Gerry Adams Late Late Show 'ambush'

[deiseach]

In the 1932 election, Hitler's party took 37% of the vote. Is anybody on here disputing that figure? Is anyone on here disputing that this share of the vote gave Hitler the right to take power?

In your own time...

He had no right to take power on the basis of 37% of the vote. Which might explain why he was unable to take power.

[red hander]

In the 1932 election, Hitler's party took 37% of the vote. Is anybody on here disputing that figure? Is anyone on here disputing that this share of the vote gave Hitler the right to take power?

In your own time...

Yeah, I am.  The 1932 German government was a coalition involving the Nazis and another party.  If that 37% of the vote was so impressive, how come the Nazis had a bigger percentage vote in the previous elections ... its vote had peaked and Hitler knew this.  If that 37% of the vote was so impressive, how come Hitler and another deputy were the ONLY Nazis given a portfolio in the cabinet.  Hitler 'took' power after the 1933 election when he used the pretext of the Reichstag fire to persuade Hindenburg to give him as chancellor the power to suspend habeas corpus and thus instigate a dictatorship ... now, move along there child

[Myles Na G.]

In both elections in 1932, the Nazis emerged the largest political party. In normal circumstances, the President would've invited the leader of that party to become Chancellor. The fact that Hindenburg did not speaks volumes for his judgment, but it can't disguise the fact that the Nazi party had more 'right' than any of the other political parties to hold the highest office in the land. In one sense Hindenburg thwarted the democratic wishes of the German people, though he did so in the interests of democracy itself.

How old are you RH? I'm starting to think you're about 14. If that's the case, apologies for my earlier 'idiot' gibes. Very unfair.

[deiseach]

In both elections in 1932, the Nazis emerged the largest political party. In normal circumstances, the President would've invited the leader of that party to become Chancellor. The fact that Hindenburg did not speaks volumes for his judgment, but it can't disguise the fact that the Nazi party had more 'right' than any of the other political parties to hold the highest office in the land. In one sense Hindenburg thwarted the democratic wishes of the German people, though he did so in the interests of democracy itself.

Why vest the elected President with the power to choose a Chancellor if he is just going to rubber-stamp the selection of the leader of the largest party? Fianna Fáil have been the largest party in Ireland after every election since 1932. Presumably you think they had the 'right' to form every government.

[red hander]

In both elections in 1932, the Nazis emerged the largest political party. In normal circumstances, the President would've invited the leader of that party to become Chancellor. The fact that Hindenburg did not speaks volumes for his judgment, but it can't disguise the fact that the Nazi party had more 'right' than any of the other political parties to hold the highest office in the land. In one sense Hindenburg thwarted the democratic wishes of the German people, though he did so in the interests of democracy itself.

How old are you RH? I'm starting to think you're about 14. If that's the case, apologies for my earlier 'idiot' gibes. Very unfair.

You must be half way to Australia with that hole by now ... if you can't talk any sense, then at least try and base your idiotic diatribes on fact, rather than what pops up in your brain the odd time the tumbleweeds aren't blowing across it

[Myles Na G.]

Why vest the elected President with the power to choose a Chancellor if he is just going to rubber-stamp the selection of the leader of the largest party? Fianna Fáil have been the largest party in Ireland after every election since 1932. Presumably you think they had the 'right' to form every government.  

Are you saying that an elected president should be able to veto an elected leader even if that individual's party holds an overall majority? While a president isn't supposed to be a rubber stamp, neither is he or she in place to thwart what the eletorate votes for. If two or three smaller parties manage to put together a coalition, it is right and proper that the leading job should go to someone from one of those (whether or not the president agrees with that choice). My point about the German election is that there was no obvious alternative to Hitler, given that the smaller parties seemed unable to put together a stable and durable coalition of interests.
 

[deiseach]

Are you saying that an elected president should be able to veto an elected leader even if that individual's party holds an overall majority? While a president isn't supposed to be a rubber stamp, neither is he or she in place to thwart what the eletorate votes for. If two or three smaller parties manage to put together a coalition, it is right and proper that the leading job should go to someone from one of those (whether or not the president agrees with that choice). My point about the German election is that there was no obvious alternative to Hitler, given that the smaller parties seemed unable to put together a stable and durable coalition of interests.

You're just babbling now. There is no inherent right for the largest party to form the government in any parliamentary system - otherwise  Fianna Fáil would have never been out of government since 1932. There is no inherent right to the largest party providing the leader of the government - Lloyd George was the PM after the 1918 election even though the Tories were the largest party. There is not even an inherent right for the leader of any party to become the leader of the government - John Costelloe was never leader of Fine Gael and Gladstone was not leader of the Liberals for his third and fourth stints as PM. Different countries have different systems. Learning what they are would be useful.

[Myles Na G.]

You're just babbling now. There is no inherent right for the largest party to form the government in any parliamentary system - otherwise  Fianna Fáil would have never been out of government since 1932. There is no inherent right to the largest party providing the leader of the government - Lloyd George was the PM after the 1918 election even though the Tories were the largest party. There is not even an inherent right for the leader of any party to become the leader of the government - John Costelloe was never leader of Fine Gael and Gladstone was not leader of the Liberals for his third and fourth stints as PM. Different countries have different systems. Learning what they are would be useful.

My apologies - my first sentence is unclear and makes the rest of the point seem nonsensical. Allow me to edit:

Are you saying that an elected president should be able to veto an elected leader even if that individual's party holds an overall parliamentary majority?

[deiseach]

Are you saying that an elected president should be able to veto an elected leader even if that individual's party holds an overall parliamentary majority?

I don't think it should be allowed. But that doesn't mean it would be inconceivable. As recently as 1975 an unelected proxy for the head of state in a liberal democracy was able to remove the leader of a government with an absolute majority in the directly elected chamber. Whether I think this was acceptable is neither here nor there. It happened and it was legitimate.

[Main Street]

Are you saying that an elected president should be able to veto an elected leader even if that individual's party holds an overall parliamentary majority?

The unquenchable desire to revise history.
More nonsense in relation to the Nazis, they did not hold an overall parliamentary majority when Hitler grabbed power.
Largest parliamentary party and largest minority party are 2 different things.
The Nazis electorial base was seriously waning when according to all respected historians Hitler grabbed power easily enough with he Reichstag fire ruse.

[Myles Na G.]

Are you saying that an elected president should be able to veto an elected leader even if that individual's party holds an overall parliamentary majority?

The unquenchable desire to revise history.
More nonsense in relation to the Nazis, they did not hold an overall parliamentary majority when Hitler grabbed power.
Largest parliamentary party and largest minority party are 2 different things.
The Nazis electorial base was seriously waning when according to all respected historians Hitler grabbed power easily enough with he Reichstag fire ruse.

The unquenchable desire to misinterpret posts. I didn't say the  Nazis had an overall majority. I was asking a question on a point of principle.
Carry on.

[Main Street]

I can follow quite well how you could not support your point that the people turned to Mussolini  (plus using that tired worn train cliche) and slithering into a maze of trying to put sense on your statement that the German people turned to Hitler in times of desperation.
The German people were turning away from Hitler in their millions, he knew it and Goebbels knew it.

Your history is not knowledgable, just a mish mash of accepting cliches that stuck with you since 3rd grade European history.