles_945/c0620f58dcebb9b6548c1b72a80061a0
I've outlined my basic lifelong opposition to anti-democratic dynastic monarchy several times but as the only viable alternative seems to be an elected President
You don't need a president. Why can't the regular prime minister just be the head of state with no more monarchy?
Not quite that simple. Our Prime Minister"---unlike your Prez---is NOT directly elected by the people. He just happens to be the leader of the elected party and therefore is only elected by high ranking members of said political party.
Okay, so who says the leader of the country has to be directly elected by the people?
Our leader is not directly elected by the people. They are elected by the fucking ridiculous "electoral college." In 2000 Gore got more votes from the people than Bush, but Bush won the election. Same thing in 2016. Hillary got 2.7 million
must stand before the people in a democratic country-wide open election and the one with most votes wins. It's hardly rocket science is it?Correct. I am opposed to the "electoral college" which can be riggedExactly!
far easier than ballots by the people, as we should all know by now.
We haven't been 13 colonies for some time now. 1 person - 1 vote.
And in the event of the UK ever adopting a Presidential model for an elected head of state then I agree it should be a "one person one vote" affair with no "electoral college" or other such add-ons. Those who stand for election as President
So if you had the choice of they system the way it currently is, or the system the way it currently is minus the monarchy, which do you want?I suspect you've framed the question slightly wrongly----the way you've put it I'd stay with the system as it is.
The system as it is minus the monarchy still leaves us with an "unelected by the people" head of state
That would be a good case surely of "better the devil you know"
So then you must see the monarchy as some sort of a plus if you'd rather keep it then junk it with everything else staying the sameBut "everything else" DOESN'T stay the same. That my whole point
Correct. I am opposed to the "electoral college" which can be rigged
far easier than ballots by the people, as we should all know by now.
We haven't been 13 colonies for some time now. 1 person - 1 vote.
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 6:02:22?PM UTC-4, Jim Colegrove wrote:
Correct. I am opposed to the "electoral college" which can be rigged
far easier than ballots by the people, as we should all know by now.
We haven't been 13 colonies for some time now. 1 person - 1 vote.
Jim Colegrove for Prez, 2024
So they end the monarchy, kick those people out of BP and end the money that they are given by the country.
The PM now has all of the head of state duties that the "King" formerly had. What changes?
Are you saying that you'd rather have the co called "king" doing certain ceremonial things than letting the PM take those over? If so, why?
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 3:58:32 PM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:more votes than Trump, but Trump won the election.
On Monday, 25 September 2023 at 20:50:28 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 3:27:23 PM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:
On Monday, 25 September 2023 at 16:41:51 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 2:48:15 AM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:
On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 23:02:22 UTC+1, Jim Colegrove wrote:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2023 14:30:26 -0700 (PDT), Bruce <Sav...@aol.com> wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 4:05:40?PM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:
On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 17:45:55 UTC+1, Bruce wrote: >> > On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 12:24:42?PM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:
On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 16:41:04 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
Roger, do you side with these protestors?Nope
https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/gfVIBXzG5i9DcHDB3G360A--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTEyNDI7aD02OTk-/https://media.zenfs.com/en/aol_cnn_articles_945/c0620f58dcebb9b6548c1b72a80061a0
I've outlined my basic lifelong opposition to anti-democratic dynastic monarchy several times but as the only viable alternative seems to be an elected President
You don't need a president. Why can't the regular prime minister just be the head of state with no more monarchy?
Not quite that simple. Our Prime Minister"---unlike your Prez---is NOT directly elected by the people. He just happens to be the leader of the elected party and therefore is only elected by high ranking members of said political party.
Okay, so who says the leader of the country has to be directly elected by the people?
Our leader is not directly elected by the people. They are elected by the fucking ridiculous "electoral college." In 2000 Gore got more votes from the people than Bush, but Bush won the election. Same thing in 2016. Hillary got 2.7 million
must stand before the people in a democratic country-wide open election and the one with most votes wins. It's hardly rocket science is it?Correct. I am opposed to the "electoral college" which can be riggedExactly!
far easier than ballots by the people, as we should all know by now.
