Ship of Fools: Who's now the leader of the free world?

Thread: Who's now the leader of the free world? Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020120

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Now that Trump has been proven a pathological liar, who is the leader of the free world?

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

It's meaningless ever since the Soviet Union went down. 1989ish. If your question is which country has the better functioning democracy, that's a different question, and there are many.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Now that Trump has been proven a pathological liar, who is the leader of the free world?

Just now?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

For the moral leadership she showed at the time of the peak of the refugee crisis in Europe, I'd suggest Angela Merkel.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

I second the motion. I'd love to have been a fly on the wall (German speaking, of course) in her hotel room after her meeting with the asshole-in-chief.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

It's one of these office and office holder questions. If that power is vested in any office, it remains with the office of POTUS, regardless of who is the office holder. At present, I'm hoping that there is an internal struggle taking place in the White House, with the more rational appointees vying with the sycophants to exercise some moderating influence on the current office holder.

A bit like the Court of Henry the Eighth. Trump comes across as a classic tyrant-bully type; there are great skills involved in controlling such types. As well as considerable risks for those who try. Not beheading of course these days, but I don't think it's a role for the faint-hearted.

I've got a feeling that Mattis and Tillerson will make common cause and may succeed in being accepted as the voices to listen to globally. Other national leaders can vest power in them by taking seriously what they say, leaving Trump to run the tweet entertainment side show. And Congress will run domestic policy via the budget.

The art will be to persuade Trump that he has won when he hasn't. Given his attention span and impatience with detail, this may be possible.

Short answer to the OP question. A committee of the most influential US White House appointees, steering the erratic Trump.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

Is anyone?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

In a free world, everyone and no-one is the leader. If there is a specified individual leader, or a very small cohort of joint leaders, then we're not really free. Within a democracy there may have been a large number of people who have chosen to cede their freedom, for a short while, to an individual or party. That doesn't make us free.

Of course the "free world" of the title is nothing of the sort. It was originally simply "free from Communist rule". We were never free from Capitalism and the multinational companies, their unelected CEOs and the politicians they support.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

My vote is with Angela.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Show me a free world and I might be able to tell you who's leading it.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

There is no such job title as "leader of the free world", and never has been.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

On reflection I think the phrase is really shorthand for the leader of the most militarily and economic powerful democracy in the world.

The implication is that the leader of that country has a wider responsibility for guarding and fostering democracies than any other leader because of that power. But that leader may not want that responsibility or may not be up to it. Or may not be accepted by the other democracies as having that role

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Barnabas wrote:

quote:
I've got a feeling that Mattis and Tillerson will make common cause and may succeed in being accepted as the voices to listen to globally. Other national leaders can vest power in them by taking seriously what they say, leaving Trump to run the tweet entertainment side show. And Congress will run domestic policy via the budget.

My hopes for Tillerson were somewhat dampened when I found out that he had wanted Iran-Contra sleazebag Elliot Abrams as his deputy. And my opinion of Trump went up slightly when I found out that he had vetoed that request.

The media spin, of course, was that Trump was acting capriciously in nixing Abrams, doing so simply because Abrams had written something unflattering about him a few days earlier. But apparently what Abrams wrote was that Trump is similar to George McGovern, and he meant that as an insult. I would take the opposite view of that comparison.

All that said, overall I agree that Tillerson manning foreign-policy is a more reassuring prospect that Trump winging it, with his limited knowledge and experience.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

But I think the vote for Angela Merkel was for being the moral leader.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

I would say Angela, certainly for her response to the refugee crisis, but I can't quite forget her appalling and hypocritical treatment of the Greeks over their national debt, which had, in large part, been encouraged by German economic interests. Not Mrs Merkel's finest moment.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

@Alan Cresswell

Uh ohhh.
Capitalism is anti-democratic.
62 year old penny drops.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

A bit like the Court of Henry the Eighth. Trump comes across as a classic tyrant-bully type; there are great skills involved in controlling such types. As well as considerable risks for those who try. Not beheading of course these days, but I don't think it's a role for the faint-hearted.

No, not beheading-- too crude. Poison appears to be the preference of the current power behind the throne

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Justin Trudeau.

Canada has a lot of problems (without wanting to list them all here) but Trudeau seems to be about the only major leader keeping his head when everyone else is losing theirs.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

The American President has the leadership of the West. That's been the case since the Suez Crisis. Trump is our leader, and I can't forgive the Trump voters I don't know personally for that.

