how to be a president, US, UK, CHINA

[tranquilium]

In China, your father should be an official and then you have the opportunity to be president of China.

No, you don't. Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zhemin and Hu Jintao all have civilian parents. Xi Jinping didn't get any help from his parent as well when he started his career. In fact, his parents was detrimental to his career when he just started.

Out of all the premiers, only Li Keqiang has parents that hold any sort of political position and his father was a mayor and later a district judge, certainly not a high ranked official.

The thing with China is that your parents can start you on a path, but they are not going to be able to carry you very far. You can't be born into a caste or a political circle and let that carry you either.

 

[Sonyuke_Songpaisan]

That isn't unique to China, just look how many political families there are in US. Just top of my head, Adams, Bush's families, both of them have father son as the POTUS.

OK, you mention Bush here, learn from them. Let the Chinese people to vote for their president. If Xi is voted,I quit. Dare CCP do this?

 

[chauism]

OK, you mention Bush here, learn from them. Let the Chinese people to vote for their president. If Xi is voted,I quit. Dare CCP do this?

How is multi party election any better than the selection system China has for its top brass? Judging from the result of Super Girls, I won't even trust people to vote on what should be put on TV let alone for the important decisions like who should lead the country. Since you also mentioned Bush, if anyone like him who has enough political capital can be elected as POTUS not just once but also twice even if you are imcompetent. BTW personally I don't think he is any less imcompetent than Obama who has had no any managerial skill from previous job experience.

Then look at ROC, all three elected presidents, please tell me who is an example of competent leader?

 

[vostok]

U.S. president or the prime minister of Britain - it's just the face, chess pawns. They do not mean anything and nothing can change in their countries. They promoted by financial clans to serve for their interests. One person or another - no difference.

 

[chauism]

U.S. president or the prime minister of Britain - it's just the face, chess pawns. They do not mean anything and nothing can change in their countries. They promoted by financial clans to serve for their interests. One person or another - no difference.

That is one way to put it, but they serve more than just financial clans, but also various special interests groups, unions and corporations.

 

[vostok]

That is one way to put it, but they serve more than just financial clans, but also various special interests groups, unions and corporations.

Corporations, political groups - this is the structural units of financial family.
In the U.S., the UK, the head of state can be truly idiot, like Bush - and nothing will change. It's just an actor who read the text from piece of paper. If he does not want to play a role - he will be just killed.

 

[jhungary]

Well, I am not the one insisting that the PM being the head of state for UK

...

I said TECHNICALLY.......

Do you know what is the meaning of TECHNICALLY?

Reality: The head of states of United Kingdom is The Queen

However, technically, it should be the prime minister.....

The thing is, Queen represent the whole reign of Britannia, the UK, which technically does not exist, comprise of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland supposed to be the sovereign of Britannia, hence they should have a representation of the queen, this is due to the whole map of the Empire are larger than just the UK itself, hence the UK and part there of, should be part of soverign

So , technically, the UK should have a representation, but they don't and if they do, either it should be the PM, or the Archbishop of Canterbury, but the later should be ruled out.

Hence, we are talking about the same thing, just you look at one end and I look at the other, if you still don't have a clue what I was talking about then forget about it.

 

[jhungary]

Do I need to read further than "the Queen is Head of State of the UK"?

With regard to the passport – Goodness, you are such a dimwitt and wouldn't even know when a trolltrain hits you at 300 km/h.

Yes, you need to read further than the queen of England is the head of state in the UK

Because the passport thing was LISTED ON THE SAME WEBSITE

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/Queen and Commonwealth Visits/Queenandpassport.aspx

As a British passport is issued in the name of Her Majesty, it is unnecessary for The Queen to possess one. All other members of the Royal Family, including The Duke of Edinburgh and The Prince of Wales, have passports.

If you had read further, you would not say the queen can't get an UK passport because she's German

 

[chauism]

...

I said TECHNICALLY.......

Do you know what is the meaning of TECHNICALLY?

Reality: The head of states of United Kingdom is The Queen

However, technically, it should be the prime minister.....


So , technically, the UK should have a representation, but they don't and if they do, either it should be the PM, or the Archbishop of Canterbury, but the later should be ruled out.

Hence, we are talking about the same thing, just you look at one end and I look at the other, if you still don't have a clue what I was talking about then forget about it.

That is the question for you.

