Blair's sinister campaign to undermine the Queen
- Thread starter Blackleaf
- Start date
It is, only because of the apathy of the masses. If people cared, they could form a party and run the country. Heck, most people can't even be bothered to vote. We get what we deserve.
So the Bush family is rich...and?
Clinton was broke when he left office.
Who else was rich?
Carter?
Nixon?
Kennedy?
Truman was a farmer.
FDR rich? I don't think so.
Who?
And sorry but being conceived between the sheets to reign and becoming rich are two different things.
And you all knew this at the Queens birth? Give me a break.
Oh come on, at least know what you're talking about when making an argument (at least as far as US politics are involved), money is raised for candidates by private donations.
Rich White Men ? Woah - that's not accurate.
Have a look at the lineup of the U.S. Senate and the Assembly as well as the fifty State Legislative bodies and the Assemblies and count the number of women and minorities who are sitting fully elected by the people. That is pure representation.
Besides we can change our minds every two. four and six years - can't be done with the very expensive monarchy. All those royal residences and staff could support the UK citizens for years. Give em a break from their heavy taxation.
Have a look at the lineup of the U.S. Senate and the Assembly as well as the fifty State Legislative bodies and the Assemblies and count the number of women and minorities who are sitting fully elected by the people. That is pure representation.
Besides we can change our minds every two. four and six years - can't be done with the very expensive monarchy. All those royal residences and staff could support the UK citizens for years. Give em a break from their heavy taxation.
The discussion focuses naturally on the head of state though. The parlaiments in Britain in Canada are made up of plenty of people outside the head of state as well. They vote in new leaders as well. That's not the issue I'd presume.
Rather than simply making your point, you have to throw this in? Mm-hm.
Have a good day ITN.
Karrie I am not familiar with the government electoral process in the U.K. and I am too lazy to look it up right now because my research would be wasted as we are all in a spin.
As I understand it the House of Lords is not an elected position but an inherited or appointed position in the U.K. government. If I am wrong here I apologize - however the only 'elected' government would be the House of Commons representing the local electorate of their districts.
The U.S. elect both State and Federal Senate and Assembly houses - the only electoral voting from which the people are excluded (if we are speaking about actual ballots)....would be the President.
He or she is also subject to a vote from the Electoral College.
Nobody gets the job by accident of birth which in these days days is a beautiful tradition but a hugely expensive bit of trinket for a tiny group of countries such as comprise the U.K. to afford and support for a lifetime which in this current Elizabethan reign - is over sixty years. Not to mention the prolific family she drags around with her.
Besides which (yes I am a bitch)....you can't fire her. It's a crapshoot. How they make it work is amazing. I will give them credit.
I don't think it WOULD work without elected officials working in conjunction, personally. Otherwise, it's just a fancy dictatorship with nice clothes and castles, right?
But to have the two systems, to me that's brilliance. Someone who is there FOR LIFE (and what else would you base your choice for a lifetime leader on? No one else is groomed for it from childhood on in the same fashion). It creates a great deal of stability. Change can happen, yes, but one primeminister isn't necessarily so able to tank a whole country's economy, because looking over his shoulder is the woman/man who needs to make sure it last past his his term, past his election promises. To have one person, or one family, whose very LIFE relies on the success of the country, not just their four year term relying on it, that's a mad sort of brilliance, albeit a bit cruel to the royal family in my opinion.
Im just gonna knock some wind out of ITN pretty blatant mistruths here.
FDR came from a very, very pairing of wealthy families.
Truman wasn't from high wealth though, but he also never would have made it to president except FDR died while he was a new VP, making him the president who was there when the war ended him, and as an incumbant he was able to run for president and win. But thats far from average.
Kennedy spent his early years living in 20 odd room mansions,
Nixon grew up poor, but even Carter was far above average (though still one of the "poor" presidents)
FDR came from a very, very pairing of wealthy families.
Truman wasn't from high wealth though, but he also never would have made it to president except FDR died while he was a new VP, making him the president who was there when the war ended him, and as an incumbant he was able to run for president and win. But thats far from average.
Kennedy spent his early years living in 20 odd room mansions,
Nixon grew up poor, but even Carter was far above average (though still one of the "poor" presidents)
blah blah blah....ya ya ya....... does anyone here really know the actual power the monarchy is able to wield both here in Canada and in Britain? Cause if there is, they are being awful damn quiet while the idiots prove their lack of knowledge of today's Constitutional Monarchy.
Karrie
I see your point - and it is working no doubt about it - but in our lifetimes we have only experienced Elizabeth and perhaps some - her father and even for a short few months - her uncle.
I wonder if divorce had been allowed in those days 1936????, what kind of a King Edward would have been - he seemed a bit wishy washy.... Elizabeth is a strong, well equipped woman to handle the job - but like I said it could be a crapshoot -
Inheritance does not always include brilliance and wisdom. (Certainly not in my plebian family!)
I see your point - and it is working no doubt about it - but in our lifetimes we have only experienced Elizabeth and perhaps some - her father and even for a short few months - her uncle.
I wonder if divorce had been allowed in those days 1936????, what kind of a King Edward would have been - he seemed a bit wishy washy.... Elizabeth is a strong, well equipped woman to handle the job - but like I said it could be a crapshoot -
Inheritance does not always include brilliance and wisdom. (Certainly not in my plebian family!)
Ah, but when you have a royal family, you don't always need brilliance and wisdom. You need participation, and that all too important human trait.... the desire for self preservation, or at least for the preservation of their way of life. LOL. When their pay cheque and way of life counts on a good economy, you can count on their best interests being VERY close to those of the taxpayers.
It does. It's a sadistically wonderful way to make sure your leaders have your country's best interests at heart. Frankly, they should work it in for all presidents/primeministers.
"Your pay, your ONLY pay, once you leave office, will be based on a percentage of the national economy"
Karrie I agree with you on that!
Our electorate continue to receive paychecks even if they are only in office for one term - and they receive all the perks of the elected office until death as well, ie: medical - insurance, etc.
They rarely work a full week when the houses are running and then they aren't running 12 months of the year either.
I'm always screaming for a report card from the people to determine what the outgoing pay should be.
Our electorate continue to receive paychecks even if they are only in office for one term - and they receive all the perks of the elected office until death as well, ie: medical - insurance, etc.
They rarely work a full week when the houses are running and then they aren't running 12 months of the year either.
I'm always screaming for a report card from the people to determine what the outgoing pay should be.
Well you're right, I never really bothered to look up anything on their personal lives, because really doesn't make a difference to me if they lived in a box or in a mansion.
But I stand corrected.
C'mon, Karrie.
You know who, in a monarchy, is in line to the throne. You have a rough approximation who will be king in 20-30 years.
Here is the line of succession to the British throne.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_succession_to_the_British_Throne
So tell me, can you produce a line of succession to the US Presidency.
Most of the recent Presidents have not come from any sort of aristocracy in the US, apart from the Bushes.
Clinton came from a broken family.
Reagan grew up in an apartment above a grocery store.
Carter was a peanut farmer.
Ford came from a broken family.
Etc., etc.
These people were either famous or well-off, but they got so mainly from accomplishment, not through birth, which is a very different things.
I actually never said there was a line of succession. I said that it was still a matter of status conferred at birth. the predominant ones... that you have a penis and be white. and money is quite critical these days. Campaigns cost big bucks, and rich friends lube the whole process up nicely.