This past election has finally made me think that I might have very little in common with about half of all Americans. It gives me a pain in the gut to say it. I think I am disgusted with about half of all Americans. There is no fucking excuse for what they did in this election.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

No doubt about it. During President Obama's term, there were only two political leaders on the world stage one could respect for their personal qualities, as people and as leaders. The end of his term leaves Mrs Merkel on her own.

Perhaps Justin Trudeau may rise to the occasion, but he's too recent as yet. I can't see anyone else at the moment who shows much sign of any capacity to rise to such estimation. Can you?

Posted by leftfieldlover (# 13467) on :

An American lady I know, who is unhappy with the Golden-faced One, has suggested that a possible get-out clause could be to say he is in the early stages of dementia. He would then have to stand down because of ill-health. Would there have to be a new election or would his deputy take over? As regards the 'Leader of the Free World'. Probably Dr Merkel, or if not her, Justin Trudeau.

Posted by leftfieldlover (# 13467) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leftfieldlover:
An American lady I know, who is unhappy with the orange-faced one, has suggested that a possible get-out clause could be to say he is in the early stages of dementia. He would then have to stand down because of ill-health. Would there have to be a new election or would his deputy take over? As regards the 'Leader of the Free World'. Probably Dr Merkel, or if not her, Justin Trudeau. It might have been Tony Blair once...

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leftfieldlover:
Would there have to be a new election or would his deputy take over?

If the President is unable to serve, the Vice President becomes President, and appoints a new VP. So in that scenario Mike Pence would be the 46th POTUS.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
The American President has the leadership of the West. That's been the case since the Suez Crisis. Trump is our leader, and I can't forgive the Trump voters I don't know personally for that.

This past election has finally made me think that I might have very little in common with about half of all Americans. It gives me a pain in the gut to say it. I think I am disgusted with about half of all Americans. There is no fucking excuse for what they did in this election.

Since '43 I'd say.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by leftfieldlover:
An American lady I know, who is unhappy with the Golden-faced One, has suggested that a possible get-out clause could be to say he is in the early stages of dementia. He would then have to stand down because of ill-health. Would there have to be a new election or would his deputy take over?
If the President is unable to serve, the Vice President becomes President, and appoints a new VP. So in that scenario Mike Pence would be the 46th POTUS.

The main sticking point here is that the 25th Amendment (the means by which a demented president or one otherwise "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" is removed from office) can only be implemented by "the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide". In other words, the cabinet Trump just appointed would have to be willing to declare him unfit for office. I can see that as the punchline of several jokes ("of course he's nuts, he appointed us!") but it seems unrealistic in practical terms.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Justin Trudeau.

Canada has a lot of problems (without wanting to list them all here) but Trudeau seems to be about the only major leader keeping his head when everyone else is losing theirs.

No. Smiley McHandsome is the leader of the of the stylish leader world. Great hair. As a Canadian...

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

As a interesting (and largely pedantic) side-note, if the 25th Amendment were to be successfully invoked against Donald Trump, Mike Pence would not become the President but rather the "Acting President". The 25th Amendment makes no distinction between temporary and permanent disabilities.

In the case of Trump's resignation Pence would become President, though.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In other words, the cabinet Trump just appointed would have to be willing to declare him unfit for office. I can see that as the punchline of several jokes ("of course he's nuts, he appointed us!") but it seems unrealistic in practical terms.

Well, sure. It's not meant to be a partisan political tool. It's also worth noting that President Reagan was showing signs of early dementia in his second term, and nobody sought to remove him from office. A president would probably have to be significantly impaired and be unwilling to be "managed" for his own side to declare him unfit.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It's also worth noting that President Reagan was showing signs of early dementia in his second term, and nobody sought to remove him from office.

Well, no formal steps were taken but it was considered.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

No-one's perfect, of course, and even people of the moral stature and integrity of Barack Obama and Angela Merkel have had their Bad Days....

...but, if a short list of potential LOTFW could include Michelle Obama and Nicola Sturgeon, I'd be content. Feisty ladies, both, and a refreshing change from some of the self-seeking, banal, patronising, mealy-mouthed apologies for World Leaders I could think of.

IJ

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Justin Trudeau.

