The Democratic Party's Slide Into Irrelevance
Attaching a poll ... Dems unfavorability rating increased from 45% to 57% during the Biden Administration.
I doubt living standards would be much different if the US were a monarchy. People wouldn’t leave because the king was bombing other countries or whatever. And those from countries with lower living standards would still want to come, irrespective of not having any genuine liberties regarding representation. In fact, there might even be a kind of peace of mind in not havi
If we ignore monarchies that are symbolic or mostly symbolic, it is a government form with a very poor record of economic freedom for the populace. That said, a large portion of political institutions that are integral to modern liberal democracies have their roots and function from predecessors in "western" monarchies. It is not like those monarchies did not work. They worked for a longer time than liberal democracies have worked so far.
A problem for the debate is that monarchy is an incredibly diverse term. Again, ignoring symbolic monarchies, it still covers a form of government on a scale from "despot beholden to absolutely no law or institution" to "semi-democratic state with parliament or diet / forum and a monarch bound by law".
However, there is a very easy yardstick to gauge how well a monarchy would work for you: Pick the dumbest or most repulsive eldest child any head of your state has had and ponder if you would like him / her to become your leader without you having any say in the matter (and it likely being a crime to state a negative opinion about it).
Now, perhaps your response to this is that you don't really know much about the children of your current or previous heads of state. If so, congratulations on discovering the best benefit of not living under a monarchy.
Now, perhaps your response to this is that you don't really know much about the children of your current or previous heads of state. If so, congratulations on discovering the best benefit of not living under a monarchy.
I'm not advocating for a king. I'm against that form of government for the reasons you alluded to, which are ultimately why I'm anti-democracy of the constituitional sort as well.
The problem with the Western representative model isn't the system itself but the people. In modern times, it doesn't really matter what form of constitutional structure the people are under, because if a super-majority adamantly wants or doesn't want something, that's sufficient political will. That the people can't reach that threshold on a lot of issues, doesn't mean the system is broken or inherently flawed.
Which party had a huge majority in both Houses plus the White House in the Vietnam Era?
Not sure I understand this point. The Democrats got into the Vietnam war because of the Cold War. By all indications it was the communists that started the war. The issue of opposition with the war was primarily concerned with the war’s brutality and opposition to the draft. Whether the initial decision to support the Republic of South Vietnam was sound isn’t exactly a cut and dry example of moral depravity.
How many Democrats voted against Desert Storm?
Again, I’m not quite sure this is some huge policy blunder. At the time, Saddam was so bad we ended up on the side of Iran. He invaded a sovereign country for dubious reasons which was widely condemned by the international community. We opposed an imperialist force in this situation.
How many Democrats voted against the takedown of Saddam?
Teamwork makes a dreamwork!
To be clear, the Bush administration misrepresented intelligence as a pretext for authorization for the use of force, in more than one way. They also completely bungled the occupation in many documented ways that were predicted contemporaneously.
Critics have also questioned the validity of the war's stated objectives, such as a supposed link between the country's Ba'athist government and the September 11 attacks on the United States, and its possession of weapons of mass destruction "certified" by the Niger uranium forgeries. The latter was claimed by the United States during the run-up to the war, but no such weapons were ever found.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition...
This is literally “Republicans did it > Why didn’t the democrats stop it?”
Not sure I understand this point. The Democrats got into the Vietnam war because of the Cold War. By all indications it was the communists that started the war. The issue of opposition with the war was primarily concerned with the war’s brutality and opposition to the draft. Whether the initial decision to support the Republic of South Vietnam was sound isn’t exactly a cut and
My point is that both parties are funded by (and therefore controlled by) the Military-Industrial Complex, BigPharma, BigBusiness, etc...
Sounds like Eric Swalwell in a bit of bind .
Sadly he no longer believes in believe all women
Sounds like Eric Swalwell in a bit of bind .
Sadly he no longer believes in believe all women
If he drops out, that's a huge plus for California Dems. Last poll I saw had the two GOP candidates in the race as the top two most popular candidates, which would guarantee a Republican being elected governor in November. (Top two finishers in the open primary make the November ballot.)
Well Nut Nut was worst-case scenario, while I’m talking about typical behavior. I think most people wouldn’t feel a strong reason to challenge a system purely on idealistic grounds if their lives were stable and comfortable. That's basically the challenge the radical left has faced with liberal democracies: most people in the West don't think things are so bad that
If the midterms get cancelled or openly stolen, there will be mass violence.
People here have the luxury of patience, but there has to be some type of volitional opportunity down the road.
If the midterms get cancelled or openly stolen, there will be mass violence.
People here have the luxury of patience, but there has to be some type of volitional opportunity down the road.
I agree, but I am not referring to the 'No Kings' movement at all; I am simply posing a hypothetical. Specifically, if everything remained as it is now, but we were a monarchy, people wouldn't revolt, leave, or hesitate to immigrate due to a lack of representation.
If we ignore monarchies that are symbolic or mostly symbolic, it is a government form with a very poor record of economic freedom for the populace. That said, a large portion of political institutions that are integral to modern liberal democracies have their roots and function from predecessors in "western" monarchies. It is not like those monarchies did not work. They worked
In Europa Universalis, inept children suffer a lot of accidents that may or may not be divinely ordained.
Swalwell gone replaced with a domestic abuser
Buck-toothed paint raper is running for office?
Obviously, you are not a bowler.
In Europa Universalis, inept children suffer a lot of accidents that may or may not be divinely ordained.
Hah, I like that.
I agree, but I am not referring to the 'No Kings' movement at all; I am simply posing a hypothetical. Specifically, if everything remained as it is now, but we were a monarchy, people wouldn't revolt, leave, or hesitate to immigrate due to a lack of representation.
Revolts because you weren't represented actually plagued "western" monarchies through history.
To make matters worse, in feudal monarchies, those who revolted often had armies. And the later autocrat kings were not better off, as those who revolted often were armies. The eagle-eyed observer might notice that this is a trend that also plagues dictatorships and tyrannies in general.
The liberal political philosophers might have been an important drop in the bucket in the events that eventually gave us peons political representation, alongside with a fascination for the politics of antiquity. However, make no mistake: The concept of institutions that gave extended political representation and legal rights beyond the king were won by nobles and landowners who wanted a piece of the pie, and were willing to burn the land to achieve it.
However, I realize that this discussion is likely not even tangential to this thread, so this is perhaps unnecessary noise.
A lot of British nobility, and even the Royal household itself, can be linked back to the barons that forced Magna Carta on the English crown.
Michelle Obama's 'When they go low, we go high' is all well and good in a vacuum and against an opponent willing to play by the rules, but the scummy Gaslighting Obstructionist Party play by only one: force constitutes right. Meeting them on their ground--that is to say, with absolute ruthlessness, is the only way home if Democrats truly want to serve the people.
Michelle Obama's 'When they go low, we go high' is all well and good in a vacuum and against an opponent willing to play by the rules, but the scummy Gaslighting Obstructionist Party play by only one: force constitutes right. Meeting them on their ground--that is to say, with absolute ruthlessness, is the only way home if Democrats truly want to serve the people.
Except neither party wants to 'serve the people.'
I saw a few highlights from the California Governors Debate. Funny how the democrat candidates graded Gavin a "A" on handling homelessness
World War Eleven