The term head of state is often used differentiating it from the term head of government, e.g. as in article 7 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, article 1 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents and the United Nations protocol list. For instance, in parliamentary systems like the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Federal Republic of Germany; the Monarch and the President are recognized as their respective heads of state, while the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are recognized as the heads of government. So what technicality are you refering to?

http://www.un.int/protocol/documents/Hspmfm.pdf
http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf
http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_4_1973.pdf

The thing is, Queen represent the whole reign of Britannia, the UK, which technically does not exist, comprise of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland supposed to be the sovereign of Britannia, hence they should have a representation of the queen, this is due to the whole map of the Empire are larger than just the UK itself, hence the UK and part there of, should be part of soverign

Now you are saying United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland(which is the full name for UK) does not exist technically? The roles of head of state in the other countries of the commonwealth realm are divided between the monarch and the governor generals. However technically and constituitionally the Queen only can exercise her power in UK but no where else. I have heard the dispute of whether the governor general or the queen should be the head of state, but this is the first time I have heard someone dispute whether the prime minister of UK or the queen should be the head of the state for UK.

And where do you conclude that Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are sovereign states same as other countries within the Commonwealth Realm?

 

[jhungary]

That is the question for you.

The term head of state is often used differentiating it from the term head of government, e.g. as in article 7 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, article 1 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents and the United Nations protocol list. For instance, in parliamentary systems like the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Federal Republic of Germany; the Monarch and the President are recognized as their respective heads of state, while the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are recognized as the heads of government. So what technicality are you refering to?

http://www.un.int/protocol/documents/Hspmfm.pdf
http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf
http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_4_1973.pdf


Now you are saying United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland(which is the full name for UK) does not exist technically? The roles of head of state in the other countries of the commonwealth realm are divided between the monarch and the governor generals. However technically and constituitionally the Queen only can exercise her power in UK but no where else. I have heard the dispute of whether the governor general or the queen should be the head of state, but this is the first time I have heard someone dispute whether the prime minister of UK or the queen should be the head of the state for UK.

And where do you conclude that Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are sovereign states same as other countries within the Commonwealth Realm?

Do you know why, if indeed, The UK exist as a whole sovereign country, why would there be 3 different team representing the UK in the World Cup? Instead of a single team UK?

And why do you think it is a team GB in the 2012 London Olympic instead of a unified team UK?

Scotland national football team - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wales national football team - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
England national football team - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And do you even know there is a border between Scotland and England?

What you might perceive as the unified country infact were 3 different soverign, the situation of "the UK" is more or less the same situation as in Hong Kong, would you consider Xi-Ji-Ping as the head of states of Hong Kong or CY Leung as the Head of State of Hong Kong

While Hong Kong is politically independent (no rep from CPC) and autonomic, Hong Kong however is the soverign of China, but Chinese government have given the Hong Kong government highly independent political power to control their own government, beside military and foreign policy.

That is why there is a seperate team to represent Hong Kong rather than a single unitised team China

And while it IS the president of China, Xi, is also the head of state in Hong Kong, technically it was CY that is running the show and Xi have no power over Hong Kong under basic law, does this situation sounded familar?

This is the last reply on this post, ME and YOU are saying the same thing, I don't really know why you still don't gets it, and I am starting got tired to find out why, if you still don't understand why, then I am sorry, I cannot further dumb it down for you, in term of governmental level.

 

[Götterdämmerung]

Yes, you need to read further than the queen of England is the head of state in the UK

Because the passport thing was LISTED ON THE SAME WEBSITE

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/Queen and Commonwealth Visits/Queenandpassport.aspx



If you had read further, you would not say the queen can't get an UK passport because she's German

You claimed that the queen is not head of state of the UK and I disproved it. That's all.

You still didn't get the joke, did you?

 

[jhungary]

You claimed that the queen is not head of state of the UK and I disproved it. That's all.

You still didn't get the joke, did you?

What's wrong with the member today? Do y'all don't speak English anymore?

Do you need an English tutorial on the word "technically"

I never said the queen is not the head of state, i said, TECHNICALLY she should not be and technically, it should be the PM.

At no point I did say she is not the HOS

 

[Sonyuke_Songpaisan]

How is multi party election any better than the selection system China has for its top brass? Judging from the result of Super Girls, I won't even trust people to vote on what should be put on TV let alone for the important decisions like who should lead the country. Since you also mentioned Bush, if anyone like him who has enough political capital can be elected as POTUS not just once but also twice even if you are imcompetent. BTW personally I don't think he is any less imcompetent than Obama who has had no any managerial skill from previous job experience.

Then look at ROC, all three elected presidents, please tell me who is an example of competent leader?

Ofcuz, President Ma is better

 

[chauism]

Ofcuz, President Ma is better

Ma is the most charismatic one, but competence is never the word that can be associated with him. He even defended that by saying "Competent politicians are not always good leaders". What the hell was that?

 

[Sonyuke_Songpaisan]

Ma is the most charismatic one, but competence is never the word that can be associated with him. He even defended that by saying "Competent politicians are not always good leaders". What the hell was that?

so which chinese leader is competent? Maozedong, he said he would kill bilions of Chinese and he did, this is called competent?