Saw the Brexit debate between Farage and Cameron and it had me thinking. This is the leader of Britain going on and debating an opponent on live TV. I learned that the Prime Minister debates opponents regularly, especially in the House of Commons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-0KkGdPIz4
The same happens in Canada.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BFwJ-bqEmg
and Australia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfiJ4-0NRqM
Why don't intraterm presidential debates happen in the US? The last time Barack Obama has ever debated someone on live television was back in 2012 against Mitt Romney. Why are the only times an incumbent president debates someone is during a re-election?
>>76449383
*This is the leader of Britain going on and debating an opponent on live TV and it's not even during an election
>>76449383
Because your leaders have been cucks scared of being caught out for decades now.
T. Politicuckery expert, have been watching the most cucked political system for a while now.
>>76449383
>>76449477
You mean this doesn't happen in Congress? What exactly do your Congressmen do in Congress?
Because the power the President holds is different from the power that other leaders hold in other nations.
Who would he debate against? He's head of the executive branch, which by design he will staff full of his lackeys. His power is kept in check by the legislative and judicial branches, but it would be pointless to have debates with members of those branches, they're outside the president's 'jurisdiction'.
>>76449383
How did it go? Did Nigel tan his hide?
Because PM=! President
US president is supposed to be bi partisan (even though he isn't) and needs to take both sides into account before he makes a decision (even though he doesn't)
>>76449883
Take bribes, try to pass laws under the radar, and argue about their pay
>>76449883
We don't know, nobody has ever been able to stay awake through more than 5 minutes of CSPAN coverage.
>>76449883
Virtually every law passed is a barely modified version of a document written up by corporate lawyers. There is no need for debate.
>>76449883
Fail to pass a budget.
On a good day, they'll get really, really close to passing a budget, and then get distracted by transsexuals shitting or something.
>>76450115
Term limits I think would solve that for the most part...
>>76449883
Our congressmen debate one another, not the President.
Well, they're supposed to. A lot of congress work these days involve trying to break the thumb-up-own-ass world record currently held by Strom Thurmond.
But the US government is split into three sections, and they did it that way for a reason. The closest things that the President does to 'debating' Congress would be, say, nominating a replacement for the late justice Scalia that Congress is adamantly refusing to accept. Even then, he won't do the debating himself - the Senators and Representatives of his party will, should they see fit.
>>76450115
>>76450242
>>76450256
>>76450300
>>76450321
Shame you'll never get to see the bants get brought into your Congress
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1dAS7uUSk8
>>76450552
Hey man, a lengthy-ass filibuster can be just as good. Once you really get going, the rules let you talk about anything at all just to stall for time.
>>76449383
Parliamentary democracy. Your system is different, and it was designed to never have to president need to do that--because he did basically jack shit.
Now he's basically a dictator.
>>76449383
Because he is not the leader of Britain. Parliament leads Britain of the behalf of the Queen.
He is the "Prime Minister" (originally a put down) of his party.
President has no reason to debate anyone. What does he have to win? He's already in charge.
I do wish congress was more animated though. British parliament can be a shitshow full of bantz and debate. Congress is incredibly rigid and structured. You don't even actually directly address other congressmen. Complete snoozefest. Nobody bothers to debate each other on the floor.
>>76450722
Post ebin happenings in Congress then to compare
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ2FmGOU4tE
>>76450552
Why are they such cucks for Israel even in Canada?
>>76451355
Apparently we have Evangelicals out west
>>76451570
Why do Christians love a Jewish State so much?
>>76451626
It's not all Christians. The Bloc Quebecois (from the more Catholic Quebec) is the only party that's consistently opposed to cucking for Israel.
>>76451083
>He is the "Prime Minister" (originally a put down) of his party.
what the fuck are you smoking
the president is the head of state, the prime minister is not. canada and australia are the same.
it's a subtle distinction but it effects how they are treated. david cameron is a member of parliament and "first among equals" in his cabinet (in theory, less so in practice). the prime minister is therefore expected to be open to robust debate from other members of parliament. by contrast, the president is not a member of congress and has a higher level of status than anyone else in government.
>>76449383
Havne't Brits figured it out?
Cameron is a secret Brexit supporter. His whole Remain campaign has been half-hearted at best. Why the hell else would the PM agree to debate Nigel Farage, who certainly has his following, but who is a 'nobody' in official capacity?
>>76451626
Remember that part in lord of the rings where that slimy jewy character has a spell over the king of rohan, and literally whispers lies into his ear?
That's basically an allegory for the jews and christians. The christians have been tricked into supporting israel because "muh judeo-christian values" (which isn't even an actual thing)
>>76452494
It's really more of an Anglo/Protestant thing
>>76449383
Prime ministers are members of the parliament
we are not a parliamentary system and they chief executive doesn't have to debate shit or justify their actions to Congress
>>76453163
*except in cases of high crimes and misdemeanors
anyone got a full video of the debate?
ill also add many state chapters of the political parties have rules AGAINST adoption of parliamentary rules and the federal Congress only operates under parliamentary rules until adopting of formal rules for the new term by the House of Representatives
tl;dr fuck parliament
>>76449383
who is that faggit to Cameron's left? He looks like he's tripping balls
>>76451859
He's talking about historical context.
When parties began using a single minister as a spokesperson and leader it was insultingly called the "prime-minister" (there wasn't supposed to be a 'prime' minister).
But giving the party a face proved to be effective at winning votes so other parties followed suit, and eventually it became a constitutionally recognized position.
Much like how "big bang" was originally a dismissal of that theory.
>>76454494
Count Von Osborne.
>>76449883
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFroMQlKiag
>>76450722
You don't have to actually talk constantly for a filibuster anymore. You can just say you're doing it.
