In Ancient Republican Rome, not only did the magistrates not get paid, but they had to fund out of pocket all their functions, eg. festivals, their entourage, etc
That had its own issues, because after their term of office ended praetors and consuls would get a governorship as a propraetor or proconsul and immediately set about acting as corrupt as possible to suck all the money they could out of their assigned province to pay their debts back. It also encouraged only rich people to run in the first place, although I guess that is admittedly an issue in America too considering our campaign costs. The Roman system of mandating that you can only run for the same office again after a specific amount of time should be the actual model for fixing how broken the Senate and the House are. 8-12 years before you can run for another term sounds fair.
Because the people running those accounts hate Americans. Why would they promote pride in a country they are actively and openly trying to destroy?
The Roman system worked for millennia because it forced consensus and acted against temporary moods or impulses. When you have two consuls who can stonewall each other, as well as ten tribunes any one of whom could do the exact same, it forces action only when broad consensus is created and ignores transitory fads and ideas in the populace, hence the stability of the system. It is why the US was designed with separation of powers, federalism, and procedures such as the filibuster. It's why Europe is cracking at the seams with a system based around legislative supremacy and unitary governments.
When France adopted paying representatives instead of requiring they fund themselves, it destroyed the cohesion of the socialist party and co-oped legislators into the centrist political mainstream.
Lol these damn scumfucks. They added the "M S 1 3" over the symbols to show what they represent.The media is already spinning it to be fake:
View attachment 7246226View attachment 7246228
(independent.co.uk) | (archive.is)
(newsweek.com) | (archive.is)
But let us zoom and enhance:
View attachment 7246256View attachment 7246257
View attachment 7246258
Sure. In a perfect world, Id say anyone serving the federal government had to agree to getting their assets frozen for the duration, living full time in dc because traveling back to their districts is performative and if they care about their constituents, they could read their fucking email, etc etc, and live in monastic dormitories without any opportunity for their money to provide them special comfort or privilege, all the better to contemplate their actions
it didn't.
Not even the mexican military in a straight up fight. They just threaten/bribe politicians who force the military to stand down. Cartels are the biggest cowards in the world.
Even counting only the republic, name a republic today that lasted five centuries.
The Republic didn't last for millennia, in the empire all the Republican offices were for flunkeys of the emperor who didn't do much. Offices being filled by at least two people was a great idea, as was the general idea of having to move up the ladder, age requirements and limits before you could run for a certain office again, the problem was that none of this was written down. The Roman constitution was only upheld by tradition and laws, which meant that there was chaos when people just chose to ignore the traditions. Having the powers and requirements for offices actually be enumerated in writing was the genius of the founding fathers, they knew a general idea of separation of powers and a pinky promise to uphold it wasn't enough. The Bill of Rights was also ingenious, but that was borne more out of enlightenment thinking than anything else. Their only mistake was not instituting term limits or a fixed time before you could run for certain offices again. That was fixed with the president thanks to an amendment but it long ago should have been fixed for the other parts of the government as well.
San Marino is the only such country that has lasted so long. It has stuck around due to a generally homogeneous population, the benevolence of governments around it and refusing to expand in size in order not to make itself a target of foreign revanchists.
I would have to disagree, because the actual bureaucratic and military positions in the Empire were of a different nature than autocracy as we understand it, but I would rather not turn this thread into Roman sperging for the 100th time and just say sure.
I don't think we differ about the solid foundation upon which the US Political System was founded. My point was that the stability of the Roman System, and what was heavily taken from the Romans to the American (Federalist Papers), was that of addressing factionalism, consensus, and power derived from the people, but not simply in a majoritarian manner, rather than simply term limits.
That only works if people believe the government is actually more effective than the private option.
You think you hate them enough but you do not.
God I hope the US Consulate fights for her, fuck the failed state that is Deutschland.