Canada has a lot of problems (without wanting to list them all here) but Trudeau seems to be about the only major leader keeping his head when everyone else is losing theirs.
No. Smiley McHandsome is the leader of the of the stylish leader world. Great hair. As a Canadian...

And what's with this thing between him and Ivanka?

Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :

Whats the 'Free World' ? Please define. Whats 'Leadership' ? I would suggest setting a 'Good Example'. My best example of Leadership is Aung San Suu Kyi who has actually been banned from being President of Myanmar (Burma). Another Candidate is Pope Francis. Donald Trump just enjoys annoying people. I don't take him too seriously and don't suggest anyone else does. If and when he threatens Military Action then maybe's the time to get worried.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Justin Trudeau.

Canada has a lot of problems (without wanting to list them all here) but Trudeau seems to be about the only major leader keeping his head when everyone else is losing theirs.
No. Smiley McHandsome is the leader of the of the stylish leader world. Great hair. As a Canadian...
And what's with this thing between him and Ivanka?

Contrary to the image of him as some sort of left-wing firebrand, Trudeau is actually pretty neo-liberal when it comes to trade(this was actually the historical position of the Liberal Party before Trudeau Sr. pushed it in a slightly protectionist direction in the mid-70s). And since the US is Canada's No. 1 trading partner, this means he would regard any move toward protectionism as a threat to Canada's interests.

So, he likely wants to suck up to Trump to make sure he's always on the man's good side. And, what better way to do that than by forging an alliance with the man's beloved(and, from what I am taken to understand, somewhat influential) daughter?

One thing that's been amusing is seeing certain American liberals(yes, I'm looking at you, Slate.com), lamenting that he's somehow "validating" Trump's misogyny, racism, and all- around awfulness by being nice to him and hanging around with Ivanka.

News flash. The Prime Minister Of Canada is NOT the House Minority Leader. His job is to look after the interests of Canada, not anyone else's.

(Whether I share his views about what constitute the interests of Canada is another matter.)

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

I purposely left "leader" and "free world" undefined. You need to come up with your own definitions.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
Whats the 'Free World' ? Please define. Whats 'Leadership' ? I would suggest setting a 'Good Example'. My best example of Leadership is Aung San Suu Kyi who has actually been banned from being President of Myanmar (Burma). Another Candidate is Pope Francis. Donald Trump just enjoys annoying people. I don't take him too seriously and don't suggest anyone else does. If and when he threatens Military Action then maybe's the time to get worried.

He threatened war with North Korea the other day, via his silver-haired secretary of state. It was a conditional threat, but a threat nonetheless.

Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
Whats the 'Free World' ? Please define. Whats 'Leadership' ? I would suggest setting a 'Good Example'. My best example of Leadership is Aung San Suu Kyi who has actually been banned from being President of Myanmar (Burma). Another Candidate is Pope Francis. Donald Trump just enjoys annoying people. I don't take him too seriously and don't suggest anyone else does. If and when he threatens Military Action then maybe's the time to get worried.
He threatened war with North Korea the other day, via his silver-haired secretary of state. It was a conditional threat, but a threat nonetheless.

Maybe that's another thread. What do you do with North Korea who are aiming and launching Missiles at Japan and South Korea, presumably without Warheads. If N.K. did 'bomb' either State would the USA intervene ? I presume Trump is sabre-rattling at the moment to force China to do something.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
He threatened war with North Korea the other day, via his silver-haired secretary of state. It was a conditional threat, but a threat nonetheless.

What's wrong with being silver-haired? It's genetic, it's not an attempt to hide anthing. Much better than reaching for the bottle of X in the shower every day if you ask me.

Lots of bases to attack Trump and his cabinet, but being silver-haired is not one of them. YMMV.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
He threatened war with North Korea the other day, via his silver-haired secretary of state. It was a conditional threat, but a threat nonetheless.
What's wrong with being silver-haired? It's genetic, it's not an attempt to hide anthing. Much better than reaching for the bottle of X in the shower every day if you ask me.

Lots of bases to attack Trump and his cabinet, but being silver-haired is not one of them. YMMV.

Nothing wrong with being silver-haired per se, but there were several media reports that Tillerson was selected to be Secretary of State because Trump (who is very concerned with appearances and presentation) thinks Tillerson looks the part. That seems an insufficient qualification.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

T's nominee for ambassador to Austria was reportedly chosen because he's seen "The Sound Of Music" 75 times.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Could be worse. Could have been chosen because of love of kangaroos.

