Nice strawman. The point is that he was elected like any other MP so I was asking why his appointment to PM actually matters when the people had their say.<quoted text>Still waiting for the proof that he was elected PM.
You seem to make a whole bunch of "grammatical" errors.
And the question raised is "so what"? Had Macmillan been elected leader by the Tories you would have simply gone further back in time to find another example.<quoted text>
As you must recall, I said he was appointed by the Queen and that there was no election among his party members.
Macmillan became PM in 1957. This is 2013. Parties have changed significantly since then. How about joining us instead of trying to validate an incredibly-weak argument with cases that happened outwith my, and possibly your, lifetime?
Nice strawman. The point is that Constitutional monarchy is called as such because it is a variant form of monarchy.<quoted text>Where are those two "politics degrees" so you can explain this- that a constitutional monarchy is not a monarchy.
I say that a constitutional monarchy is a monarchy.
Explain your position: how is a constitutional monarchy not a monarchy?
A Constitutional monarchy differs because power is largely vested into a democratically-elected government that the Queen ceremoniously oversees - even extending to her powers.
In other words, my manchild friend, a Constitutional monarchy is a democracy with a glorified figurehead.
No wonder you cling to the umbrella term; you think that if you use that, and only that, then these finer details can be ignored.
Is a Constitutional monarchy the same as other monarchies?
Nice red herrings, but you are still not explaining how this qualifies as a strawman considering I have not even denied as such.<quoted text>
Neither were elected PM.
Macmillan was not even ELECTED by his party to be nominated for PM.
Simple - I used the wrong word to describe Macmillan's popularity.<quoted text>^^^^^^^^^^ Here is your EXACT statement.
Now: show us the grammatical error.
Take your choice of definitons of grammatical error:
You, of course, have latched onto it because you cannot address the argument itself.
Now that I am done addressing you, do you mind finally defining democracy, explaining how things cannot be defined by more than one word, and what the Weimar republic was if it was not a democracy?
It would be quite nice if you could actually answer my questions instead of poo-pooing or outright ignoring them.