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. 

Why have Juneteenth when you can have Odunde?

https://www.odundefestival.org/ 

Once again it's time for the "woke" holiday that was adopted after the BLM riots.

And it seems that a majority of people are ignoring it, which makes sense since it really isn't that much of an event.

It's way more hype tied with a desire to appease the people who went wild in 2020.

On the other hand, Philadelphia's Odunde actually gathers a crowd. Toss in that it has a lot of community support.

"Jane"

So, maybe we should have gone with Odunde which is a thing as opposed to Juneteenth which was pretty much a non-event along the line of the Plymouth Plantation crowd and thanksgiving. 

Who hears about Jamestown's starving time?

Jane needs to be recognised for her struggle in the creation of America!

She needs to be an "American Girl" doll!

We need to know the story of Jane! Who was she? Did she have a say in her ultimate fate?

So, I propose that we need a holiday to remember Jane while we're doing away with Juneteenth and Thanksgiving.

Let's study America's REAL history!

250th anniversary of the United States? Not at all.

Americans love to take quotes out of context rather than look at the whole picture.

Also, the period between 1775 (and maybe earlier) to 1790 is not much of anything since the Articles of Confederation were what was running the show. It also means that the "United States" didn't really exist until the Constitution was ratified. That's another section of ignorance in US history which needs much greater study. 

In fact, thinking about it the early republic wasn't in too hot a condition with a low level civil war that finally broke out into a full scale one in the 1860s.

Perhaps, rather than pretend that the war for independence created a country, we should look at what it was actually created by war. The US should look at how its bellicose nature has put it into the current mess it is in.

This is a real case where war is not the answer and the real one needs to be found. 

Roe v Wade was overturned? Quoi c'est bordel?

 I say that because there has always been a simple solution if we use the concept of Separation of Church and state under the First Amendment. It's what's being pointed out here in France's making Abortion a constitutional right and why it is a constitutional right.

Big hint, if the Judges who overturned Roe are Catholic, then you have a glaringly obvious example of how this simple way to make it a constitutional right also works in the United States. It's one I've thought about writing about for a while, but this post is now truly necessary.

The first amendment states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" 

And can't forget Article IV, Clause 3:

"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." 

Laîcité is how France keeps religion and government separate to effectuate those principles. Here's an explanation of the concept.

 As she points out that "faith is a private matter for each individual citizen, and when it comes to the state: it's a no god zone."

Which is where laïcité, or secularism, comes into play when one sees a group of Catholic judges banning abortion, or any other religious person for that matter, then one can safely infer that religion is involved.

So, if the reasoning is based upon any metaphysical belief rather than an actual scientific one, then it's probably unconstitutional under secularism.

And given the amount of miscarriages and the high cost of malpractice insurance for obstetricians, we can add that it's wrong anyway.

So, given that I believe that if there is a god, he also believes that abortion is no biggie and should be a right. After all, he's more than willing to end a pregnancy.

That makes the choice to terminate a pregnancy one that belongs to the woman and her health care provider and no one else. 

The founders created the United States as a secular because they didn't want religion to mix with public life for pretty much the same reasons that the French did. They knew that religion and politics don't mix.

Unfortunately, the influence of religion is far too pervasive in US society. It's time to look to Laïcité. 

And join France in making abortion a constitutional right.