We haven't been 13 colonies for some time now. 1 person - 1 vote.
And in the event of the UK ever adopting a Presidential model for an elected head of state then I agree it should be a "one person one vote" affair with no "electoral college" or other such add-ons. Those who stand for election as President
So if you had the choice of they system the way it currently is, or the system the way it currently is minus the monarchy, which do you want?I suspect you've framed the question slightly wrongly----the way you've put it I'd stay with the system as it is.
The system as it is minus the monarchy still leaves us with an "unelected by the people" head of state
That would be a good case surely of "better the devil you know"
So they end the monarchy, kick those people out of BP and end the money that they are given by the country. The PM now has all of the head of state duties that the "King" formerly had. What changes?So then you must see the monarchy as some sort of a plus if you'd rather keep it then junk it with everything else staying the sameBut "everything else" DOESN'T stay the same. That my whole point
Are you saying that you'd rather have the co called "king" doing certain ceremonial things than letting the PM take those over? If so, why?
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 13:03:13 -0700 (PDT), Bruce <Sav...@aol.com>
wrote:
So they end the monarchy, kick those people out of BP and end the money that they are given by the country.The problem with PMs, who are right or left-wing politicians, is that
The PM now has all of the head of state duties that the "King" formerly had. What changes?
they are biased towards an ideology that does not unite the nation.
Are you saying that you'd rather have the co called "king" doing certain ceremonial things than letting the PM take those over? If so, why?
Even constitutional monarchs do more than just ceremonial things.
For instance, the monarch can avoid most political processes and focus
on building up the reputation of their country.
The Head of State monarch is non-political and not obligated to a
party, or big business, and they cannot be bribed.
In your scenario we get rid of the unelected -by-the-people King which we now trade for an unelected-by-the-people PM
It's not enough to just change faces at the top. The underlying system has to change too.
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 12:47:47 AM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:
In your scenario we get rid of the unelected -by-the-people King which we now trade for an unelected-by-the-people PM
It's not enough to just change faces at the top. The underlying system has to change too.
That would be ideal in your eyes, but we don't have an elected-by-the-people leader either, as I've explained. In 2 of our past 7 presidential elections, the candidate who got the most votes from the people did not win the presidency.
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 05:58:08 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 12:47:47 AM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:
In your scenario we get rid of the unelected -by-the-people King which we now trade for an unelected-by-the-people PM
It's not enough to just change faces at the top. The underlying system has to change too.
That would be ideal in your eyes, but we don't have an elected-by-the-people leader either, as I've explained. In 2 of our past 7 presidential elections, the candidate who got the most votes from the people did not win the presidency.
I'd go with the U.S system of allowing a President to stand in two elections and serve two terms in office but I'd ideally want to see some kind of age limit imposed on would be contestants
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 1:18:38 AM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 05:58:08 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 12:47:47 AM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:
In your scenario we get rid of the unelected -by-the-people King which we now trade for an unelected-by-the-people PM
It's not enough to just change faces at the top. The underlying system has to change too.
That would be ideal in your eyes, but we don't have an elected-by-the-people leader either, as I've explained. In 2 of our past 7 presidential elections, the candidate who got the most votes from the people did not win the presidency.
I'd go with the U.S system of allowing a President to stand in two elections and serve two terms in office but I'd ideally want to see some kind of age limit imposed on would be contestants
That's a tough one. Some guys are real sharp at 80, and others are jellyfish at 62. Churchill was 80 and still PM there. Would you have ended his PM days earlier with your age rule?
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:58:09?PM UTC-4, RWC wrote:
The problem with PMs, who are right or left-wing politicians, is that
they are biased towards an ideology that does not unite the nation.
Same thing here. There's no way to unite lefties and righties anyway.
And if you elected a "president" instead it would still be like that.
Are you saying that you'd rather have the co called "king" doing certain ceremonial things than letting the PM take those over? If so, why?
