US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians

 

[MagneticTowels]

A monarchy or dictator is better nowadays vs parliament or congress et al, because a Monarch has all of the money and power a man/woman could ever need, making it harder, if not impossible, to bribe or corrupt them. Imagine offering Queen Elizabeth II, £100 million quid for lobbying, she would laugh at such a poultry amount, as The Crown and its traditions are of higher importance than a few quid.

A president, prime minister or congress critter will take the money because it's just a job to them, Monarchy is a life. Sure, you get some wanks like Henry VIII and you get some good guys like Queen Elizabeth I and Queen Victoria.

Monarchies do not like people attempting to have more power, money or influence than themselves. Bezos and Bill Gates would have been hung, drawn and quartered back in the day.

 

[Silly Fella]

Being ruled by a king or a dictator however makes you a faggot, it's just something to do with your psyche, I think it's part of the reason why Europeans are faggots in the especially weak way they are; I've never met a European that wasn't a faggot.

 

[AnotherPleb]

So we ignoring the obese nigger with the flashy scarf?

That's traditional fat negress shit.

 

[Romulus augustulus]

Being ruled by a king or a dictator however makes you a faggot, it's just something to do with your psyche, I think it's part of the reason why Europeans are faggots in the especially weak way they are; I've never met a European that wasn't a faggot.

to be fair, you've likely never met a European that's actually been ruled by a monarch. any theoretical power the remaining kings have is because they've not used it and thus not given the parliaments reason to strip them of it.

 

[verissimus]

Ok but who's gonna be the ambassador to Israel?

Mike Hukabee I think.

 

[Tanuki Mixed Nuts]

Patposters, Planetposters, and politispergs... with your powers combined, I am Captain Kiwi!
View attachment 6781200

Wow this guy should be an author with prose like that. He'd be really successful at cons and have cool deck chairs in his unprotected back yard, I'm sure.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

A monarchy or dictator is better nowadays vs parliament or congress et al, because a Monarch has all of the money and power a man/woman could ever need, making it harder, if not impossible, to bribe or corrupt them. Imagine offering Queen Elizabeth II, £100 million quid for lobbying, she would laugh at such a poultry amount, as The Crown and its traditions are of higher importance than a few quid.

Pretty sure Queen Elizabeth II turned England from ruler of the world to rape gang-infested laughing stock for free.

A president, prime minister or congress critter will take the money because it's just a job to them, Monarchy is a life. Sure, you get some wanks like Henry VIII and you get some good guys like Queen Elizabeth I and Queen Victoria.

That's right, they just bribe the ones the king entrusts with carrying out his orders.

Monarchies do not like people attempting to have more power, money or influence than themselves. Bezos and Bill Gates would have been hung, drawn and quartered back in the day.

Lmao no they wouldn't, Bezos and Gates would be given the keys to the kingdom. How do you think the Rothschilds got their power? Being rich in a monarchy meant you had to buy as much influence as possible otherwise your rivals would get the king to knock you down a peg. You'd make a donation to the crown and get a fancy title of nobility or government office. That's where you got mediocre and corrupt losers like John Fastolf (one of the wealthiest men in England back then) who was an inspiration for Shakespeare's John Falstaff.

Monarchy is such a dead gay faggot system for foppish faggots it isn't even funny. The Roman Republic had it figured out over 2,000 years ago. Limited franchise, dictators when necessary.

 

[TJT]

It's less about the money and more about forward thinking. A dictator or monarch in an ideal situation is invested in their nation or at least their family. So they have a vested interest to maintain a functional kingdom and groom an appropriate heir to take over. Failure to do so will result in revolts or civil war.

In an elected representative system there is none of that. Congressman and presidents don't usually have heirs so there isn't a worry about the next generation, which means outside of just raw patriotism there isn't any reason not to ruin the country, make bank, and then skip town leaving the next guy voted into that seat to clean up the mess. It wasn't that bad when the representatives were voted in by landowners who did have a vested interest in the nation, but now anyone can vote and the vast majority just want a quick gain at the expense of everyone else.

Even a self centered cunt of a Baron can be expected to protect his holdings if nothing else. A Baron whose only interest is to enrich his lands is superior to a Congress swamp creature who only entered politics for money and moved to the area solely because the election was easier to win. The Congress creature has no interest or connection to the land he claims to represent. When his time at the money trough is over he fucks off to wherever.

