Suppose the board elected a company president and in the first month he did three things, all were completely stupid and very very expensive. Would the board keep the idiot for a full four or five years like national presidents often do? No, he would get his pay up until the end of the contract, in one cheque, and depart. Out of power and out of the company and have no right to return. Good riddance. And the board would take the financial hit for that and cut the costs as quickly as possible.
Whether presidential terms should be for a fixed term seemed a timely question when so many national leaders have recently done things their public does not agree with. Within one month people had regrets over electing Joe Biden over his immigration statements and policies. Over in England, his own government has had enough of Boris Johnson's perfidy, in Germany it turns out Chancellor Merkel consulted nobody with responsibility for energy policy before announcing the closure of all nuclear power stations, and the biggest error was Ukraine electing Zelensky as the 'peace candidate.' Nobody wants a fickle electorate changing presidents on a daily basis but what do you do when someone has been asleep half the time in Senate, as president, starts doing things almost nobody agrees with?
The question asked by this thread is whether it should be possible to kick out a president who does things very different from what he promised to do, or at least appeared likely to do. And the answer in many cases is 'no.' A candidate lies his way into power and then 'the peace candidate' starts a war. Or 'sleepy Joe' wakes up and does what he can to break up the Alliances the US is in, and to trash the US currency. Ukraine stuck with Z for five years, the US with Joe another two and a half years. This system really sucks.
Vladimir Putin is reacting to what the US/NATO is doing. And having Biden in the driving seat has been a disaster for the US.
No he isn't. It's a land grab. He stated as such. So we can just knock it off with that lie. And before you go further, he recently met with both China and India's leaders and while both had concerns over the war, he stated this will continue until he secures the Donbas region. That means he's not giving it back. This isn't a "let's purge the place of "nazi's" and then give it back to Ukraine...no no...this is about "let's just take Donbas because it allows for a nice land path to Crimea" Land and resource grab, nothing more.
You are ignoring reality in that a private company and a country are not the same. You also appear not to believe in the principles in our Constitution. The other deal is that what you may think is a mistake maybe a policy choice. For total immoral F -UPS there is impeachment but it takes Senators with morality and brass ones to to throws a criminal POTUS out on his arse. You saw where the Senate failed to get rid of the criminal known as Trump.
I definitely prefer a parliamentary system for this reason. A vote of non-confidence is a good mechanism to have.
That prediction is coming true. Yes, we seem to have a problem with top politicians claiming to have a particular aim and then doing the opposite, and then being stuck with them. The British system worked well by getting Liz Truss out after just 7 weeks during which the pound got down to 1.07, now it has recovered to 1.22 one dollar and twenty two cents. Over a short period like that with the British leadership changing I'm fairly confident the shift in Dollars per pound was due to Truss's removal but over the longer term a continued rise in dollars per pound will be due to a falling dollar, the U.S. being unable to remove Biden & accomplices.
My, what a surprise. You've managed to avoid attacking Putin or Trump and instead focus on competent leaders who have all stood up against Russian aggression, and you've even blamed Putin's attack on Ukraine on Zelensky. I knew I had you on ignore for a reason.