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

As it so happens, Fortune Magazine has solved this question. The world's greatest leader is Theo Epstein, the Chicago Cubs’ president of baseball operations.

Of course, they didn't specify the free world, but, hey, by definition he must be in the running. [Big Grin]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
For the moral leadership she showed at the time of the peak of the refugee crisis in Europe, I'd suggest Angela Merkel.

Except that that "moral leadership" consisted of putting much of the rest of the EU offside and not leading them anywhere as Germany decided to do its own thing.

Clearly many are supportive of what Germany did, but I'm not convinced that makes it into leadership.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I purposely left "leader" and "free world" undefined. You need to come up with your own definitions.

The free world is the world where the rich are free to get richer at the expense of the poor; where the overfed are free to get fuller at the expense of the hungry; where if you have little money you're free to pay for anything and everything, but can be and do only what you're told to be and do. Two cheers for freedom!

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
The free world is the world where the rich are free to get richer at the expense of the poor; where the overfed are free to get fuller at the expense of the hungry; where if you have little money you're free to pay for anything and everything, but can be and do only what you're told to be and do. Two cheers for freedom!

If one has lived one's life in a comfortable western country, it is easy to say that, or even to imagine that one really thinks that. If one has lived in a country that was a dictatorship, with a very active secret police, as I have, then for all their limitations, the phrase 'free world' represents values that should not be sneered at.

I know this sounds pompous, but it needs saying. That's one of the many reasons why Trump is such an abomination, and why those who voted for him have betrayed more than just themselves.

[ 24. March 2017, 09:00: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
The free world is the world where the rich are free to get richer at the expense of the poor; where the overfed are free to get fuller at the expense of the hungry; where if you have little money you're free to pay for anything and everything, but can be and do only what you're told to be and do. Two cheers for freedom!

Mmm. I don't know whether you intended this to be pointing at Trumpism, but to much of the world this describes the perception of "the West" anyway. Not to decry those who live in poverty in our countries whatsoever, but for many of us an accident of birth means that we get stuff many many people can only dream of.

Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
For the moral leadership she showed at the time of the peak of the refugee crisis in Europe, I'd suggest Angela Merkel.
Except that that "moral leadership" consisted of putting much of the rest of the EU offside and not leading them anywhere as Germany decided to do its own thing.

Clearly many are supportive of what Germany did, but I'm not convinced that makes it into leadership.

Merkel took the 1 Million refugees because Germany was incredibly short of Labour, and that was restricting production. If there was unemployment I doubt if she would have been so keen.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
For the moral leadership she showed at the time of the peak of the refugee crisis in Europe, I'd suggest Angela Merkel.
Except that that "moral leadership" consisted of putting much of the rest of the EU offside and not leading them anywhere as Germany decided to do its own thing.

Clearly many are supportive of what Germany did, but I'm not convinced that makes it into leadership.
Merkel took the 1 Million refugees because Germany was incredibly short of Labour, and that was restricting production. If there was unemployment I doubt if she would have been so keen.

I think that shows Angela Merkel to be a moral leader. Not simply that her government took in a million refugees but, despite going through the same recession Britain has been in, there is far lower unemployment, and that has led to less hostility to refugees and asylum seekers. Then again, our government, through its friends in the press, actively fosters resentment against refugees and asylum seekers (amongst others) in a bid to boost its standing.

Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :

Germany has got 'rich' by beggaring its neighbours particularly with the EURO. Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal and Ireland are all much poorer because of the EURO which benefits no-one accept the German Economy, - and Merkel has imposed a rigid economic system on those Countries causing Mass Unemployment and Austerity.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
Germany has got 'rich' by beggaring its neighbours particularly with the EURO. Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal and Ireland are all much poorer because of the EURO which benefits no-one accept the German Economy

Which would be why the Eurozone economies are growing faster than the US and other countries. And, the economic growth in Germany is only average - Spain and Ireland have experienced much greater economic growth, the economic problems for Greece are such that they'd have struggled with the global turndown regardless of being in the Eurozone or not - and arguably maintaining a currency that held it's value helped by preventing the value of savings, pension funds etc evaporating.

The requirements on Greece, the austerity measures, were not imposed by the German government. They were imposed by the ECB, IMF and the banks that the Greek government owed money to.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

The requirements on Greece, the austerity measures, were not imposed by the German government. They were imposed by the ECB, IMF and the banks that the Greek government owed money to.

