Your next president with be a Republican

Yep.  The writing is on the wall, people.  Americans are fed up with the Liberal Democrats running the asylum, so they're going to put the Republicans back in charge.  Picking between the Democrats and Republicans is like flipping a coin on voting for Dumb or Dumber, only harder because you can't tell which is which.
Regardless, I can't imagine them screwing things up worse than the Democrats have for the past 7 years.
While I don't favor either party over the other (generally speaking), I do admit that I'm tired of the "hurry up and do nothing" attitude of the Obama "Hope and Change" administration.  Maybe change will be a good thing this time around...

Six GOP presidential candidates would beat Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton in a head-to-head matchup...

Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) would do best against Clinton, 50 to 42 percent, pollsters found.
Billionaire Donald Trump, retired pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie would also win hypothetical elections, according to the new poll, taken after more than 100 people were killed and more than 300 others injured in a wave of terrorist attacks in Paris.

Clinton and former businesswoman Carly Fiorina would tie with 42 percent each.

http://thehill.com

I hope not...
but
Bernie would be interesting Could do a lot of good.
Trump the end of the USA
All the others just seem like the same old shit (Hilary especially)

No chance a Republican can win. They are all clowns. The only serious candidates that could win a general election have been negated by the primary race. If you focus only on the Republican side, you miss what over 60% of the country thinks.

Republicans have cooked their goose what with a Republican Congress failing miserably to get anything done. They've tried to invent the rumor that what is wrong is the administration's fault, but America watched when the Republicans twice failed to pass a budget and caused America's credit rating to rise.

In addition, the Republican Congress has failed to pass a war bill on ISIL in Syria, and the Country is aware of the Republican malingering in the face of the French crisis. You add immigration, infrastructure, education, equal pay and voter suppression, and America is downright fed up with the deadbeats and spongers of the Republican Party.

Look at who they come up with. Donald Trump?? They don't even take themselves seriously. They are finished.

apart from Bernie is there any other standouts?

who is actually the best republican?

from the little that i have seen (other than trump) the best seemed to be Jeb Bush.... which is probably not a good thing

veya_victaous wrote:apart from Bernie is there any other standouts?

who is actually the best republican?

from the little that i have seen (other than trump) the best seemed to be Jeb Bush.... which is probably not a good thing

The more 'stable' people in the US have abandoned the Republican Party.  Not that they have gone over to the other side; they just drop out.

Republicans seem to have only the bombastic and the meek for candidates.  They haven't had to good contender since Reagan, who was an actor, and before that, Eisenhower, who was a military leader.

We have a two-party system: the Democrats and the no-shows.

yeah the mandatory voting really changes the dynamic down here, for the better.

We gotta show up on Polling day, so the parties have to too.
Push too far Right or Left and face political oblivion as the moderate majority all HAVE to vote (or at least rock up on the day and get your name marked off, you can leave it blank, but may as well fill it in, since you're there anyway)

veya_victaous wrote:yeah the mandatory voting really changes the dynamic down here, for the better.

We gotta show up on Polling day, so the parties have to too.
Push too far Right or Left and face political oblivion as the moderate majority all HAVE to vote (or at least rock up on the day and get your name marked off, you can leave it blank, but may as well fill it in, since you're there anyway)

Here, the no-shows are figured right into the equation. For example, the only time the Republicans, who are a minority in the US, win anything at all is in the presidential off-year cycle, where only Congressional seats are at issue.

Since Nixon, the chances of a Republican president are winnowing every election. Even in election year 2000, the conservative Supreme Court had to supersede democracy and rig the election.

Obama's "JV team" has come at him with enough strength to ensure a Republican is in the Oval Office.
I'm not cheering for a Republican. I'm just stating the obvious, although it may be painful for some of you to accept. Americans are wondering if their city will be the next Paris, meanwhile Obama is downplaying everything with a cheap facade, as being "contained" and under control.
His non-interventionist approach to ISIS is not only damaging him, but his party as well. He's become a political liability to his own party.

The Paris attacks — as well as developments in Brussels, Egypt and Mali — may have improved Republican prospects in 2016.

Daily surveys conducted by Reuters/Ispos ask voters to identify the “most important problem facing the United States today.” The accompanying chart covers the period from Nov. 7 to Nov. 24 and shows the abrupt increase in public concern about terrorism immediately following the Nov. 13 assaults in Paris.

