Former republican makes a shocking confession

 Back to what I have been saying about Bernie Sanders and his politics being popular if it was given a chance.

 

Presidents are not kings

I'm not sure how to characterise this slogan since pretty much all of the current monarchs are constitutional monarchs. The current batch are under significant constraints to ensure that constitutional monarchs serve as symbols of national unity rather than as active rulers, reflecting a balance between tradition and democratic governance. And this has been pretty much the case since the 17th and 18th Centuries.

I probably should define "constitutional monarchy" since it seems most people who chant this slogan are ignorant of this system of government where a monarch serves as the ceremonial head of state, with their powers defined and limited by a constitution. This allows the monarch to perform official duties while the legislative body holds the authority to create and repeal laws. Countries with constitutional monarchies often blend traditional royal ceremonies with modern democratic practices, providing a sense of stability amid political changes. 

In 2025, there were forty-three monarchies in the world, most of which were categorized as constitutional monarchies; fifteen of those shared King Charles III as their monarch, including the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and several Caribbean nations.

A defining feature of a constitutional monarchy is that the monarch respects the limitations set forth by the constitution and rarely seeks to alter such a document in his or her favor. Even in the United Kingdom itself, which has no written constitution but rather a series of foundational documents, the king or queen remains within the bounds set by customary rules.  This characteristic is the important one if one is going to run around ignorantly saying "no kings".

Monarchs don't act like Trump.

On the other hand, the United States is a dysfunctional democracy. Dysfunctional democracy refers to a political system where democratic processes fail to effectively represent the will of the people, often leading to dissatisfaction and instability among citizens. This can occur due to issues like ineffective governance, lack of accountability, and the erosion of civil rights.

A dysfunctional democracy can appear to have democratic institutions, but those don't really represent the will of the people. For a democracy to work, the democracy needs to be properly functioning.

This is a good transition to how the current duopoly system doesn't represent the people:

Very few people are talking about how Amazon came into existence during the Clinton administration with its intent of at least cornering the book market. Or to quote what the search came up with "mazon was named after the Amazon River, which is the largest river in the world, reflecting Jeff Bezos's vision of making his store the biggest bookstore."  Amazon has made it clear that it aims to dominate the e-commerce market by offering "a wide range of products and services".

Like Walmart, Amazon is good at killing small businesses and preventing the rise of competition.

But, to get us back to the subject of monarchs: which system has universal healthcare, housing, and works for the people: the US's "Democratic-republic" or a constitutional monarchy?

I'll take a monarchy if that's what it offers. 

Trump proves that you can't run a country like a business.

 Unless you want to see what happens when you elect someone who has had several bankruptcies.

 

El Salvador's Nayib Bukele shows why believe Bernie Sanders would have been popular and shaken up US politics if he had a chance

Lina Seiche on El Salvador's Nayib Bukele with a story which sounds a lot like Bernie Sanders.

On thing people neglect to mention is that "Socialist" Bernie represents a historically red state. Bukele's rise reminds me of Sanders since they both started as "leftists" who managed to unify a politically polarised nation. I think Sanders would have done so if he were given a chance.

Unfortunately, Sanders' time was 2016. 

I'm of the opinion that the duopoly won't let anyone vaguely like a Sanders or Bukele get anywhere near the American people. Also, the people who truly influence politics don't want someone like a Bukele in power.

I don't agree with Bukele's positions on a few things, but he proves that a polarised political climate can be changed. 

A repost of Bernie in a deep red state. 

 

Why the Westminster system really beats the US model.

 I was talking with Doggone and she commented about the ability to change governments in the Westminster system. When a government loses the ability to legislate, it also gets tossed out (vote of no confidence).  I've pointed out before that 

I like it because the power is where it belongs: in the lesiglature. Additionally, because of that, there is an absolute necessity for political cooperation. One needs to come up with a consensus for a parliamentary system to work. The government literally falls if there can't be a consensus, which is why it is necessary. A lower house of parliament with an ability to dismiss a government by "withholding (or blocking) supply" (rejecting a budget), passing a motion of no confidence, or defeating a confidence motion.

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".^[1]

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.

Comedian George Hargreaves on the Seven PMs in the last 10 years: 

I should say that the changes of government are due more to the mistake called Brexit.

Anyone who knows me will tell you that I was a very staunch remainer, but in the EU, not Britain. 

Of course, as I have also pointed out that the US would probably go through governments faster than Italy or Belgium. In fact, I would guess that it would make Belgium look relatively stable.

My voting third party has nothing to do with a protest vote other than to possibly say the US system is very broken.