*Stares at USA* Experienced, maybe. A suitable person, no way.
I agree that our current president isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but still, people voted for him, and if the people of America think he's good, then so be it. It's better than the people not having a choice in who becomes the leader.
I suppose. Though if the Democrats had offered a...more popular candidate, he might have lost.
*Stares at USA* Experienced, maybe. A suitable person, no way.
I agree that our current president isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but still, people voted for him, and if the people of America think he's good, then so be it. It's better than the people not having a choice in who becomes the leader.
A few Brits could argue with that. Sometimes an aristocracy government seems like a nice idea. I know of people who would actually prefer the British Monarchy to rule than the current mob.
If you've been to a Airport your constitutional rights are gone without cause.
I think it's quite okay to make sure no one's smuggling anything illegal. I see that as a necessary precaution.
Israel has the best plan, they do their homework and make sure everyone has their right documents, here you go through humiliating procedures that don't stop anyone.
Okay fine, we repeal it and all the sudden every retired person who doesn't have a plan is stuck and will have to live with a relative, Republicans want that because they only want Rich people to live or something, But I don't like Democrats either, their War and trouble makers.
Before social security, the elderly poor lived under the care of their family and/or the church. It worked pretty well. Republicans clearly don't want "only rich people to live," so maybe there's reasoning in there that you haven't seen.
It might've worked in most cases but not all, I know the Republicans want Smaller Government but that's not always true, they want a large Military. They want no Restrictions which would mean we would have some huge tycoons who destroy small business and we would be far worse, Thankfully they haven't been able to get rid of the Great Society. But the Democrats aren't any better, they have a lot of Garbage also, both are flawed.
If you've been to a Airport your constitutional rights are gone without cause.
There are two causes. One is to prevent illegal good from being smuggled into or out of this country, and the other is because one morning in 2001 airplanes hit the Pentagon and World Trade Center, with another airplane bound for either the White House or the U.S. Capitol. I do not believe in sacrificing freedoms for safety in most cases, but there most certainly is a reasoning for airport security, which was lax until attacks on the United States.
I agree that our current president isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but still, people voted for him, and if the people of America think he's good, then so be it. It's better than the people not having a choice in who becomes the leader.
A few Brits could argue with that. Sometimes an aristocracy government seems like a nice idea. I know of people who would actually prefer the British Monarchy to rule than the current mob.
I semi-agree (I'm British). There are some advantages. I quite like the current way Britain is run. While the Monarch does not currently rule the country, it's very good that she does have power. Laws have to be approved by her, and the Armed Forces are loyal to the Queen, not the govenrment. The good thing about this is that if a government similar to that of Germany during WWII somehow came into power, the Monarch could stop them. They wouldn't be able to pass any laws or mobilize the army without Royal Approval.
I'm not sure what I'd feel about the Monarch taking full power again, but it's certainly better to have one with limited power than no power.
Oh I admit We do have some free speech but not like were the only ones.
The other countries only picked it up after we did; in the case of Europe and Japan, our reconstruction programs instituted free speech in some countries for the first time.
So you like theocracy? OK, here's some. Not that in every one of these countries, women have practically no rights and going against Islam (Including being gay or transgender; both of which are also against Christianity) is punishable by death:
-Poor -Victims of insurgency -Victims of war (May or may not be related to insurgency) -Dictatorships (In this context with a leader with no term limit or a leader who has ran past his term limit) -Victims of civil war, if not more than one -Victims of famine -Victims of drought
Also, there's no rule that says, "If it isn't holy it's demonic." If that's so then why is purgatory even mentioned as a concept?
Exactly. Separation of church and state is one of the most important things for a government to work and be a good one.
So what, I don't care if they persecute, I mean I would want to get out of there fast but what can they do to me? Purgatory is something made up by Catholics which is totally false.
There really are no true democracies. The U.S. is a republic. In a true democracy, every citizen would have to vote on every law. A true democracy is wonderful in theory, but it can't really be done. That's why we (in the U.S.) vote for people to vote on the laws for us, making it a republic. If there were a country small enough to have a true democracy, I don't think it would fail. But a republic means less people voting on laws, which significantly increases the chances of corruption.
I completely agree. Respresentational Democracy does not work in my opinion; I much prefer the idea of Direct Democracy. I live in the hope that one day, some one will work out a way to implement Direct Democracy across the globe.