The requirements on Greece were imposed by the Greek people themselves, by their decades of underpaying taxes, overclaiming benefits, and ignoring those amongst them who were in real need.

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :

Leader of the Free World?

Some times it's everybody and also sometimes it's somebody else but mostly it's whoever is trending on Twitter or in Facebook right now.

Apparently David Silva is in the top 10 as I type this but I suspect this will change.

[ 24. March 2017, 20:23: Message edited by: Og: Thread Killer ]

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

I think that I would have to vote for the Dalai Lama at this stage. There is so much corruption in high places and in all countries that the Dalai Lama seems to be the most worthy of admiration.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Or possibly Michelle Obama.

OK, I'll get me coat......

IJ

Posted by Seedsower (# 18754) on :

What exactly is meant by the term "free world" anyway? What country is totally free? We are all governed/controlled by overpaid politicians (some more corrupt than others) who are too busy looking after their interests to show their faces in there own towns except when election time comes around. [Confused]

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Seedsower

quote:
What exactly is meant by the term "free world" anyway?

I agree. The term "free world" seems to me a somewhat passe concept, relating to the ideological conflict of the cold war in which international issues were simplified by the struggle between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. De-colonisation and the emergence of new significant political and economic powers, such as India and China, have produced a multi-polar world that has replaced the post-1945 model. I would prefer the term "Free World" to be replaced by "The West", a more geographically and politically limited concept.

As to who should lead the West, I don't think someone like Michelle Obama is at all suitable because she lacks the political experience and has no track record. It's a job that needs to be done by a politician. I can't think much beyond Angela Merkel, though her power in Germany is seemingly on the wane. Really, leadership of the West can only be effectively provided by the President of the United States, so that when he/she is not up to the job the West is rudderless. That, I guess, is where the West now finds itself.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I would prefer the term "Free World" to be replaced by "The West", a more geographically and politically limited concept.

Though, it leaves the problem of where to place Japan, and possibly Australia and New Zealand.

Japan certainly sits with Western Europe, US and Canada in economic terms, and on the front line with N Korea, China and also Russia (hence the large number of US military bases there).

I don't think there really are many terms that can be accurately used of a subset of nations. "Free world" is problematic, "the West" equally so for different reasons.

I would also add that if you were to define "Free World" as democracies you would a) need to further define that since as normally understood the Free World would exclude a lot of democratic nations (in part because their versions of democracy are even worse than ours), and b) the concept of a "leader" is pretty much worthless.

Democracies elect individuals and parties to take on essential administrative roles on behalf of the electorate (MPs and equivalent are representatives of their constituencies, not leaders thereof). We look for people to have vision for where the country can go, but ultimately it's the people who decide. Besides which, even if our elected representatives could be described as "leaders", there's no way that someone elected in one country has any mandate to represent people who had no part in the election process. If it's so essential to have a "leader of the free world" then I would want an election for that person with all citizens of whichever countries are in that "free world" having an equal vote. Even the EU, which at least has some mechanisms for EU wide elections, doesn't have a leader in any realistic sense.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
My best example of Leadership is Aung San Suu Kyi

Rohingya Muslims might have something to say about that.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Alan Cresswell

quote:
... but ultimately it's the people who decide.

Which people?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
My best example of Leadership is Aung San Suu Kyi
Rohingya Muslims might have something to say about that.

Well said KC. She's a disgrace.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Alan Cresswell
quote:
... but ultimately it's the people who decide.
Which people?

In a less than perfect manner, those people who are entitled to vote.

Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :

I think we have proved that no-one is good enough to fill the position. It will have to stay vacant for another year then. (sigh)

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

As long as that ?

[Help]

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Alan Cresswell

quote:

Alan Cresswell
... but ultimately it's the people who decide.

Kwesi: Which people?

Alan Cresswelll: In a less than perfect manner, those people who are entitled to vote.

Can you give some examples of which people decide what? Who decide who shall be a prime minister or president? Who decide who the candidates shall be in a parliamentary election? Who decide what the level of taxation shall be? Who decide the level of welfare benefits? Who decide the level of agricultural subsidies? Who decide whether or not to go to war? Who decide the terms of a referendum? Who decide the electoral system?

I don't see how most of these decisions are taken by "the people entitled to vote" in a proximate or ultimate sense.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0