On Nov. 7, 8 percent of those polled ranked terrorism as the most important problem facing the country. More than twice as many people, 21 percent, identified the economy as more troubling, and 11 percent identified unemployment as their gravest concern. By Nov. 24, 27 percent of respondents named terrorism as their primary worry, compared to 15 percent who identified the economy, and 10 percent who named unemployment. If terror remains this high in voters’ consciousness a year from now, it is likely to pose a major problem for Democrats.

The Republican advantage on this topic has been substantial for some time. In a series of four polls conducted from September 2014 to February 2015, CBS News asked, “Regardless of how you usually vote, do you think the Republican Party or the Democratic Party is more likely to do a better job dealing with terrorism?”

Voters preferred the Republican Party by an average of 21 points, 52-31.

www.NYTimes.com

The last thing Americans want is another 10-year war, taking 4,000 American lives, and hundreds-of-thousands of other lives, and costing America another $17-trillion, leading to the next Great Depression--such as we just missed with GWB  in October, 2008.

And for what purpose?  Revenge?  Not a well-thought out plan.

Republicans are desperate.  They don't live in a factual world.  They will say anything...but only their base buys it.  They actually promote the idea that Obama is unpopular, when he will go down as the 3rd-best president ever.

The Republicans (Bush and Cheney) had left the country in an ugly, purposeless war, on the brink of the next depression, with double-digit unemployment, a $17-trillion deficit and bin Laden still alive and running around.

Obama got the country out of Iraq, saved America from the next Depression, brought unemployment down from 10.5% to 5.1%, overseen the creation of 5-million jobs, overseen the American stock market soar to over $18,000 average in the Dow Jones (highest ever), finally created a highly successful medical care system (despite the sour grapes of Republicans) and he got bin Laden when the Republican administration was completely inept at finding him.

That's a hell of a record.  The only reason Republicans don't like him is because of his race.  That's their problem.

When you hear a Republican say, Obama is extremely unpopular, they are playing to their own base.  Nobody else is listening.

Original Quill wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:yeah the mandatory voting really changes the dynamic down here, for the better.

We gotta show up on Polling day, so the parties have to too.
Push too far Right or Left and face political oblivion as the moderate majority all HAVE to vote (or at least rock up on the day and get your name marked off, you can leave it blank, but may as well fill it in, since you're there anyway)

Here, the no-shows are figured right into the equation.  For example, the only time the Republicans, who are a minority in the US, win anything at all is in the presidential off-year cycle, where only Congressional seats are at issue.

Since Nixon, the chances of a Republican president are winnowing every election.  Even in election year 2000, the conservative Supreme Court had to supersede democracy and rig the election.

Down here the no shows vote for a 3rd party,
3rd parties make up between 25% and 40% of the primary vote split between half a dozen parties (we also have preferential voting so most people vote for one of the major parties further down the their list).

@Original Quill

You're swimming in the Democrat Kool-Aide, dude.
No amount of wishing is going to change the inevitable: Democrats are going to get crushed in the next Presidential election.
I'm politically indifferent with either party; they both terribly need a major overhaul of their priorities and values, and neither is capable of producing a candidate worthy of being the face of American Greatness. Hillary is too untrustworthy and incompetent, and the Republican field is potpourri of mixed Republican/Conservative views. Some good, some bad, but not a single candidate I'd remotely consider "perfect for the job".

Nearly every fun­da­ment­al meas­ure—with the not­able ex­cep­tion of the coun­try’s demo­graph­ic shifts—fa­vors the Re­pub­lic­ans in 2016. The pub­lic over­whelm­ingly be­lieves the coun­try is headed in the wrong dir­ec­tion (23/69, a his­tor­ic low in Bloomberg’s na­tion­al poll). Pres­id­ent Obama’s job-ap­prov­al rat­ing has been con­sist­ently un­der­wa­ter, with the op­pos­i­tion in­tensely re­ject­ing his policies. Any eco­nom­ic growth has been un­even, with more Amer­ic­ans pess­im­ist­ic than op­tim­ist­ic about the fu­ture. The pub­lic’s nat­ur­al de­sire for change after eight years of Demo­crats in the White House be­ne­fits the op­pos­i­tion. Mean­while, the party’s likely stand­ard-bear­er has been saddled with weak fa­vor­ab­il­ity rat­ings of her own, with her email scan­dal drag­ging down her trust­wor­thi­ness in the minds of voters. This is not the en­vir­on­ment in which the party in power typ­ic­ally pre­vails.
That was all true even be­fore the ter­ror­ist at­tacks in Par­is rat­cheted up na­tion­al se­cur­ity as a dom­in­ant is­sue head­ing in­to the pres­id­en­tial elec­tion. Obama, who dis­missed IS­IS ter­ror­ists this week as “a bunch of killers with good so­cial me­dia,” is badly out of step with Amer­ic­an pub­lic opin­ion on the cru­cial is­sue. This week’s ABC News/Wash­ing­ton Post sur­vey showed 59 per­cent of Amer­ic­ans be­lieve the U.S. is “at war with rad­ic­al Is­lam”—a phrase most Demo­crats res­ist us­ing. A siz­able 60 per­cent ma­jor­ity sup­ports send­ing ground troops in­to Syr­ia and Ir­aq to fight IS­IS. Even on the is­sue of hous­ing Syr­i­an refugees, on which lead­ing Demo­crats have ral­lied be­hind the pres­id­ent, polls show a clear ma­jor­ity of voters—along with about one-third of the House Demo­crat­ic caucus—now op­pose such meas­ures.

