Short form: the English Civil War
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.
 |
| How Do You Do, Fellow Progressives? |
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Sure, it's Fox News, but Sky News Australia, The New York Post, and a few others are the only MSM covering this. The big takeaway is "the legislature has the power of the purse", which is pretty much in line with my comment that the US is a de facto parliamentary system.
Unlike the English Civil War, a change in the balance of power in the US shouldn't be bloody, but will result in a more popular government rising from the ashes.
The question I have for the people who want to say that the US is a "republic, not a democracy", other than what is the difference between the two, is:
"Are you condoning the current corruption in the system?"
Because nothing will change until the government truly becomes one of "We the people", which was propaganda since the Constitutional Convention was anything but popular.
So, do as you say, not as you do.
The English civil war in the middle of the 17th century was about where the power would like: With the executive (king)? Or the Legislature (parliament)? So, as I said, the system is pretty simple and easy for the US to "adopt".
It just comes from the admission that the power to run the government, as in making laws and that lies in the legislature. The legislature is the body which is the closest to the people. This is why I like it.
It's easier for a third party to gain traction locally than nationally: especially with the current duopoly in power. Likewise, having a true multi-party democracy will require that there are compromises. This is in contrast to the ultra-partisan bullshit in the US. Coalitions need to be formed.
Or a new election is called.
Sure, this may show up the US for the disunited states that it actually is, but those would be better teething pains than what is happening now.
The executive does what it should do: run things. It's the career civil service who administer the government.
And the courts can do what courts should do: decide legal cases like umpires in a game.
As the mans says: "democracy needs policies. And it needs effective policies."
Not the "partisan" bullshit that is going on the the US.
The United State is locked in partisan nonsense and needs to get parties which actually represent the people. The only way that will happen is on a local basis, where the duopoly have less control. The non-duopoly parties begin to "infect" the legislature, which is where the real change comes.
I was pleasantly surprised when Doggone told me that Antonin Scalia agreed with me about the parliamentary system.
I don't like it because of Westminster. 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.
Given how many budget crises happen in the US, it would probably go through governments like Italy or Belgium until the teething period was over. On the other hand, digging in on the budget would make it clear where the real power lies in government.
The presence of third parties would ensure that there was a way to gain consensus, or withhold it to bring the government more in line with the will of the people. There's a reason why the duopoly do everything they can to keep the power to themselves.
I don't have any illusions about some of the reforms which would be nice to see in US politics since Europe has them and people like Marine Le Pen are prominent in politics. On the other hand, there is a far better representation of political viewpoints in Europe than the One Party-Duopoly United States.
There's a reason I don't like discussing politics with Americans: they are worse than people who lived behind the Iron Curtain in how badly they are propagandised.
There needs to be a real free market of ideas, which isn't happening in the US.
