Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Now now
We've been reminded that we don't live in a democracy at times. Republic I believe. As such our leaders are not always willing to do the will of the people, because sometimes the people are wrong. The other side of the coin is that when leaders go apeshit, we have no control over their idiocy. Some countries can hold their leaders accountable even in mid term. I wish we had that option.
When approval is to that degree out of sync with what the people want there should definitely be a new election.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
We do have that option. It's called impeachment. It's been bandied about but as much as the dreamers in here think there's a valid reason to impeach Bush and Co., there isn't. The Democrats in D.C. know that. They've put out their feelers and if they tried to impeach Bush it would be political suicide for them.Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Now now
We've been reminded that we don't live in a democracy at times. Republic I believe. As such our leaders are not always willing to do the will of the people, because sometimes the people are wrong. The other side of the coin is that when leaders go apeshit, we have no control over their idiocy. Some countries can hold their leaders accountable even in mid term. I wish we had that option.
Btw, we are still a representative democracy. A Republic usually is a form of democracy.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
We do have that option. It's called impeachment. It's been bandied about but as much as the dreamers in here think there's a valid reason to impeach Bush and Co., there isn't. The Democrats in D.C. know that. They've put out their feelers and if they tried to impeach Bush it would be political suicide for them.Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Now now
We've been reminded that we don't live in a democracy at times. Republic I believe. As such our leaders are not always willing to do the will of the people, because sometimes the people are wrong. The other side of the coin is that when leaders go apeshit, we have no control over their idiocy. Some countries can hold their leaders accountable even in mid term. I wish we had that option.
Btw, we are still a representative democracy. A Republic usually is a form of democracy.
Impeachment isn't removal, although it can lead to it. In any case, we don't have what I was thinking of. Sure if you can prove the President is a crook, go for it, however what if the President is incompetent? Motions of No Confidence give people a chance to hold their leaders more accountable because they aren't guaranteed impunity while in office.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Why are people always looking at these little Nordic countries and trying to compare them to us?
That is like trying to compare New Hampshire to Massachusetts.
In both cases you have a small little area that gets big economic benefits from its larger neighbors (via trade) but does not have the problems that come with large populations.
You also lack the problems caused by ethnic tensions as well. The far north states have great race relations, because everyone is white. When everyone is the same there is a lot less to fight and argue over.
That is like trying to compare New Hampshire to Massachusetts.
In both cases you have a small little area that gets big economic benefits from its larger neighbors (via trade) but does not have the problems that come with large populations.
You also lack the problems caused by ethnic tensions as well. The far north states have great race relations, because everyone is white. When everyone is the same there is a lot less to fight and argue over.
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
Well he said he didn't say it had a liberal bias.
Either way, it's clear we're not the only democracy in the world, or the best. We're certainly the most powerful, though. I wish our leaders in Washington would wake up and realize that despite our good intentions, spreading democracy by military force inherently causes unintended consequences that fuel jihadist rage and fundamentalism (see NIE and other reports). Which makes it all the more difficult to convince ME countries to turn democratic.
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
The population argument is a sensible one. However, it doesn't address why we fall so low in civil rights/liberties and political culture compared to these Nordic countries. I'm betting the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, NSA wiretapping, and CIA prisons probably didn't help much.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Impeachment is removal if it results in a conviction.Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
We do have that option. It's called impeachment. It's been bandied about but as much as the dreamers in here think there's a valid reason to impeach Bush and Co., there isn't. The Democrats in D.C. know that. They've put out their feelers and if they tried to impeach Bush it would be political suicide for them.Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Now now
We've been reminded that we don't live in a democracy at times. Republic I believe. As such our leaders are not always willing to do the will of the people, because sometimes the people are wrong. The other side of the coin is that when leaders go apeshit, we have no control over their idiocy. Some countries can hold their leaders accountable even in mid term. I wish we had that option.
Btw, we are still a representative democracy. A Republic usually is a form of democracy.
Impeachment isn't removal, although it can lead to it. In any case, we don't have what I was thinking of. Sure if you can prove the President is a crook, go for it, however what if the President is incompetent? Motions of No Confidence give people a chance to hold their leaders more accountable because they aren't guaranteed impunity while in office.
I don't believe article 2 of the Constitution mentions incompetence either. That's likely because there's always a portion of the population who will consider a preseident incompetent. I remember thinking at the time that Reagan had to be the most incompetent president in history. Now he's regarded as one of the best of the 20th century. It's amazing how time can change one's perspective.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Would you agree with the premise that homogenous groups are going to have an easier time getting together and making decisions that everyone can accept?