www.NationalJournal.com


The Democrats are perceived as weak and spineless, in large part due to Obama's lead-from-behind foreign policy "strategy" and his inability to produce one singe plan or campaign to fight ISIS. Nobody has faith that the Democrats have the stomach to stand up to ISIS, much defeat them. Nobody wants to vote for a president that has already said appeasement and "diplomacy" is how they would handle ISIS. How do you diplomatically negotiate with people whose intent is to literally bring forth a prophesied Armageddon?
Answer: You can't.
That's why the Dems are going to be trumped next elections.... pun intended.

National Review wrote:Obama, who dismissed ISIS terrorists this week as “a bunch of killers with good social media,” is badly out of step with American public opinion on the crucial issue.

Quoting out of the National Review is going to get you a conservative viewpoint every time.  

The problem with reading polls is (1) they are the self-fulfilling prophecy of the framing of the questions; and (2) like a swimmer in a rip-tide, they measure where the person is going, but they don’t measure where the current is taking him.

First: There’s a question we used to use in law school as an example of framing in cross-examination: “Yes or no…have you stopped beating your wife yet?”  Either way you are condemned if you answer, because of the way the question is framed.  Polls do this all the time.  They are generally put out by publishing concerns, so you can expect framing of questions to be guided by the magazine’s bent.  National Review is William F. Buckley’s old platform...about as RW as you can get in the US.

Second: Polls are in the moment.  Every once in a while you have to lift your head out of the water and look around, in order to really see where you are at.  There are predictable currents in every election cycle.  We’ve discussed some here.

For example, at the off (presidential) cycle elections, there is lesser turnout, and the ones that do turn out are the more established voters…that’s conservatives, in short.  So, in the (off-year) Congressional elections the swing is inevitably to the Right.  

Another example, is the one you mention: at the end of a two-term president’s administration, there is inevitably a fall-off in his popularity.  Maybe people get tired of him, I don’t know.  But, these are the currents…the reality must be measured by how s/he does in comparison to every other president approaching the end of his term.  In that historical context, Dr. Obama is doing amazingly well.

Other examples of this sort abound.  What Obama is doing in taking the measurements of ISIL, is lifting his head up out of the water and looking around.  Why did I quote that one passage of your article?  Because it makes the point precisely…you can be out of step with American public opinion, and still be grossly correct.  

Obama doesn’t have to be elected ever again.  He can afford to be the one person in American politics who can say something poignant, however unpopular.  He’s just being sage.

And he is correct on this one: ISIL is just a bunch of petty criminals bent on doing as much destruction as any single, or a few persons can do.  Look at 9-11: 19-guys, three buildings, four aircraft.  Not a wartime battle.  Just 19-guys bent on criminal acts.  Paris?  There were seven coordinated attacks, killing 130-people.  The point Obama was making is, keep it in perspective.  

Arthur Schlesinger Jr once said: “The person who fully understands power, is very precise in the application of it.”  Dr. Obama is just being precise, whereas Republicans like Donald Trump are being reckless.

IT wrote:The Democrats are perceived as weak and spineless,

You are reading out of the Republican Users’ Manual.  Who perceives Democrats as “weak and spineless”?  The RW base, no one else.  And it’s not truth; it’s more in the nature of a wish:  Republicans wish Democrats didn't kick their ass around so badly in presidential elections.

