- NOTE: Here’s the continuation of my critique of a parliamentary dum-dum’s ignorant, baseless, non-factual claims.
Philippines’ and America’s so-called “presidential systems” are not fundamentally, or even slightly, identical.
In my very last encounter with Mr. Orion Dumdum, I successfully exposed him as a pathological liar and an anti-logic ‘voodoo’ political bigmouth incapable of making logical, consistent arguments. Here’s how I made him admit he doesn’t know the differences and/or similarities between RP’s ‘national system’ and America’s Republican Federal form of government, thus proving his unscientific, pretentious methodology is akin to comparing apples and oranges.
In our informal yet heated discussion I said:
“To say that both RP’s and USA’s systems is presidentialism– or that both nations have exactly the same system– is just MORONIC. Do you even know there’s a thing called CONSTITUTION?
“It’s as if you’re comparing Jupiter, a full-blown planet, to Pluto, a planetoid lol!”
Here’s part of Mr. Dumdum hilarious reply:
“I NEVER said that the USA and the Philippines have EXACTLY the same system!”
He never said it? Really?! Now lemme provide the following incontrovertible online evidence called ‘screenshot’:
Now let’s see who’s lying and who’s trying hard to rationalize his own lie.
The question is: What is the point of comparing RP’s so-called “presidential system” with USA’s “presidentialism”? Well, obviously to continue to spread one’s failed pro-parliamentary propaganda.
His latest incoherent, anti-logic blog simply proves he’s lying! If the Philippines’ and America’s systems of government are not the same, then it is safe to conclude that Mr. Orion had just made a direct admission he and his group are simply attacking a strawman. As stated in this previous blog, “the main argument of those who attack presidential system is purely built on a strawman fallacy. Yes, many countries that adopted presidential system like Philippines and Kenya failed not because of their form of government, but because of lack of economic freedom, distortion of rights, and welfare statism. Also, several countries that adopted parliamentary system like Greece and Bangladesh failed not because of their form of government, but because of lack of economic freedom, distortion of rights, and welfare statism.”
Also, he’s been using and flaunting Latin and scientific terms, like as “Ceteris Paribus” and “Probabilistic Causality”, to show his sheep he knows shit about politics. Unfortunately, his use of the term “Ceteris Paribus” is utterly misplaced, and it contradicts his latest admission, to wit: “I NEVER said that the USA and the Philippines have EXACTLY the same system!”
Now consider what he stated here: “Parliamentary Systems are meant to promote good governance. Of course they can’t guarantee it, but when compared to Presidential Systems, ceteris paribus, they obviously fare better in producing better-quality leaders.”
Here’s a snapshot:
What’s wrong with what he said? Well, EVERYTHING!
To use the term ”Ceteris Paribus” ( ”all other things being equal” or ”holding other things constant”) to juxtapose presidentialism with parliamentarism means, or strongly suggests, that he’s putting all so-called presidential governments (e.g., Philippines and United States) under the same category for having the same economic policies, systems of politics, constitutions, and the like. This proves my argument or claim that Mr. Dumdum is simply arguing that RP’s and USA’s systems are exactly/relatively the same, otherwise his attempt to use ”Ceteris Paribus” should fail, and thus proves that he’s indeed a political ignoramus!
I repeat: RP’s system and America’s Republican federalism do not fall under the same political category or rubric.
Here’s another screenshot of his mediocre, anti-logic blog article that exposes his simplistic understanding of things.
Dumdum claims that both basketball and the presidential system are “problematic US imports”. His mediocre, illogical style of argumentation is almost the same as the Left’s externalist political view (e.i., their blame America first style). According to him, America must be faulted for Filipinos’ obsession with basketball. Perhaps our former colonizers, who left this country in 1974, when Ferdinand Marcos allowed Parity Rights agreement to expire, should also be blamed for Filipino women’s obsession with having lighter skin.
Also, America’s imported “presidentialism” should be faulted for giving our ancestors the freedom and right to self-determination to establish and define their own economic policies. Yes, according to Dumdum, it was America’s so-called “presidentialism”, not our protectionist political and intellectual ancestors (e.g., Garlos P. Garcia, Salvador Araneta, Corazon Aquino, the Lopezes, the Ayalas, to name a few), that gave us:
- the 60-40 protectionist law
- the mediocre State Policies in the 1987 Constitution
- the National Economy and Patrimony provisions under Article XII
- the Social Justice and Human Rights provisions under Article XIII
- the unnecessary provisions on education, science and technology, arts, culture and sports under Article XIV
- the pork barrel system/culture started by the Cory Aquino regime
I think you’re either deliberately dishonest or a political ignoramus to believe Dumdum’s illogical, fallacious, baseless arguments.
Now the argument that parliamentarism is superior “when compared to Presidential Systems, ceteris paribus,” suggests that the Philippines’ and United States’ so-called “presidential systems” are relatively or even exactly the same. Such a fallacious, erroneous contention must fail because it is not backed by real-world, established facts and history.
This is to say that Mr. Dumdum’s voodoo, primitive, anti-logic methodology mainly consists of comparing countries’ superficial– and even semantic– attributes, thus proving my claim that his method is the same as comparing apples and oranges. And to take their failed, fallacious argument to the exteme, it is also fair to call Germany’s system “chancellorism” or “chancellor system”, North Korean’s system “Dear Leaderism”, Hong Kong’s sytstem “chief executivism”, to name a few.
However, there’s only one objective way/method to compare countries’ political systems and economic output: that is, by looking at their charters or constitutions. Dumdum and his sheep/ilk are merely looking at certain superficial, one-dimensional parts/aspects of our Constitution (e.g., Articles VI and VII), ignoring the rest. In fact, the Philippine charter is entirely different from the American constitution.
Now I stated above that Dumdum’s use of the Latin term Ceteris Paribus is absolutely misplaced and erroneous, which shows his inability to understand very basic concepts and to use words/terms properly and objectively. Recall that Dumdum used the following phrase “when compared to Presidential Systems, ceteris paribus. Here, the use of “ceteris paribus” is simply that as long as all other factors of presidentialism remain equal and constant, his parliamentarism will prove better and superior.
The thing is, so-called “presidential” countries do not hold certain political/economic aspects or factors equal or constant. For instance, and as already stated above, Philippines’ system and America’s form of government are not the same or identical. In fact, they are opposites.
To support his ceteris paribus, Dumdum and all dogmatic parliamentarists need to:
- Objectively define presidentialism
- Identify the strict principles/doctrines of presidentialism
- Set the strict parameters or tests that establish presidential system.
- Differentiate countries according to their constitutions
Obviously, Dumdum failed– and will continue to fail– to conduct all of the above-mentioned methods to support his pro-parliamentary dogma. The guy is more interested in comparing apples and oranges and in spreading propaganda.
-
Here’s why I said Dumdum is a megalomaniac, narcissist psycopath/sociopath:
This one takes the cake it made me ROLFMAO!
Vincenton Blog 
1 Comment