And that these types are of groups are also more likely to accept decisions that they don?t completely agree with because they can relate to the people making decisions?
That would lead to an environment where more people will participate because they feel that their views and ideas at least get a chance to be heard.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,809
- 6,363
- 126
No, participation is directly related to the health of a Democracy. People in Democracies don't get together to come to a solution, they come together to give their Opinions or Select like-minded people they trust to come to a solution. You are again just coming up with weak excuses as the ranking doesn't measure how much the tested societies agree, but how much they participate, how Free they are, how Fair their elections are, etc. It doesn't matter if a society is composed of clones or groups from every nation on Earth, good procedure and good civic values makes for a healthy Democracy.
I can't stop laughing at this list. I see countries such as Belgium, Spain, Germany that routinely try to ban political parties ranked in the top 20. Countries with monarchies that threaten democracy as well. It's obvious that it's not a well researched study. It's most likely the product of a Eurosupremacist.
Except the counter-argument to your empty rants are right there in the list - both Spain and Switzerland scored higher than the US. Switzerland is a mix of French, Germans and Italians with 3 official languages while Spain has a number of autonomous communities - Basques, Catalans, Galicians etc.
No, this doesn't have anything to do with diversity or size, but more with people thinking everything is great and being afraid of change.
Impeachment is not removal, period.
Saying what you said is like saying "being charged is being guilty, if it results in a conviction", or "talking to a girl causes pregnancy, if it leads to unsafe sex while fertile".
Yes, it's often used as shorthand for removal, because it's a key step and a more striking and less cumbersome word than 'conviction by the Senate following impeachment'.
That's fine, but your statement is wrong.
Before and after the head injury, respectively, I presume. He was one of the least competent.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Stop being a pedantic ass just to be an argumentative tool. The process is called impeachment. We don't refer to it as "conviction." Someone who is convicted in the impeachment process is removed from office. It's already been explained so there was no reason for you to even begin blabbering again about it in the first place.
As far as Reagan is concerned, you're about the last person I'd ask for advice on whether or not someone was competent.
This is a prediction you self fulfill by not realizing that everybody already IS the SAME, always will be, and always were.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Impeachment is removal if it results in a conviction.Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
We do have that option. It's called impeachment. It's been bandied about but as much as the dreamers in here think there's a valid reason to impeach Bush and Co., there isn't. The Democrats in D.C. know that. They've put out their feelers and if they tried to impeach Bush it would be political suicide for them.Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Now now
We've been reminded that we don't live in a democracy at times. Republic I believe. As such our leaders are not always willing to do the will of the people, because sometimes the people are wrong. The other side of the coin is that when leaders go apeshit, we have no control over their idiocy. Some countries can hold their leaders accountable even in mid term. I wish we had that option.
Btw, we are still a representative democracy. A Republic usually is a form of democracy.
Impeachment isn't removal, although it can lead to it. In any case, we don't have what I was thinking of. Sure if you can prove the President is a crook, go for it, however what if the President is incompetent? Motions of No Confidence give people a chance to hold their leaders more accountable because they aren't guaranteed impunity while in office.
I don't believe article 2 of the Constitution mentions incompetence either. That's likely because there's always a portion of the population who will consider a preseident incompetent. I remember thinking at the time that Reagan had to be the most incompetent president in history. Now he's regarded as one of the best of the 20th century. It's amazing how time can change one's perspective.
impeachment is not a practical way to get rid of unpopular leaders, its a way to get rid of criminals. On the other hand, no-confidence votes are much easier, direct, quicker, and simpler, and don't require the opposition to prove criminality.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
No confidence votes have no legal effects. Impeachment is the only method permitted by the Consitution to legally remove a high-level executive branch official.Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Impeachment is removal if it results in a conviction.Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
We do have that option. It's called impeachment. It's been bandied about but as much as the dreamers in here think there's a valid reason to impeach Bush and Co., there isn't. The Democrats in D.C. know that. They've put out their feelers and if they tried to impeach Bush it would be political suicide for them.Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Now now
We've been reminded that we don't live in a democracy at times. Republic I believe. As such our leaders are not always willing to do the will of the people, because sometimes the people are wrong. The other side of the coin is that when leaders go apeshit, we have no control over their idiocy. Some countries can hold their leaders accountable even in mid term. I wish we had that option.