The theoretical Baron of Plano Texas would have had his power tied to the Duke of Dallas and further to the King of Texas. Failing to support the King or the Duke can and would result in your holding and title going to someone more worthy.

Today we have an entire society structurally built around failing upwards. In private and public it's becoming the expectation not the outlier.

 

[The Taco Santo!]

The dumbest ignorant and smartest informed voter have the same amount of power in the United States when it comes to elections. People can like that system or not but that it is objectively how it currently functions. It didn't get that way overnight though.

Direct election of Senators was a huge mistake.

 

[FedPostalService]

Being ruled by a king or a dictator however makes you a faggot, it's just something to do with your psyche, I think it's part of the reason why Europeans are faggots in the especially weak way they are; I've never met a European that wasn't a faggot.

Enjoy your Drag Queen Story Hour, burger.

 

[Anasûrimbor Kellhus]

Being ruled by a king or a dictator however makes you a faggot

Except lgbtq only exists in western secular liberal democracy

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

Monarchy is such a dead gay faggot system for foppish faggots it isn't even funny. The Roman Republic had it figured out over 2,000 years ago. Limited franchise, dictators when necnecessary.

Not that I entirely agree with monarchy and the feudalism that comes attached to it, but I would not cite the Roman Republic as an example, as its tradition of dictatorship is the reason why it's not a Republic at the end of it. Dictators, who are monarchs.

 

[The Ugly One]

It's less about the money and more about forward thinking. A dictator or monarch in an ideal situation is invested in their nation or at least their family. So they have a vested interest to maintain a functional kingdom and groom an appropriate heir to take over. Failure to do so will result in revolts or civil war.

They have no interest in "the nation," only themselves and their family, and they are more aligned with the international aristocracy than with their countrymen. Their main interest is to expand their own territory, not the welfare of any of the people they rule. Hence the million dead in the War of the Spanish Succession, which bore heavily on the thinking of the Founders. To a king, the young men of the nation are nothing more than meat for the war machine to expand their personal holdings, so all they're really concerned about how many corpses it takes to get a new patch of ground to rule vs how many will trigger a revolution.

 

[Onepumpplumpchump]

What are the chances when Trump gets in we get a full on war against the Cartels lol

 

[Hey Johnny Bravo]

It looks like Greenland is back on the menu (archive), boys and girls. Trump is now talking about the US owning Greenland.

 

[The Taco Santo!]

Your impatience is why the Founders made the executive weak. Makes impulse moves far less impactful. Either the system works together or it doesn't. One does not rule them all

The Senate is meant to be a slow, deliberative entity made up of Senators representing their state's interest. Direct election removes that and makes Senators more or less slightly more powerful house members who have to whore for reelection every 6 years instead of every two. Appointment by the state legislatures prevented this, the whoring instead happening before-hand and limited to sucking up to state legislatures.

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

Direct election of senators is where it all really went off the rails. Before you had at least a modicum of sanity and self-control.

 

[SaidNoOneEver]

Direct election of senators is where it all really went off the rails. Before you had at least a modicum of sanity and self-control.

The reason the Constitution had to be amended for the direct election of Senators was because so many state legislatures were straight-up selling Senate seats to the highest bidder. It was bad enough for a Constitutional Amendment to pass.

One of these days people are going to realize all of our problems are of our own making. The people are the problem really. We wouldn't need term limits if everyone would stop re-electing their own crooked reps while blaming everyone else's. Our government is just a reflection of us and what we've become as a people.

 

[The Ugly One]

Direct election of senators is where it all really went off the rails. Before you had at least a modicum of sanity and self-control.

It's also why the feds can hold the states hostage with highway funds and the like. In the old order, those kinds of shenanigans would have gotten Senators recalled.

The reason the Constitution had to be amended for the direct election of Senators was because so many state legislatures were straight-up selling Senate seats to the highest bidder. It was bad enough for a Constitutional Amendment to pass.

And now the Senators themselves are for sale to the highest bidder, often a foreign government like China or Israel. Such an improvement!

 

[Francis York Morgan]

The reason the Constitution had to be amended for the direct election of Senators was because so many state legislatures were straight-up selling Senate seats to the highest bidder. It was bad enough for a Constitutional Amendment to pass.

The practice of buying Senate seats didn't stop there, see Rod Blagojevich and Barack Obama.