Australia has a direct democracy, though I don't think that is what you meant by the phrase. It basically means we are low-key involved in every decision made through compulsory election and referendum voting. According to scholars, this equates to a direct democracy ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. The name implies more than what it really is, as does true democracy... Which again, is something else entirely. I understand what you mean though.
You would like to see everyone voting on referendums and plebiscites for every new proposed law. Though not impossible, it would be incredibly expensive in both dollars and loss of liberties. Something like this would need to be done via the internet and building that would be a massive task. Australia attempted to do last year's census online, it failed for obvious reasons. You can look it up if you're interested. "Australian online census fail" should do the trick.
So, you'd not only need to create a safe and secure website that didn't crash when everyone was voting, but you'd also need to give everyone access to a computer and the internet. That equals dollars. As for the loss of liberty, I don't see how you could have compulsory home voting while remaining anonymous. Democracy doesn't really work as it should if you're not anonymous. And as a liberal democracy, that's a bad thing.
I'm not sure if you guys have a different meaning for the term republic, but it's generally considered as a nation with a full bill of rights. <- Something Australia does not have. As well as having a separation of powers. <- Something which Australia kind of has.
A few Brits could argue with that. Sometimes an aristocracy government seems like a nice idea. I know of people who would actually prefer the British Monarchy to rule than the current mob.
I semi-agree (I'm British). There are some advantages. I quite like the current way Britain is run. While the Monarch does not currently rule the country, it's very good that she does have power. Laws have to be approved by her, and the Armed Forces are loyal to the Queen, not the govenrment. The good thing about this is that if a government similar to that of Germany during WWII somehow came into power, the Monarch could stop them. They wouldn't be able to pass any laws or mobilize the army without Royal Approval.
I'm not sure what I'd feel about the Monarch taking full power again, but it's certainly better to have one with limited power than no power.
Oh gee... Let me sign you up to the "No Republic" cause. Technically, Ol' Lizzy is Australia's head of state, but the government elects a Governor-General (GG) to oversee our parliament. 'cause whoever wrote our Constitution was lazy (or something), the GG has many unwritten powers with which to dissolve the government and dismiss the Prime Minister (PM). In 1975, our PM was actually dismissed by the GG using these unwritten laws. It kinda set the precedent in a way. I guess if things were really bad, we could probably get the Monarchy to do something too.
A few Brits could argue with that. Sometimes an aristocracy government seems like a nice idea. I know of people who would actually prefer the British Monarchy to rule than the current mob.
I semi-agree (I'm British). There are some advantages. I quite like the current way Britain is run. While the Monarch does not currently rule the country, it's very good that she does have power. Laws have to be approved by her, and the Armed Forces are loyal to the Queen, not the govenrment. The good thing about this is that if a government similar to that of Germany during WWII somehow came into power, the Monarch could stop them. They wouldn't be able to pass any laws or mobilize the army without Royal Approval.
I'm not sure what I'd feel about the Monarch taking full power again, but it's certainly better to have one with limited power than no power.
I mean, legally that's all very well and good, but what's to stop a Nazi-like government passing laws and mobilising the army without Royal Assent anyway? For such a government to rise, they would have to have massive support from the people of the nation, who would probably not care if the (unelected, unchosen) monarch was overridden.
I semi-agree (I'm British). There are some advantages. I quite like the current way Britain is run. While the Monarch does not currently rule the country, it's very good that she does have power. Laws have to be approved by her, and the Armed Forces are loyal to the Queen, not the govenrment. The good thing about this is that if a government similar to that of Germany during WWII somehow came into power, the Monarch could stop them. They wouldn't be able to pass any laws or mobilize the army without Royal Approval.
I'm not sure what I'd feel about the Monarch taking full power again, but it's certainly better to have one with limited power than no power.
I mean, legally that's all very well and good, but what's to stop a Nazi-like government passing laws and mobilising the army without Royal Assent anyway? For such a government to rise, they would have to have massive support from the people of the nation, who would probably not care if the (unelected, unchosen) monarch was overridden.
They'd have to have the full support of the army to mobilize it like that. It's not within their power to do that. They don't just need assent to do it; they cannot do it. The Monarch is the only person who has the authority to mobilize. It would be against the laws of Britain for the government to give that order.
That being said, it is true that with the support required for them to take power, they could well persuade a large portion of the army to mobilize illegally.