Democrats have won five of the last six presidential elections.  Only in GWB’s second term election, did a Republican actually win (in 2000, the Supreme Court usurped the popular vote, which actually went to Al Gore).  In 1992, Bill Clinton made daddy Bush a lowly one-term president.  Since Barry Goldwater, the Republican star is burned out.

IT wrote:in large part due to Obama's lead-from-behind foreign policy "strategy" and his inability to produce one singe plan or campaign to fight ISIS.

Excuse me?  Did you say leadership?  Do you expect a band of obfuscating, do-nothing Republicans, such as we have in Congress, are going to follow a black, Democratic President?  Dream on.  

As you know, Congress alone elects to call a war under Article I, of the Constitution.  Dr. Obama has had a war bill on the desk of the Speaker of the House for nearly two years, and no action has been taken.  Nor have the Republicans done anything on their own.  Leading Republicans is like herding cats, as you can see by the current, on-going debates.  They are just a bunch of little bitches, nagging about Benghazi or emails...nothing important.  Republicans can't handle responsibility.

IT wrote:Nobody has faith that the Democrats have the stomach to stand up to ISIS, much defeat them. Nobody wants to vote for a president that has already said appeasement and "diplomacy" is how they would handle ISIS. How do you diplomatically negotiate with people whose intent is to literally bring forth a prophesied Armageddon?

Nobody is buying war, my friend.  Obama is the least of your problems.  

The American people are war weary, after Republicans have given us 10-years of war, 5,000 (and counting) dead Americans, hundreds-of-thousands of Iraqis and Afghans, $17-trillion in debt, near economic collapse (October 2008), bringing on the next Great Depression, not to mention the distaste of seeing American soldiers kidnap, imprison, rape, torture and kill innocent people, all because they look Muslim.

It’s not appeasement; it’s common sense.  You war-mongers get an erection every time someone brings out an ARM-16, but the average American despises your way.  And we’re not going to pay for it anymore.  It’s stupid.  The Middle East is really none of our business.

If the Republican Congress is so bent on opposing the will of the American people on this issue of war, let them draft a war bill of their own.  Oh...and while you're at it, hand them the bill for the Veteran's Administration they forgot to pay the last time...there's a few guys with only one-leg, still waiting in line.  Just don’t hold your breath.

I hope most Americans are not falling for ISIS's desire for Abrahamic Armageddon.

If it starts I think we should just purge all Abrahamists so it can be their last end of world crusade. God damn assholes have been doing it since Christs time

Original Quill wrote:
The American people are war weary...

Everyone was fatigued from being stuck in a never-ending war that we shouldn't have been in to begin with.  Yeah, we're tired of pointless wars.  BUT, we're Americans and we won't shy away from war if it's a justifiable one.  Kicking the rear end of ISIS is a VERY popular option to the American people.  To reiterate my last article quote:

This week’s ABC News/Wash­ing­ton Post sur­vey showed 59 per­cent of Amer­ic­ans be­lieve the U.S. is “at war with rad­ic­al Is­lam”—a phrase most Demo­crats res­ist us­ing. A siz­able 60 per­cent ma­jor­ity sup­ports send­ing ground troops in­to Syr­ia and Ir­aq to fight IS­IS.

Poll can be found, here:
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/washington-post-abc-news-poll-nov-15-19-2015/1880/

Again, we're not too weary to go after the bad guys.  We just need the spineless to step aside and put someone in charge that isn't afraid of cracking a few heads.

IndependentThoughts wrote:

Original Quill wrote:
The American people are war weary...

Everyone was fatigued from being stuck in a never-ending war that we shouldn't have been in to begin with.  Yeah, we're tired of pointless wars.  BUT, we're Americans and we won't shy away from war if it's a justifiable one.  Kicking the rear end of ISIS is a VERY popular option to the American people.  To reiterate my last article quote:

This week’s ABC News/Wash­ing­ton Post sur­vey showed 59 per­cent of Amer­ic­ans be­lieve the U.S. is “at war with rad­ic­al Is­lam”—a phrase most Demo­crats res­ist us­ing. A siz­able 60 per­cent ma­jor­ity sup­ports send­ing ground troops in­to Syr­ia and Ir­aq to fight IS­IS.

Poll can be found, here:
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/washington-post-abc-news-poll-nov-15-19-2015/1880/

Again, we're not too weary to go after the bad guys.  We just need the spineless to step aside and put someone in charge that isn't afraid of cracking a few heads.

