The UK had an election on Tuesday. By Friday, the head of the winning party was sworn in as Prime Minister.
The US has a ridiculously slow transition period for both Congress and the Presidency based on the long travel times needed 230+ years ago. It seems to me a bipartisan solution to this travesty would be a good idea, reducing it to say a month at most. There's no reason those who the People kicked out of office should still be determining policy months after their electoral defeat.
Thoughts?
@no1marauder saidAgreed.
The UK had an election on Tuesday. By Friday, the head of the winning party was sworn in as Prime Minister.
The US has a ridiculously slow transition period for both Congress and the Presidency based on the long travel times needed 230+ years ago. It seems to me a bipartisan solution to this travesty would be a good idea, reducing it to say a month at most. There's no ...[text shortened]... d out of office should still be determining policy months after their electoral defeat.
Thoughts?
1 edit
@no1marauder saidI do give the British credit for their ability to ditch a bad leader quickly. Liz Truss was out before you could say Jack Robinson.
The UK had an election on Tuesday. By Friday, the head of the winning party was sworn in as Prime Minister.
The US has a ridiculously slow transition period for both Congress and the Presidency based on the long travel times needed 230+ years ago. It seems to me a bipartisan solution to this travesty would be a good idea, reducing it to say a month at most. There's no ...[text shortened]... d out of office should still be determining policy months after their electoral defeat.
Thoughts?
I don't see a problem with delaying the transition of power from November to January of the following year. This gives every state time to perform audits and recounts, if need be. Furthermore, there is a lot an outgoing administration has to do to prepare for the transition (such as securing secret documents).
I do think there is a need to disband the Electoral College. Twice (that I know of) a candidate who lost the popular vote was inducted into the White House by the Electoral College. This is a travesty of democracy. Whoever draws the majority of the popular votes should get in, no ifs ands or butts.
It is a travesty of democracy that a non-elected person tells the Speaker of the house to kill a bill, and the Speaker kills it. I don't see how to amend the Constitution to prevent that though.
@no1marauder saidI agree.
The UK had an election on Tuesday. By Friday, the head of the winning party was sworn in as Prime Minister.
The US has a ridiculously slow transition period for both Congress and the Presidency based on the long travel times needed 230+ years ago. It seems to me a bipartisan solution to this travesty would be a good idea, reducing it to say a month at most. There's no ...[text shortened]... d out of office should still be determining policy months after their electoral defeat.
Thoughts?
But because it makes sense, it will never happen. There will be a new constitution before the current one is meaningfully amended again. Things are moving far too fast for the old parchment to keep up.
So it’s time to amend the constitution. So today I will either read the paper which I have been doing for 230 years. or I will pick today as the day to change the constitution. And then tomorrow we will change something else. Maybe the Supreme Court. Or maybe our 230 year old boundary in Texas. So much to be done.
@AverageJoe1 saidYes. It’s called adapting to changing circumstances.
So it’s time to amend the constitution. So today I will either read the paper which I have been doing for 230 years. or I will pick today as the day to change the constitution. And then tomorrow we will change something else. Maybe the Supreme Court. Or maybe our 230 year old boundary in Texas. So much to be done.
Things that don’t change, tend to end up on the scrap heap of history.
Ironically, I was at the Pont du Gard today… built during the reign of Augustus Ceasar… so nearly 2000 years old… and at the classic theatre in Orange, built around the same time… and still in use!
So, not everything changes or fails.
However, your constitution sure as 💩 ain’t Roman built and was outdated 20 years before it was bloody written.
@AverageJoe1 said*176 year old border in Texas
So it’s time to amend the constitution. So today I will either read the paper which I have been doing for 230 years. or I will pick today as the day to change the constitution. And then tomorrow we will change something else. Maybe the Supreme Court. Or maybe our 230 year old boundary in Texas. So much to be done.
@no1marauder saidit is complete chaos in the UK right now dumbass
The UK had an election on Tuesday. By Friday, the head of the winning party was sworn in as Prime Minister.
The US has a ridiculously slow transition period for both Congress and the Presidency based on the long travel times needed 230+ years ago. It seems to me a bipartisan solution to this travesty would be a good idea, reducing it to say a month at most. There's no ...[text shortened]... d out of office should still be determining policy months after their electoral defeat.
Thoughts?
@Mott-The-Hoople said14 years of right wingers running a country will do that.
it is complete chaos in the UK right now dumbass
Still, the People spoke and their will was quickly implemented. That's a vast improvement over lame duck sessions and lengthy delays in Executive Branch turnover.
@AThousandYoung saidNailed me again. You are as good as Suzianne. I will do one on purpose, maybe hidden in a Sonhouse response, to see if you catch it.
*176 year old border in Texas
@shavixmir saidA foreigner campaigns ( as a socialist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!AHHAHAHAHHAHH!!!) to change our constitution. An agreement for everyone to be be free and self- reliant!! OF COURSE, OF COURSE it is out of date, because today's world is to ....how did Obama say it....spread the wealth around? (There can be no freedom and self-reliance with such a concept...) That is EXACTLY EXACTLY EXACTLY what Obama said.
Yes. It’s called adapting to changing circumstances.
Things that don’t change, tend to end up on the scrap heap of history.
Ironically, I was at the Pont du Gard today… built during the reign of Augustus Ceasar… so nearly 2000 years old… and at the classic theatre in Orange, built around the same time… and still in use!
So, not everything changes or fails.
However ...[text shortened]... our constitution sure as 💩 ain’t Roman built and was outdated 20 years before it was bloody written.
Oh thank you , thank you I could kiss you, maybe not in your sewers. You have confirmed, substantiated, verified, cemented all of the posts I have ever made.
Why, Marauder, there is no link worthy of such a Forum Discovery!!!!! This one stands by itself. And it is Shav. No one one better to have his name on it!
Think I will walk down to the beach and look for a green flash!!
@no1marauder saidAgreed.
The UK had an election on Tuesday. By Friday, the head of the winning party was sworn in as Prime Minister.
The US has a ridiculously slow transition period for both Congress and the Presidency based on the long travel times needed 230+ years ago. It seems to me a bipartisan solution to this travesty would be a good idea, reducing it to say a month at most. There's no ...[text shortened]... d out of office should still be determining policy months after their electoral defeat.
Thoughts?
@AverageJoe1 said230 years? Really?
So it’s time to amend the constitution. So today I will either read the paper which I have been doing for 230 years. or I will pick today as the day to change the constitution. And then tomorrow we will change something else. Maybe the Supreme Court. Or maybe our 230 year old boundary in Texas. So much to be done.
And you say Biden is too old.
@AverageJoe1 saidI don’t campaign anything.
A foreigner campaigns ( as a socialist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!AHHAHAHAHHAHH!!!) to change our constitution. An agreement for everyone to be be free and self- reliant!! OF COURSE, OF COURSE it is out of date, because today's world is to ....how did Obama say it....spread the wealth around? (There can be no freedom and self-reliance with such a concept...) That is EXACTLY EXACTLY ...[text shortened]... e better to have his name on it!
Think I will walk down to the beach and look for a green flash!!
It’s a debate about your constitution, and I have an opinion on it.