Should there be world prime minister who will run world government???

Look - Trump has been married multiple times, has cheated on his wife in every case, and has said some pretty bad things.
(Complete this sentence: "Just grab them by the -")
You like Trump. Fine. Bill Clinton was pretty misogynistic, too, and people loved him. But this is a really weird hill to die on, trying to say Trump isn't a misogynist. Just say 'I think he'll be better for society than Harris because of X, Y, and Z'.

Most high-value and successful men cheat on their wives. In fact, most of their wives know this and are happy to accept this knowing that they are being provided for.
That doesn't make Trump misogynistic. It's just symbolic of his value and success that he is able to do that.

Please quote source. I know that you are the type of person who would definitely not just make up a statistic, so please quote source that 'Most' 'high-value' and 'successful' men cheat on their wives. I assume they'll define those three terms for the purpose of the study you provide.

There are obviously no statistics to show this, but come on use your common sense. The best example is all the top footballers....

Look at how its going with the EU, which is the closest thing we have to this kind of nonsense.
Who is the current President of the European Commission? Ursula von der Leyen - by common consent one of the most incompetent politicians of the time, in charge of Germany's defence and had soldiers running around with broomsticks because she couldn't supply enough guns. And how did she become President of the European Commission? Did she win an election against some other terrible Eurocrats? Did she come second and then somehow got appointed like the horrendously awful Rishi Sunak? No. She wasn't even in the race. They had an election under established EU rules, which she was not a candidate in. Manfred Weber won more seats than Franz Timmermans and should have become President. Instead, the European Council simply decided to annoint a completely different person (von der Leyen) as President, subject to a confirmatory vote, in which she was the only candidate. She very nearly lost that one-horse race. It would be like having a General Election here, Starmer winning more seats than Sunak, and then Holly Willoughby becoming PM the next day.
That should tell you exactly how the position of "World Leader" would be appointed.
As to how it would work in practise - simply look at the UN. Utterly corrupt and utterly incompetent.

Britain was right to leave the shackles of the European Union. The level of incompetence within the bloc is astounding.
As for the point of world President, i think it would be democratic free and fair elections to enable the candidates to campaign and be elected. The President then assembles their cabinet through selection from the continents. To reduce bias towards one region, candidacy can be rotated across the major continents. For example, 2025 elections would be candidates from Europe, 2030 elections would come from South America.

It's always been my belief that the concept of a unified Europe—a federal Europe, if you will—holds tremendous potential, if only we could navigate past our petty squabbles and differences. The vision of a continent united not just in geography but in purpose and principle is, on the face of it, a noble and pragmatic goal.
The European Union, however, is far from perfect. Its bureaucratic inefficiencies and occasional overreach are, to put it mildly, infuriating. But here's the thing: no large political institution is without its flaws. Reform is not only necessary but inevitable. Most rational minds would agree on that point. Yet, the notion that the best way to achieve this reform was to throw a tantrum and exit the stage entirely—that, to me, seems utterly shortsighted.
Walking away from the table doesn't fix the problem; it just means you're no longer part of the conversation. Imagine if the United States had taken a similar approach with its federal government during times of internal strife. We would have no Union to speak of today.
No, the path to real change comes from within—by staying, by engaging, by influencing. By leaving the EU, Britain forfeited its considerable influence within the bloc, trading a seat at the table for the uncertain and likely hollow promise of sovereignty.

It would have been a noble and pragmatic goal if the master planners and those in control of the European project were willing to reform it.
The European project is a deeply flawed concept as the social, political and economic principles do not fully align which posits the problems that we see today. That coupled with the political realities of individual nation states create significant issues for the bloc as top-down policy making has its problems.
Throwing tantrum and exiting the stage completely was the only reasonable move to make because we had the power to do so. It is foolish in my view to remain within a system that was unwilling to reform itself despite appeals from several countries including Greece, Italy, Hungary, Spain, Portugal etc. Unfortunately, many of those countries are afraid of a world outside the bloc hence they remain whilst bearing the pains.
The United States is a different case than the EU because of its unified Government approach.
I’d rather Britain faced the promise of sovereignty than remained a vassal state of a failed political project called the European Union.

Thank you for engaging in this discussion, Wired_1800. It's always refreshing to have a thoughtful exchange, even when we stand on opposing sides of the debate.
Now, to the heart of the matter—this idea that walking away from the EU was the only reasonable move. I must disagree. Leaving the EU didn’t just remove us from the table; it removed our voice in the shaping of decisions that continue to impact us. Take GDPR, for example. We are still following these regulations because, like it or not, doing business with Europe requires us to adhere to their rules. The irony, of course, is that we now have no influence over these rules, no seat at the table where they are debated and crafted. We've traded our ability to shape the conversation for what? A hollow claim of sovereignty? We’re still bound by the decisions of Brussels, just without any input.
A Federal Europe, for all its flaws and the squabbles that come with it, would present an immense collective power on the world stage. Imagine the combined GDP, the industrial strength, the technological innovation, and the cultural influence that such a union would wield. It could stand toe-to-toe with the likes of America and China. In a world increasingly shaped by globalism, doesn’t it make more sense for Europe to be united, to pool its strengths rather than squabbling over differences that, in the grand scheme, are relatively minor?
Brexit has not just weakened our standing in Europe; it’s diminished our influence globally. We’re no longer the significant player in European affairs we once were, and our ability to negotiate on the world stage has been compromised. A strong, united Europe, with Britain as a key player, could have been a force to be reckoned with. Instead, we’re left to navigate a complex and increasingly hostile global landscape alone, with less leverage and fewer allies.
It’s a sobering thought, but one that bears consideration as we look at where we stand now versus where we might have been.

As much as a part of me would like it, no there shouldn’t be a world government to begin with, different countries have different goals and needs and you can’t reasonably accommodate for them all under a one world government.

It is done with countries. Macron must make decisions for the people of Lyon who have different needs to those of Paris and Marseille.

That’s true but still better than a one world government in my opinion.