Since Karrie made a comment, I feel obliged to give detail to my reponse.
Thanks.
I do agree with you that its antiquated, but your first post implied merely mentioning the head of state was a waste of 1's and 0's. Even as an antiquated structure it is then MORE worthy of discussion based on the fact that to many it is a big deal if we KEEP an antiquated monarchy as our head of state. Discussing our head of state ,especially in regards to stripping of powers, wherever you stand on the issue, is very relevant and not a waste of 1's and 0's.
The US isn't the only country in the world with a Head of State, or haven't you noticed?
Yes I have, and the more power a head of state has in a country is the more likely it is to become a dictatorship. Most nations have not historically stayed democratic.
Unlike you? Real Power? You're clueless about the US political structure aren't you?
Not at all, the US president can unilaterally declare war for 60 days during which time he can end all life on earth. Seems pretty powerful to me doesn't it?
If you think the President has absolute power , what on earth do you think your Prime Minister has? VERY curious.
Much less on his own, with the support of the majority of his party he can be ousted tommorow. If the presidents cabinet thinks he should go..what happens again? Can he still airstrike France? Yes, he can. Because his power is truly unilateral.
A President is a redunancy in your form of government, not ours. And please elaborate how by having a President increases the chance of a dictatorship.
Look at the track record of every republic since the first one. Presidents are far more likely to become dictators (around the WHOLE world, America isn't special) than constitutional Monarchs, while it does happen (Nepal) it happens FAR less frequently. A unilateral head of state has no real use and any democratic country could function just as effectively without one. Get rid of your president and the congress and senate can still do any job he could with a quick rewrite. There is no need for a Veto (unless congress goes back and says no) combined with the sole power to declare war.
So now expressing an opinion of an antiquated form of government is referred to as trolling. I'll keep that in mind.
You didn't express an opinion on it. That would be valid discussion about it. You said that even talking about whether or not its an antiquated form of government, about discussing our own head of state is a "waste of 1's and 0's". Thats not an opinion on the matter, thats saying "don't talk about it". That it is considered by many to be antiquated makes it MORE worthy of 1's and 0's.
Sure, let's implement Direct Democracy and ostracize anyone we don't like.
Not at all, but you don't need a president, he doesnt' DO anything but create a potential problem as dozens of other dictatorships have shown. Basic internal controls any accountant will tell you, split powers and responsibilities. Its just a bad idea based on the antiquated idea that you need 1 man at the top.
That's your personal opinion, mine is a monarchy is undemocratic, archaic and just plain silly in the 21st century. But then again you lose your monarch and you become more......uhm....American..eh? :roll:
I don't see the need to be modern unless its effective. The monarchy serves as a good "Political Canary" because its shared.