I agree.
war fatigue and 'validity of target' have never been a concern of the USA in the past.
BUT the US going after ISIS is a bit like

IndependentThoughts wrote:

Original Quill wrote:
The American people are war weary...

Everyone was fatigued from being stuck in a never-ending war that we shouldn't have been in to begin with.  Yeah, we're tired of pointless wars.  BUT, we're Americans and we won't shy away from war if it's a justifiable one.  Kicking the rear end of ISIS is a VERY popular option to the American people.  To reiterate my last article quote:

This week’s ABC News/Wash­ing­ton Post sur­vey showed 59 per­cent of Amer­ic­ans be­lieve the U.S. is “at war with rad­ic­al Is­lam”—a phrase most Demo­crats res­ist us­ing. A siz­able 60 per­cent ma­jor­ity sup­ports send­ing ground troops in­to Syr­ia and Ir­aq to fight IS­IS.

Poll can be found, here:
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/washington-post-abc-news-poll-nov-15-19-2015/1880/

Unfortunately, the polls never ask the more pertinent question: For how long would you be willing to commit troops to Syria? 10-years? 50-years?

These polls are measuring fads, not lifetimes. People think in scripts. How you frame the script is how they will answer the poll. If the script suggests that kicking ISIL’s ass will take a short 3-day weekend, then sure…go ahead. But any longer, you got problems. People answer polls; they also change their minds.

IndependentThoughts wrote:Again, we're not too weary to go after the bad guys.  We just need the spineless to step aside and put someone in charge that isn't afraid of cracking a few heads.

Sounds like drunk-talk you hear in a bar. Unfortunately, that’s how most of RW America thinks. Five beers…some cross words…a couple of punches…everyone passes out. Forgotten the next day.

My friend, this fight has been going on for 1,500-years. If you get involved, t won’t stop the next day.

Veya wrote:I agree.
war fatigue and 'validity of target' have never been a concern of the USA in the past.

Have you ever heard of a little disagreement called Vietnam?


Maybe a little war fatigue, eh?

Original Quill wrote:

Veya wrote:I agree.
war fatigue and 'validity of target' have never been a concern of the USA in the past.

Have you ever heard of a little disagreement called Vietnam?

Maybe a little war fatigue, eh?

that ended right about the time Arms sales to Middle eastern nations quadrupled. And the USA and Russia fought wars via proxies in the area for decades after.... that why the USA armed the Taliban and Saddam in the first place 

http://www.merip.org/mer/mer112/arms-sales-militarization-middle-east

How many years has the United States been at war?
The warlike attitude of the US had its birth in King Philip's War, which predated the country and set it on its current militaristic path. The United States has been at war almost continually since 1776. In the past 236 years we have been fighting some type of conflict for 214 years or about 90% of the time.

I read somewhere that in the entire history of the US, there has not been a 20-year period in which the US has not had some sort of war.

I'm tired and too lazy to go look up where I saw this. Maybe tomorrow.

only 22 years total according to google.

Do you know what is weird

President Dwight Mountain-dew Eisenhower (the president in Idiocracy) that everyone compares trump to is played by Terry Crews


http://flavorwire.com/537887/who-said-it-presidential-hopeful-donald-trump-or-idiocracy-president-camacho

But Terry would be a much better president than Trump in real life

IndependentThoughts sounds just like the idiot CArnold from Short News. He's just as out of touch with the the majority of Americans. Bernie Sanders will be the next President by a landslide.
This is all the Republicans ever want to do about terrorism:

To Be Fair if Hilary is the Candidate.... She is Just as Stupid and will fuck the USA just as much Just not be so open about.




the fact either can get so high support Speaks Volumes about the lack of education in the USA

veya wrote:the fact either can get so high support Speaks Volumes about the lack of education in the USA

Whereas a man like Tony Abbott is a monument to brilliance.

Original Quill wrote:

veya wrote:the fact either can get so high support Speaks Volumes about the lack of education in the USA

Whereas a man like Tony Abbott is a monument to brilliance.  

He wasn't voted in Kevin Rudd (Labour) was voted out, after 5 years of infighting with Julia Gillard 
Literally didnt matter who the leader was liberals were gonna win it was just by how much and which minors they would have to deal with.

And he DID NOT GET TO SERVE A FULL TERM only 2 years into a 4 year term and he has been kicked.

You guys Re-elected Bush 

LOL on a septic truck

veya_victaous wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Whereas a man like Tony Abbott is a monument to brilliance.  

He wasn't voted in Kevin Rudd (Labour) was voted out, after 5 years of infighting with Julia Gillard 
Literally didnt matter who the leader was liberals were gonna win it was just by how much and which minors they would have to deal with.

And he DID NOT GET TO SERVE A FULL TERM only 2 years into a 4 year term and he has been kicked.

You guys Re-elected Bush 

Sure, sure...nobody voted for Abbott. Erm...is that a democracy you guys got down there, or do they just pull a name out of hat?

He didn't get to serve a full term because of the system you have. Bush would have suffered the same fate in a similar system.

Cut your losses, veya. Backing Abbott is a loser.

we have preferential voting so Actually you can win with no votes(or very few) If you are Multiple Minor parties first preference and the minor party doesn't win outright. Gillard Became PM that way in the election previous so it is not uncommon. (the USA has 'first past the post')

in the last election, No One voted for Labor,
the liberal kept the same voting level
And all the labor votes went to 3rd parties so divided like 3 or 4 ways
So Liberal won by default
but that is why we have the Palmer united party, Motor Enthusiast party and Greens Party hunter and fishing party, All with seats it the senate this term.

veya_victaous wrote:we have preferential voting so Actually you can win with no votes(or very few) If you are Multiple Minor parties first preference and the minor party doesn't win outright. Gillard Became PM that way in the election previous so it is not uncommon. (the USA has 'first past the post')

in the last election, No One voted for Labor,
the liberal kept the same voting level
And all the labor votes went to 3rd parties so divided like 3 or 4 ways
So Liberal won by default
but that is why we have the Palmer united party, Motor Enthusiast party and Greens Party hunter and fishing party, All with seats it the senate this term.

I know, but we were talking about how you lose a PM, not how one gets elected.  You have a parliamentary system:


You can dissolve a sitting government with a 'no-confidence' vote.  We cannot.  We have to live with GWB, or whomever, for a fixed term.  Otherwise, he would have been gone in around 2006, when the Iraq War became grossly unpopular.

doesn't even take that we don't elect a PM at all, it is just the leader of the winning party, I believe you  have 'a leader of the house' which is actually more like PM. and that is also the Point He was so Bad that the RW side independently kicked him out, the Parliament was never dissolved or anything like that (same with rudd gillard switch)

the real equivalent of President is still the Queen (or Governor General)

veya_victaous wrote:

MASSIVE GREEN FOR YOU

You will like this one too than eddie

I do.
We often think alike in certain areas Veya

veya_victaous wrote:doesn't even take that we don't elect a PM at all, it is just the leader of the winning party, I [b]believe you  have 'a leader of the house' which is actually more like PM./b] and that is also the Point He was so Bad that the RW side independently kicked him out, the Parliament was never dissolved or anything like that (same with rudd gillard switch)

the real equivalent of President is still the Queen (or Governor General)

The comparison isn't even close.  The Speaker of the US House of Representatives is a legislative goat-herder, with no executive functions.  All executive, and in fact all administrative functions are in the Executive Branch, headed by the President.

In a parliamentary system...

Wiki wrote:Ministerial departments are led politically by a Government minister, normally a member of the Cabinet and cover matters that require direct political oversight. For most departments, the Government minister in question is known as a secretary of state and is a member of the Cabinet. He or she is generally supported by a team of junior ministers. The administrative management of the department is led by a senior civil servant known as a permanent secretary. Subordinate to these ministerial departments are executive agencies. An executive agency has a degree of autonomy to perform an operational function and report to one or more specific Government departments, which will set the funding and strategic policy for the agency.

The comparison with the Queen is historically correct, except the Queen has no real executive power/function today.  In a parliamentary system, the executive functions are huddled in the Legislative branch, under the Prime Minister and the Cabinet.

Australia Doesn't have an Executive power besides queenie and her rep

the PM is not, he has no higher legal standing than any other member of Parliament.
like the House Majority Leader 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_leaders_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives

not speaker of the house we have a speaker too

Bloody make me look up Google

veya_victaous wrote:Australia Doesn't have an Executive power besides queenie and her rep

I would assume Australia has little administration to deal with, and she certainly has no real military to speak of. So I understand why government is minimal there.

veya_victaous wrote:the PM is not, he has no higher legal standing than any other member of Parliament. like the House Majority Leader 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_leaders_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives

not speaker of the house we have a speaker too

Bloody make me look up Google

If the queen oversees your executive function, I understand why we see so little of her.