User talk:HumanCapacitator

Welcome![edit]

Hello, HumanCapacitator, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Woodroar (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion[edit]

I noticed that you added tags to Brinkmanship and Brinkmanship (Cold War) about merging, but have not yet created a discussion. Starting that discussion is actually the first step of our merge proposal process, because without it editors won't know why you think they should be merged. Just a head's up. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the hints and links! I've made some editing while unregistered in the past, but only now I decided to take it more seriously and create an account. I shall create a section in the talk pages with my arguments, as stated on those guidelines. Best regards. HumanCapacitator (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

About the powers of the president, it is actually at his own discretion, article 133, can be interpreted as the president wants to. --B.Lameira (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And since it is so powerless, how the former Prime Minister Pedro Santana Lopes could be dismissed by the president against the will of many people, who said he had no valid reason to do it, by that time, back in 2004? --B.Lameira (talk) 05:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mostly powerless office nowadays. It's hard to understand why is the Portuguese President on the same list as the French or Russian ones, who really hold and make use of executive powers. It's just not the same. Check the Arraiolos group, for instance, ironically created by the Portuguese President himself. All those articles in the Constitution, and the wording, show how subordinate the guy is, or should behave, to the other State institutions.

How far did Sampaio or Cavaco involve themselves in the government's activity, besides appointing them, accepting resignations or that Santana Lopes affair? And remember that Santana Lopes was never elected, thus lacked democratic legitimacy, and was unpopular among his party as well. Sampaio did what he did because, probably, his government would fall sooner or later.

In Portugal they may still use the wording 'semi-presidential' to keep the office a prestigious one, but after several constitutional revisions and from the international perspective, it really isn't anymore.

HumanCapacitator (talk) 06:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, Council of State is powerless, it has no real power. Second, Russia is not a good example to compare since it has the stronger presidency, president-parliamentary, with the other being the moderate presidency premier-presidential system, which make the two types of semi-presidential systems, and even French semi-presidential system was more balanced in the past, until recent the changes it was more similar to the Portuguese Constitution, but now they have presidential and parliamentary elections at almost the same time and approved recently a law that allows the President of France to rule by decree, which is typical of pure presidential systems (e.g.: Macron law). I already heard people speaking of a 'failed' French semi-presidential system. --B.Lameira (talk) 06:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]