Even constitutional monarchs do more than just ceremonial things.
For instance, the monarch can avoid most political processes and focus
on building up the reputation of their country.
The Head of State monarch is non-political and not obligated to a
party, or big business, and they cannot be bribed.
Why can't they be bribed?
And they really don't have any power do they? Can your king enacts laws, or pardon criminals, or order anything significant to take place?
Seems to me that a king or a queen is similar to our First Lady.
They have no actual power, but they can have a pet project,
like Mrs. Obama had with eating healthy food, and Mrs. Trump
had with anti bullying.
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 21:55:42 -0700 (PDT), Bruce <Sav...@aol.com>
wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:58:09?PM UTC-4, RWC wrote:
The problem with PMs, who are right or left-wing politicians, is that
they are biased towards an ideology that does not unite the nation.
Same thing here. There's no way to unite lefties and righties anyway.
And if you elected a "president" instead it would still be like that.
Not necessarily, a UK president might not be a current or
ex-politician.
Are you saying that you'd rather have the co called "king" doing certain ceremonial things than letting the PM take those over? If so, why?
Even constitutional monarchs do more than just ceremonial things.
For instance, the monarch can avoid most political processes and focus
on building up the reputation of their country.
The Head of State monarch is non-political and not obligated to a
party, or big business, and they cannot be bribed.
Why can't they be bribed?I suspect that the vast majority of Brits think that neither 'her Maj'
nor King Charles could be bribed.
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 6:42:52?AM UTC-4, RWC wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 21:55:42 -0700 (PDT), Bruce <Sav...@aol.com>
wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:58:09?PM UTC-4, RWC wrote:
The problem with PMs, who are right or left-wing politicians, is that
they are biased towards an ideology that does not unite the nation.
Same thing here. There's no way to unite lefties and righties anyway.
And if you elected a "president" instead it would still be like that.
Not necessarily, a UK president might not be a current or
ex-politician.
You mean like Trump?
On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 08:01:56 -0700 (PDT), Bruce <Sav...@aol.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 6:42:52?AM UTC-4, RWC wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 21:55:42 -0700 (PDT), Bruce <Sav...@aol.com>
wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:58:09?PM UTC-4, RWC wrote:
The problem with PMs, who are right or left-wing politicians, is that >> >> they are biased towards an ideology that does not unite the nation.
Same thing here. There's no way to unite lefties and righties anyway.
And if you elected a "president" instead it would still be like that.
Not necessarily, a UK president might not be a current or
ex-politician.
You mean like Trump?
By standing for the Republicans, and promoting right-wing policies,
Trump had become a fervent politician. He was not a mere centrist businessman/'reality TV host' on Nov 8, 2016.
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 12:01:31?PM UTC-4, RWC wrote:
On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 08:01:56 -0700 (PDT), Bruce <Sav...@aol.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 6:42:52?AM UTC-4, RWC wrote:By standing for the Republicans, and promoting right-wing policies,
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 21:55:42 -0700 (PDT), Bruce <Sav...@aol.com>
wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:58:09?PM UTC-4, RWC wrote:
The problem with PMs, who are right or left-wing politicians, is that >> >> >> they are biased towards an ideology that does not unite the nation.
Same thing here. There's no way to unite lefties and righties anyway.
And if you elected a "president" instead it would still be like that.
Not necessarily, a UK president might not be a current or
ex-politician.
You mean like Trump?
Trump had become a fervent politician. He was not a mere centrist
businessman/'reality TV host' on Nov 8, 2016.
And anybody who won a nationwide election for president would become a politician as soon as he declared he was running.
On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 09:10:38 -0700 (PDT), Bruce <Sav...@aol.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 12:01:31?PM UTC-4, RWC wrote:
On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 08:01:56 -0700 (PDT), Bruce <Sav...@aol.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 6:42:52?AM UTC-4, RWC wrote:By standing for the Republicans, and promoting right-wing policies,
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 21:55:42 -0700 (PDT), Bruce <Sav...@aol.com>
wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:58:09?PM UTC-4, RWC wrote:Not necessarily, a UK president might not be a current or
The problem with PMs, who are right or left-wing politicians, is thatSame thing here. There's no way to unite lefties and righties anyway. >> >> >And if you elected a "president" instead it would still be like that. >> >
they are biased towards an ideology that does not unite the nation. >> >> >
ex-politician.