Btw, we are still a representative democracy. A Republic usually is a form of democracy.
Impeachment isn't removal, although it can lead to it. In any case, we don't have what I was thinking of. Sure if you can prove the President is a crook, go for it, however what if the President is incompetent? Motions of No Confidence give people a chance to hold their leaders more accountable because they aren't guaranteed impunity while in office.
I don't believe article 2 of the Constitution mentions incompetence either. That's likely because there's always a portion of the population who will consider a preseident incompetent. I remember thinking at the time that Reagan had to be the most incompetent president in history. Now he's regarded as one of the best of the 20th century. It's amazing how time can change one's perspective.
impeachment is a practical way to get rid of unpopular leaders, its a way to get rid of criminals. On the other hand, no-confidence votes are much easier, direct, quicker, and simpler, and don't require the opposition to prove criminality.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
No confidence votes have no legal effects. Impeachment is the only method permitted by the Consitution to legally remove a high-level executive branch official.Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Impeachment is removal if it results in a conviction.Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
We do have that option. It's called impeachment. It's been bandied about but as much as the dreamers in here think there's a valid reason to impeach Bush and Co., there isn't. The Democrats in D.C. know that. They've put out their feelers and if they tried to impeach Bush it would be political suicide for them.Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Now now
We've been reminded that we don't live in a democracy at times. Republic I believe. As such our leaders are not always willing to do the will of the people, because sometimes the people are wrong. The other side of the coin is that when leaders go apeshit, we have no control over their idiocy. Some countries can hold their leaders accountable even in mid term. I wish we had that option.
Btw, we are still a representative democracy. A Republic usually is a form of democracy.
Impeachment isn't removal, although it can lead to it. In any case, we don't have what I was thinking of. Sure if you can prove the President is a crook, go for it, however what if the President is incompetent? Motions of No Confidence give people a chance to hold their leaders more accountable because they aren't guaranteed impunity while in office.
I don't believe article 2 of the Constitution mentions incompetence either. That's likely because there's always a portion of the population who will consider a preseident incompetent. I remember thinking at the time that Reagan had to be the most incompetent president in history. Now he's regarded as one of the best of the 20th century. It's amazing how time can change one's perspective.
impeachment is a practical way to get rid of unpopular leaders, its a way to get rid of criminals. On the other hand, no-confidence votes are much easier, direct, quicker, and simpler, and don't require the opposition to prove criminality.
which is the problem. Once we have a leader no-one wants, we can't do anything about it for any number of years.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
When we actually have a leader nobody wants you'll have a point but a President having a low rating is nothing new. Look how low Congress's rating is. They're worse off than Bush. Do we vote them all out too?Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
No confidence votes have no legal effects. Impeachment is the only method permitted by the Consitution to legally remove a high-level executive branch official.Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Impeachment is removal if it results in a conviction.Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
We do have that option. It's called impeachment. It's been bandied about but as much as the dreamers in here think there's a valid reason to impeach Bush and Co., there isn't. The Democrats in D.C. know that. They've put out their feelers and if they tried to impeach Bush it would be political suicide for them.Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Now now
We've been reminded that we don't live in a democracy at times. Republic I believe. As such our leaders are not always willing to do the will of the people, because sometimes the people are wrong. The other side of the coin is that when leaders go apeshit, we have no control over their idiocy. Some countries can hold their leaders accountable even in mid term. I wish we had that option.
Btw, we are still a representative democracy. A Republic usually is a form of democracy.
Impeachment isn't removal, although it can lead to it. In any case, we don't have what I was thinking of. Sure if you can prove the President is a crook, go for it, however what if the President is incompetent? Motions of No Confidence give people a chance to hold their leaders more accountable because they aren't guaranteed impunity while in office.
I don't believe article 2 of the Constitution mentions incompetence either. That's likely because there's always a portion of the population who will consider a preseident incompetent. I remember thinking at the time that Reagan had to be the most incompetent president in history. Now he's regarded as one of the best of the 20th century. It's amazing how time can change one's perspective.
impeachment is a practical way to get rid of unpopular leaders, its a way to get rid of criminals. On the other hand, no-confidence votes are much easier, direct, quicker, and simpler, and don't require the opposition to prove criminality.
which is the problem. Once we have a leader no-one wants, we can't do anything about it for any number of years.
eits
Lifer
The United States is not a democracy, it is a democratic republic. Everyone in the USA does not vote for the laws and does not appprove the taxation by a popular vote.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter