• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Which Nation's Govt Would You Like to Have for America?

Which Government Should Take Over for the American Government?

  • American -- keep the dildos in Washington.

  • British -- repossess the colonies.

  • Canadian -- Arctic chill blows in, aye.

  • Germany

  • Scandinavia -- one of Norway, Sweden, Finland, or Delaware

  • China

  • Australia

  • Saudi Arabia (monarchy and Islam)

  • Russia

  • Other -- will post in the thread

Results are only viewable after voting.
WhipperSnapper

WhipperSnapper

Lifer
Taken from the Shutdown Megapole thread:

diesbudt said:
England is eyeing at its chance to reclaim its lost colonies of ~230 years ago
Click to expand...

Since our current government appears to be non-functional or at best malfunctional, suppose that we needed to cede the management of our affairs to another nation's government. Which one would you want to take over while our federal lawmakers go on (a potentially permanent) vacation?

EDIT: -- Yes, I know. It should read "Denmark" and not "Delaware". It's been a long day.
 
Last edited:
Oh I am sure having another country come in and take over our Government is the biggest wet dream a lot of you progressives can have. Anyway we should all be taken over by Delaware 🙂
 
None of the above, what we need to do is simply get all the pricks out of the office. And put back in people with common sense and weren't raised with a silver spoon up their ass from the get go.

Then a couple new laws lobbyist have to to go (can't bribe cops, but they can bribe the people who make the laws ya that makes a lot of freaking sense). Stricter terms and maybe even an age limit. We don't need to keep the dinosaurs in freaking office.
 
Hmm, get involved in a thread with a grade-school level poll as the premise? I'll let you know after my morning cartoons are over.
 
Genx87 said:
We have our issues but our form of govt is still the best out there imo right now.
Click to expand...

Interesting point. On what basis do you base your opinion?
From over here (Delaware, um, Denmark), the US form of government seems seriously outdated and in dire need of an overhaul. It was revolutionary and the best in the world once upon a time, but that time passed.
 
oynaz said:
Interesting point. On what basis do you base your opinion?
From over here (Delaware, um, Denmark), the US form of government seems seriously outdated and in dire need of an overhaul. It was revolutionary and the best in the world once upon a time, but that time passed.
Click to expand...

We still have rights protected under our constitution that prevent our govt from steamrolling us for now. Our layers of govt ensure radical changes dont take hold immediately. One person cant dictate what is going to happen(yet).

What is it about our form of govt that feels outdated to you?
 
Genx87 said:
We still have rights protected under our constitution that prevent our govt from steamrolling us for now.
Click to expand...

Do you REALLY think those still exist? :colbert:

Genx87 said:
Our layers of govt ensure radical changes dont take hold immediately. One person cant dictate what is going to happen(yet).
Click to expand...

A good point. Society has to change first, and then the government might reflect it. Only issue there is the age gap. Our leaders are fossils, so this inability to change is even more dramatic than it might otherwise be.
 
Last edited:
Genx87 said:
We still have rights protected under our constitution that prevent our govt from steamrolling us for now. Our layers of govt ensure radical changes dont take hold immediately. One person cant dictate what is going to happen(yet).

What is it about our form of govt that feels outdated to you?
Click to expand...

Hermann Goering:

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."

--Goering at the Nuremberg Trials

Genx87, do you belong to a different pedigree of all living on The Planet?
 
I'd like to have our own back, as defined in the Constitution. And have the Supreme Court decision on Wickard vs Filburn reversed.
 
Germany has a decent (not perfect) system. You vote for party more than individuals, though, which would be quite different from the way things are here in the states. Perhaps it would be better than way, since it would minimize the 'celebrity factor' a lot of politicians in the US go for these days. I'd really love to see what major and minor parties would form in an alternate universe where we have Germany's voting system.

Britain's government still lacks a sufficient system of checks and balances, afaik. Admittedly it's been a while since I've studied how things work over there, but the House of Lords was basically just a rubber stamp that the House of Commons could legislate out of existence if they had a mind to. I think their only real power was the ability to delay legislation for a year. The monarchy is just made of figureheads, of course.
 
Last edited:
Balt said:
Germany has a decent (not perfect) system. You vote for party more than individuals, though, which would be quite different from the way things are here in the states. Perhaps it would be better than way, since it would minimize the 'celebrity factor' a lot of politicians in the US go for these days. I'd really love to see what major and minor parties would form in an alternate universe where we have Germany's voting system.
Click to expand...

The German Bundestag is split, half the members are elected by district like in the US and half come from party lists like in most parliamentary systems. IMO Germany's real advantage is cultural. People want boring, competent leadership there which is how someone like Angela Merkel gets elected.
 
ichy said:
The German Bundestag is split, half the members are elected by district like in the US and half come from party lists like in most parliamentary systems. IMO Germany's real advantage is cultural. People want boring, competent leadership there which is how someone like Angela Merkel gets elected.
Click to expand...

Ah, you're right of course. Thanks for the correction.
 
Well so far we have 31 people that want take the US form of Gov and replace it with a form of Gov already set up in another country and only 6 that want to keep the US Gov. Should I recommend a good Airport?
 
Balt said:
Germany has a decent (not perfect) system. You vote for party more than individuals, though, which would be quite different from the way things are here in the states. Perhaps it would be better than way, since it would minimize the 'celebrity factor' a lot of politicians in the US go for these days. I'd really love to see what major and minor parties would form in an alternate universe where we have Germany's voting system.

Britain's government still lacks a sufficient system of checks and balances, afaik. Admittedly it's been a while since I've studied how things work over there, but the House of Lords was basically just a rubber stamp that the House of Commons could legislate out of existence if they had a mind to. I think their only real power was the ability to delay legislation for a year. The monarchy is just made of figureheads, of course.
Click to expand...

Canada uses the same system as the British and as far as I'm concerned, I'm biased, it is a better system. The Political Parties lay out their policies during an election, if they win a Majority, they get to implement those policies.

One of the problems, IMO, with the US system is that it doesn't matter what policies the Parties propose, what is proposed and what gets implemented are entirely different things. This results in the Voter never really knowing what will happen, making Policy almost meaningless during elections.

The US system is also way too slow to change. Things drag on far longer than they should and that is resulting in the US slipping behind.
 
sandorski said:
Canada uses the same system as the British and as far as I'm concerned, I'm biased, it is a better system. The Political Parties lay out their policies during an election, if they win a Majority, they get to implement those policies.

One of the problems, IMO, with the US system is that it doesn't matter what policies the Parties propose, what is proposed and what gets implemented are entirely different things. This results in the Voter never really knowing what will happen, making Policy almost meaningless during elections.

The US system is also way too slow to change. Things drag on far longer than they should and that is resulting in the US slipping behind.
Click to expand...

The idea of rapid change is a bit frightening to me, given the reactionary nature of politicians and the people who elect them in the US. Look at everything that happened post-9/11 even during "divided government".

Rapid social change I'm fine with, though many Americans aren't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top