Some Democrats tacking left before possible 2016 White House runs; liberals vs neoliberals in the De - Polidicks

[QUOTE=redhaven;40345626]Which is why the oldest democracies in the world are using presidential system, right? No. Just Costa Rica and the USA. The simple fact that the President is the head of state, head of government, C-i-C of the Armed Forces, and unaccountable from the legislative branch is enough to say that it is easier to be a dictator as a President than a Premier. Libya has ousted its leader very easily. Egypt hasn't. And they will never kick him out. Explain how did US presidents committed military action for 126 times without Congress' approval. Well functioning democracies requires good government mechanics. Any Premier that goes beyond on what his peers expects will see himself kicked out.[/QUOTE] 1. It is a matter of counting and seeing how many did well. Presidential systems did better. That's all there is to it. I will have to find the paper in which every democracy in the last few hundred years was counted. Presidents can get kicked out of office as punishment for impeachment. 2. Congress was not against it enough to care about it. That is more a problem with Congress than anything, really. You can also argue that it is Police Action, but you would say, correctly, that that would be a strenuous argument. 3. Yes. I call this "respecting the rules", which is something that is extremely hard to enforce in developing democracies. [editline]19th April 2013[/editline] Oops we are talking about invasions to the UK now

[QUOTE=redhaven;40346554]Island nations are not immune to internal hoolabaloo. Such is the case of Cuba and Philippines, both are wealthy countries that uses Presidential System before they devolved into dictatorships by their own presidents.[/QUOTE] Well let's remember that Cuba and the Philippines were both young countries at the time, both had been subject to much mayhem, particularly the Philippines. And to say that Cuba was a rich country isn't precisely true. The government was rather well off, but the Cuban people were in pretty unfavorable conditions. Mainly because the US had puppeted the country into a giant vacation resort.

[QUOTE=person11;40350438]1. It is a matter of counting and seeing how many did well. Presidential systems did better. That's all there is to it. I will have to find the paper in which every democracy in the last few hundred years was counted. Presidents can get kicked out of office as punishment for impeachment. 2. Congress was not against it enough to care about it. That is more a problem with Congress than anything, really. You can also argue that it is Police Action, but you would say, correctly, that that would be a strenuous argument. 3. Yes. I call this "respecting the rules", which is something that is extremely hard to enforce in developing democracies. [editline]19th April 2013[/editline] Oops we are talking about invasions to the UK now[/QUOTE] well it depends on your definition of "did well", and in what context they "did well". could this context be american imperialism, maybe? what if the defining factor wasn't the structure, but whether the guys who got in charge were supported by the us government?

Did well, meaning not getting overthrown by the military or a specific party in a coup or slow takeover.

[QUOTE=person11;40350438]1. It is a matter of counting and seeing how many did well. Presidential systems did better. That's all there is to it. I will have to find the paper in which every democracy in the last few hundred years was counted. Presidents can get kicked out of office as punishment for impeachment. 2. Congress was not against it enough to care about it. That is more a problem with Congress than anything, really. You can also argue that it is Police Action, but you would say, correctly, that that would be a strenuous argument. 3. Yes. I call this "respecting the rules", which is something that is extremely hard to enforce in developing democracies. [editline]19th April 2013[/editline] Oops we are talking about invasions to the UK now[/QUOTE] 1.) Many of them devolving into dictatorships isn't what I call "did well". Only 4 survived in the space of 40 years (I forgot the 4th). You need a system that allows new nations to develop their own democracy without falling to dictatorships. Power in the hands of a few is way better than power in the hands of one, because it doesn't concentrate the power to one person. Presidents are supreme monarchs elected by the people. Presidents can only be kicked out via impeachment. True. But you need the President to break the law, then you submit him to the Judicial Branch which cost us some months, if found guilty VP will replace him without any say from the legislative branch (aka the few). Otherwise, you're stuck with him for the whole term. Parliamentary countries simply get a vote. If they get the majority. Boom. Premier is kicked. 2.) Doesn't change the fact that the POTUS alone have sent the mightiest military somewhere in the globe for 126 times, and not once a single member of the Congress put him into scrutiny. Fuck all for accountability.

[QUOTE=person11;40352327]Did well, meaning not getting overthrown by the military or a specific party in a coup or slow takeover.[/QUOTE] then likely that can be attributed to the government playing ball for the usa.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40352593]then likely that can be attributed to the government playing ball for the usa.[/QUOTE] CIA intervention could not single handedly overthrow a government, only use the current political situation to their advantage. [editline]19th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=redhaven;40352500]1.) Many of them devolving into dictatorships isn't what I call "did well". Only 4 survived in the space of 40 years (I forgot the 4th). You need a system that allows new nations to develop their own democracy without falling to dictatorships. Power in the hands of a few is way better than power in the hands of one, because it doesn't concentrate the power to one person. Presidents are supreme monarchs elected by the people. Presidents can only be kicked out via impeachment. True. But you need the President to break the law, then you submit him to the Judicial Branch which cost us some months, if found guilty VP will replace him without any say from the legislative branch (aka the few). Otherwise, you're stuck with him for the whole term. Parliamentary countries simply get a vote. If they get the majority. Boom. Premier is kicked. 2.) Doesn't change the fact that the POTUS alone have sent the mightiest military somewhere in the globe for 126 times, and not once a single member of the Congress put him into scrutiny. Fuck all for accountability.[/QUOTE] 1. It is true that the record is not very good. Most democracies in recent history devolved into non-democratic societies, but Presidential governments still managed to have a slightly higher chance of surviving than Parliamentary ones. 2. It is problematic, true. I doubt any American President would do worse, however. The American people are all too eager to limit what the President can do. I hypothesize that few care about military actions because they affect people outside of the USA more than actual Americans, if that makes sense. Any action that directly affected the American people would be fiercely resisted.

[QUOTE=redhaven;40352500]1.) Many of them devolving into dictatorships isn't what I call "did well". Only 4 survived in the space of 40 years (I forgot the 4th). You need a system that allows new nations to develop their own democracy without falling to dictatorships. Power in the hands of a few is way better than power in the hands of one, because it doesn't concentrate the power to one person. Presidents are supreme monarchs elected by the people. 2.) Doesn't change the fact that the POTUS alone have sent the mightiest military somewhere in the globe for 126 times, and not once a single member of the Congress put him into scrutiny. Fuck all for accountability.[/QUOTE] The Gulf of Tonkin resolution was a failure of congress, not the presidency. There are four surviving presidential democracies right now, but out of how many that were created in the last century? The record for parliamentary systems is far more abysmal. The very worst modern dictatorships (Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, much of eastern Europe) were forged by abusing chronic weaknesses in the parliamentary system.

[QUOTE=Derubermensch;40358834]The Gulf of Tonkin resolution was a failure of congress, not the presidency. There are four surviving presidential democracies right now, but out of how many that were created in the last century? The record for parliamentary systems is far more abysmal. The very worst modern dictatorships (Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, much of eastern Europe) were forged by abusing chronic weaknesses in the parliamentary system.[/QUOTE] But Weimar Germany had a president. And most of Eastern Europe wasn't because of inherent flaws in parliamentary systems.