@shavixmir said"...men cannot be enslaved politically until they have been disarmed ideologically. When they are so disarmed, it is the victims who take the lead in the process of their own destruction"
It depends the role you give a president.
AR
@vivify saidPresident for life is invariably the worse option.
Which is a better option?
American presidents do not necessarily command a majority in Congress, and this sometimes leads to a stymied or obstructionist political process. Whereas a British PM necessarily commands a majority in Parliament; this facilitates the legislative process, but has a downside as well in that the ruling party sees no need to reach consensus on policy.
Personally, I prefer the Swiss model: no party can control parliament (this is constitutionally anchored), thereby forcing consensus politics. Furthermore, the executive is a committee of seven people, and no party can control this committee either--this too is constitutionally anchored, the members of the executive committee must be chosen from a multitude of parties.
@shavixmir saidAssuming it's not a mostly ceremonious role.
It depends the role you give a president.
@moonbus saidI would like to see a combination in the electoral process where both a parliament/ congress and the president are elected. I see no reason why this can't be the case with PMs.
President for life is invariably the worse option.
American presidents do not necessarily command a majority in Congress, and this sometimes leads to a stymied or obstructionist political process. Whereas a British PM necessarily commands a majority in Parliament; this facilitates the legislative process, but has a downside as well in that the ruling party sees no need to ...[text shortened]... ionally anchored, the members of the executive committee must be chosen from a multitude of parties.
In the U.S. the political party of the President usually switches when they leave office since the opposition can exploit a dissatisfaction with the incumbent. This means continual screw ups like from Boris and Liz Truss would doom their party to losing power when a new leader is elected.
As far as "president for life" I'm a strong supporter of term limits.
@vivify saidPresidents for life are invariably just dictators with a euphemistic title. Putin obviously has no intention of leaving office voluntarily, and Xi is well on the way there too.
I would like to see a combination in the electoral process where both a parliament/ congress and the president are elected. I see no reason why this can't be the case with PMs.
In the U.S. the political party of the President usually switches when they leave office since the opposition can exploit a dissatisfaction with the incumbent. This means continual screw ups like ...[text shortened]... en a new leader is elected.
As far as "president for life" I'm a strong supporter of term limits.
@wajoma saidFrom Wajoma's Big Fat Book of Excuses.
"...men cannot be enslaved politically until they have been disarmed ideologically. When they are so disarmed, it is the victims who take the lead in the process of their own destruction"
AR
@athousandyoung saidDo you have a crush on me or something?🤭🤢🤮
You spend a lot of time fantasizing about other posters' nether parts don't you