Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
no one fucking told me about states banning RCV during all that yapping on here about how i should VOTE THIRD PARTY OR ELSE IM COMPLICIT in the DNCs CRIMES
it may or may not be joever, very blackpilled at this moment
edit it’s actually 10 states. 5 in the past two months.
A constiutional monarch is a better defence against that
Absolutely. The problem with modern politicians is that they simply don't own enough real estate.
No, the problem is that they're elected. So the winner with absolute power is the one who can scam people and rig the system into giving them it. Vs a family which legally holds all of the power and supreme military authority but delegates it to a democratic system
You don't think monarchs scam people or rig economic systems?
I'm guessing you've never heard of Mohammad Bin Salmen.
A political fiction. The British Royals reserve the right to block legislation and routinely get their way simply by threatening to do so.
The Saudis and the Singaporese are even more naked in their disregard for democratic rule.
And we all know how the dictatorial governorship of Hong Kong ended. China quite literally bought the governor out.
Since when was Mohammed Bin Salman a constitutional monarch? Your two examples on why constitutional monarchy is bad uses countries that aren't constitutional monarchies.
If we're doing this, I may as well show how Vladimir Putin is an example of why a democratically elected president is a bad idea. The advantage with a monarch is that you're rolling the dice every 20-30 years (70 in the case of Elizabeth II) and you know who the next person is. If they were truly evil there'd be enough time to stop them from coming up and depose them. With an elected president it's unpredictable, every 5-10 years, and it's not obvious who'd replace them either.
Since the King ratified the Basic Law of Governance in 1992.
Relabel him a Constitutional Monarch, though. Suddenly he's a good idea again?
How is that any different from a popular president operating without term limits? Or a popular party that consistently holds the majority of seats in government?
Is the little gold hat adding something I can't see? Or do you just like the pomp and circumstance of royalty?
The French spent nearly a century jumping back and forth between popular revolution and bourbon restoration. Was that more predictable?
How about the War of the Roses? Or the numerous Seljuk wars of succession in Iraq and Persia? Or the Taiping Rebellion?
Inflexible monarchies prompted each of these social catastrophes.
The Roman Imperial Era was rife with instability, with Rome violently changing hands multiple times in a given year.
That's far more unpredictable than a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama-Trump-Biden hand off, particularly when so much of the "deep state" doesn't really change.