You mean like Trump?
Trump had become a fervent politician. He was not a mere centrist
businessman/'reality TV host' on Nov 8, 2016.
And anybody who won a nationwide election for president would become a politician as soon as he declared he was running.A ceremonial president would have very limited political power.
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 12:34:00?PM UTC-4, RWC wrote:
On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 09:10:38 -0700 (PDT), Bruce <Sav...@aol.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 12:01:31?PM UTC-4, RWC wrote:A ceremonial president would have very limited political power.
On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 08:01:56 -0700 (PDT), Bruce <Sav...@aol.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 6:42:52?AM UTC-4, RWC wrote:By standing for the Republicans, and promoting right-wing policies,
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 21:55:42 -0700 (PDT), Bruce <Sav...@aol.com>
wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:58:09?PM UTC-4, RWC wrote:Not necessarily, a UK president might not be a current or
The problem with PMs, who are right or left-wing politicians, is thatSame thing here. There's no way to unite lefties and righties anyway. >> >> >> >And if you elected a "president" instead it would still be like that. >> >> >
they are biased towards an ideology that does not unite the nation. >> >> >> >
ex-politician.
You mean like Trump?
Trump had become a fervent politician. He was not a mere centrist
businessman/'reality TV host' on Nov 8, 2016.
And anybody who won a nationwide election for president would become a politician as soon as he declared he was running.
Roger doesn't want a ceremonial president. He wants the PM and the Monarchy to be replaced by a nationally elected president who both runs the country and is the head of state.
A ceremonial president is pretty much the same thing as a King.
On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 09:37:44 -0700 (PDT), Bruce <Sav...@aol.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 12:34:00?PM UTC-4, RWC wrote:
On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 09:10:38 -0700 (PDT), Bruce <Sav...@aol.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 12:01:31?PM UTC-4, RWC wrote:A ceremonial president would have very limited political power.
On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 08:01:56 -0700 (PDT), Bruce <Sav...@aol.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 6:42:52?AM UTC-4, RWC wrote:By standing for the Republicans, and promoting right-wing policies,
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 21:55:42 -0700 (PDT), Bruce <Sav...@aol.com>
wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:58:09?PM UTC-4, RWC wrote:
The problem with PMs, who are right or left-wing politicians, is that
they are biased towards an ideology that does not unite the nation.
Same thing here. There's no way to unite lefties and righties anyway.
And if you elected a "president" instead it would still be like that.
Not necessarily, a UK president might not be a current or
ex-politician.
You mean like Trump?
Trump had become a fervent politician. He was not a mere centrist
businessman/'reality TV host' on Nov 8, 2016.
And anybody who won a nationwide election for president would become a politician as soon as he declared he was running.
Roger doesn't want a ceremonial president. He wants the PM and the Monarchy to be replaced by a nationally elected president who both runs the country and is the head of state.I'm surprised. I thought that Roger was, on balance, a Royalist.
Would you be kind enough to briefly quote Roger to support your claim
that he wants a US-style president (but without electoral college).
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 17:49:23 -0700 (PDT), Bob Roman
<robertjroman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 6:02:22?PM UTC-4, Jim Colegrove wrote:
Correct. I am opposed to the "electoral college" which can be rigged
far easier than ballots by the people, as we should all know by now.
We haven't been 13 colonies for some time now. 1 person - 1 vote.
Jim Colegrove for Prez, 2024
ahem
Joe Biden was born in Nov 1942
it's no secret in this newsgroup that The Coolgroove emerged Aug 1941
*we* might know that Jim could do the job, but ...
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 100:03:30 |
| Calls: | 6,700 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 12,232 |
| Messages: | 5,349,719 |