Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

WRONG. We have elections every 4 years for the President. Thus we can vote them out of office. Not to mention any president can now only hold office for 2 connective terms. Please stop your vehement spewing of false and misinformation. You are now coming close to being just a Fake News person saying what every hyperbolic statement not matter the lack of validity there is in it.

   

One nice thing about the UK being independent of the EUSSR is that the US can stage our reenactment of the Normandy landings with the UK again.

   

If you had quoted his whole sentence, you would have succeeded in proving him correct.



The President of the United States can only be removed from office early by an impeachment proceeding. There are multiple ways a Prime Minister in a Commonwealth country can be removed from office.

You'll notice that Theresa May had to go before the Queen to resign, and recommend Boris Johnston to replace her. The Queen is under no obligation to accept that recommendation. But, she usually does.

   

Parliamentary system wouldn't work to remove a leader either if the Party in power was a bunch of nutless chickenshit sycophants like the Republicans....

   

You're just showing why no one, no matter their political bent should even converse with you. Civility is not something you have the ability of let alone your lack of communication skill within an adult society. You are just as bad as the douche bag from Quebec.

   

I like Ray.

   

No because the first part deals with, in this case, the British Parliament he then went on to claim that "unlike a president who can basically only be removed by impeachment." This implies that a President once elected never comes up for election again. A President can be removed by election and or serving consecutive two terms ends his or her time as President.

Impeachment is a process to remove a president before his or her term is up. Our system gives the voters, within the electoral system, a chance to remove a leader at a prescribed time. You might see a flaw in this I don't. I can see a flaw in the Parliamentary system where a new leader comes in and a week later a no confidence vote happens. Repeat over and over and nothing gets done.

   

So do I

   

Beave was writing about the difference in our systems. Once elected the President can only 'term out', or be impeached. Those are the options. In the British Parliamentary system, the Prime Minister is not elected by the public, but by their party. They can be removed by the party, by election where the party fails to get a majority, or by the Head of State at their whim.



Both systems have advantages, and flaws. PMs can come and go without an election, and can also stay for several elections. It depends on how good a job they do, as to whether they keep the confidence of voters, the Party and the Crown. If they keep doing a good job, they keep the job.

But a President, who breaks the law, and who's party keeps at least one House of Congress can't be removed by anything other than election. If Nixon had kept the Senate's confidence, he might not have been impeached. Clinton had one house, so he wasn't. And he was re-elected afterwards!

   

Ok, so you meant a different Quebec degen.

   

Sorry for any confusion no way did I mean Ray in that remark.

   

I know you didn't.

I just like to elbow Ray in the ribs when he's not looking. Just like you missed my 'DrSmarmyPants' quip.

   

Even with the rapid expansion of the PLA Navy over the past two decades, any sort of actual conflict is still a decade or two away.

China could certainly smash the island flat with the 1000 or so medium range missiles is has based across the Strait in Fujian province, but an actual invasion is still next to impossible for China, even if the US was to back away from its commitment to help Taiwan.

   

Me too.

   

He's OK. I guess.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next