Comments by "Jasper Mooren" (@jaspermooren5883) on "TLDR News Global" channel.

Yeah the Dutch constitution was written in 1848, which turned the Netherlands from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy which is more or less still the system we have today. Some changes we're made later (such as women's voting rights), but effectively the same democratic system is still in place: parlementary elections with a government chosen and controlled by the parlement. The king is really just a figurehead since that day. So in the Netherlands the 1848 revolution was definitely a success, however it was also not really a revolution, since the king willingly stepped down. Although how willing that was and how much he was blackmailed and threatend is something that a lot of people speculate about.
44
@vablo7198 I wonder how much the payout is if you bet against putin becoming president. It must be 1000s to 1. Honestly if I could turn 5 bucks into a million I probably still wouldn't do it, a total waste of 5 bucks.
37
That's a much smaller set than I expected. These are all western currencies (Japan is economically effectively part of the west), meaning that a general fluctuation in the west, like an economic recession, isn't taken into account. Although maybe that actually makes it more informative in some respects, it does show the US compared to similar economies.
31
@MidWitPride that's true for literally every hand. But having a pair in hand is actually quite good in texas hold em. The worst hand is a 2 and a 7 of different suits. The lowest cards that can't even both be part of a straight or flush.
27
@StanleyKubick1 exports have nothing to do with esports, you silly goose.
11
Yeah I was already hugely surprised and didn't understand it at all when the markets surged when it happened. I would have expected a crash when Trump was elected, but the reverse happened. Usually markets don't like unstable governments, and the fact that Trump's administration would be a massive clusterfuck of random decisions was basically a known quantity even before he was elected. The opposite of a stable political climate that attracts long term investment. I was absolutely baffled when the markets went up.
8
@Shadowguy456234 yeah it was practically a forced resignation. It's like either you resign and safe face, or we'll fire you. This usually happens with ministers that are doing badly in parliamentary systems. In most European democracies it just requires a simple majority in parliament to fire a minister (including the prime minister, who's not really any different under the law), so it happens fairly regularly that someone might get a motion of no confidence against them or is about to (in the Netherlands where I live, it happens probably about once a year on average, although it usually happens more in less stable governments and much less than that in more stable governments). But usually just before it happens, the minister in question already knows it's going to happen and resigns instead. So formally, motions of no confidence are pretty rare, but in practice they are somewhat common. Very different from the US, where being a secretary is quite a safe job. And the president even more so. Impeachment basically never actually happens.
7
@Terrorstar-gbp yeah and the UK is significantly less democratic than most other western countries for the exact same reason. At least in the UK the constituencies are very small, so there are still several other parties that are particularly popular in specific regions. There are many states in the US where you basically don't have a vote at all.
6
@kanekiken2002 Even though I fundamentally agree with your point, it is not idiotic, considering that the day the queen would try to do such a thing (and fail to do so), these countries would become the republics they effectively already are. Only in the UK, the queen might actually be able to exercise this power. But indeed even the theoretical possibility isn't a great sign, although in this case, it is more based on a much less democratic history and are more legacy laws than actually enforced laws. The house of lords still containing seats that are hereditary or appointed by the church is a much more problematic part of the UK political system, since they actually hold real power that they actually exercise. As a Dutch person, I'll speak for the Netherlands rather than the UK on this issue, but indeed, I'd much rather see the Dutch king go than stay, simply because of the undemocratic symbol he represents, much more than the actual power he holds (which is practically speaking 0). Even without the exercising of power by the king the discussion of becoming a republic is pretty significant in The Netherlands (between 20%-40% support).
4
@Olafje Basically all western royals are german in some way, simply because Germany was 100s of different monarchies back then, and the rest of western europe had like 10. So if you wanted to marry a royal and not get a chin beyond your nose you basically had to marry a German most of the time.
4
@fullmetaltheorist they do that all the time. It's not really without a government in the literal sense, just that the government was made during the previous elections. It's like when in the US it takes a few months between getting elected president and actually getting in the white house, in Belgium that requires coalition talks (1 party never gets a majority) and because Belgium is so insanely divided along linguistic lines, that can take years. In parliamentary systems that is often called 'no government' as in no new government that has parliamentary support, but it's not like there's literally no government, there are still ministers, all the government institutions still continue, still a police force, still an education system. It's just much harder for the old government that has lost their democratic mandate to enact new policies.
4
@ Isn't saving face an English expression, meaning something like maintaining your honour? I thought it was, but maybe it's just a bad translation form Dutch. English is my second language.
3
@kordellswoffer1520 That is exactly what the US does though. The president is voted for indirectly through an electoral college, that is exactly what a constituency is. In 48 of the 50 states it's a winner takes all system, so there are 48 constituencies and Maine and Nebraska, which actually are proportional. If you live in California you basically don't get to vote, since the Democratic majority is so large that it is basically already known that the Democrats will win in the 2024 election in California. That's not very democratic. Same goes the other way in Red states btw. Also voting for a single person is not super democratic anyways, since minorities get completely silenced and you get a dictatorship of the majority, so if you want a true democracy you want a representative parlament (direct democracy is basically not feasable practically speaking) that is the chief executive office, not a single person. So yeah, the US is not very democratic compared to lets say almost all of Europe. Doesn't mean it's dictatorial, but I do think if there was a black party that was able to represent their rights in parliament as a large minority it wouldn't have taken until the 60s for the Civil Rights Act to take effect. Such clear unconstitutional and exclusionary politics can only (or are at least much more likely to) happen in a dictatorship of the majority, aka a winner takes all system. I don't think it's a coincedence that all the big rights movements happened first in countries with equal representation (like the Netherlands legalising gay marriage in 2001).
2
@kanekiken2002 Maybe, again I don't think the queen ever will. But I don't know enough about UK to know in what situation the queen would ever use that power and how the population (and politics) will respond to it. The UK most definitely isn't the most democratic country in the world, but it isn't ranked as such either. For now it is fairly well functioning, but I think that the deep rooted culture of democratic values is way more important than the law. In the end the law is just a piece of paper, the only power it holds is the power people give it. A collapse of democratic values rarely happens according to the then existing laws anyway. Hitler didn't rise to power according to the law either (his party took absolute control with only 34% of the vote). So didn't almost every authoritarian regime. The law helps in ensuring a well functioning democracy during good times. In times of chaos only the will of the people can insure the stability of a democracy.
2
@metyore8341 nah that's extremely unlikely. Really all that the rise of nationalism is in most countries is a rise from a largely irrelevant minority to a significant minority, but a minority none the less. In (practically) every EU country support for the EU is still well over 50%. That doesn't make the trend not concerning (I mean Hitler never got more than about 30% of the vote either, if political stability gets low enough anything can happen), but it's rather alarmist to say the EU is at the point of collapse right now.
2
@Shadowguy456234 yeah ok, technically there's impeachment and then fully being removed, I meant the second one. Which if my memory has served me well is only Nixon in over 200 years.
2
@San-lh8us he absolutely does not win cleanly. First of all, all the serious candidates (like Navalny) are in prison and not allowed to run. Secondly there are very substantial and likely claims of ballot stuffing in Russia in several of the last few elections. And then of course there is the fact that state media is completely controlled by Putin, so even if the elections would be free (which they are not) they wouldn't be fair.
1