Make America Great Britain Again

[Herargon]

well, yeah, obviously, they forgot the 55th, which appeases the cornish menance and also brings it up to a nice divisble by 5 number

10 British Senators?
...
Okay, I can live with that. Make it 12 and divide into North and South England...

Wales+Cornwall already skew electoral college in our favor from low populations with minimum delegates.
We'd pretty much drag america to the left a bit, and seeing as Americas policies eventually happen everywhere else, we might actually end up more left wing as a country.

You're English?

[Yorkers]

Okay now you're applying a grating double standard. The Falkland Islands are historically British, and they have a strong Anglo identity and culture. The people living there are Anglo, and you want to conquer them and replace them with a Latin culture. Combine this with the fact that you can't even refer to England in English, and instead call it Inglaterra, only furthers my suspicions that you are, indeed, anti-Anglo. But your anti-Anglo sentiment is blatantly hypocritical because you don't apply the same standards to lands both occupied by Anglos and Hispanics.



The fact that you refer to the Western US as "so-called" shows your implicit bias against English-speakers. The US conquered that land fair and square. It belongs to Americans.

And Anglo culture is much stronger in New Mexico than Hispanic. Have you ever actually been there? There are more Anglos than Hispanics. The institutions there, including the University of New Mexico, were founded by Anglos.

Please stop advocating cultural imperialism against non-Latins and whitewashing history to make it seem like Latins are the only people in North and South America.

I found the following from a UK. source. They do not seem to have a problem with it.


This is in French but non-UK. source - http://anglaiscivilisation.tableau-noir ... erre01.gif


If it belongs to American why are US citizens so eager at time to sell to so called rich foreigners who have been busy buying up US realty. Back to fair and square, it seems the citizens of NM. did not see it that way. Ever heard of the Taos Rebellion. What Mexico and the US has never understood about NM. is that NM. is its own thing. After all, they were far from Madrid, far from Mexico City and far from Washington.


You look too hard into things. "So called Western US" is the true West. Not including Kansas or the Dakotas which some might consider West.

Now that is a funny comment. A person of Anglo Stock, (I would infer that you are of US Anglo stock) saying his culture is being culturally dished. You do know the so called "Anglos" in North America have looked down since the 1800's at there neighbors inside and down South. Unfortunately, these "Anglos of North America" have always tended to look to Europe even though at times the Europeans would dish them. Could explain why today the Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Russians and even the EU. have made economic in-roads in the Americas. Even that new organization, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, excludes the two major Anglo English speaking nations of the Americas. Why. There has to be a reason. And its not because of language since the English speaking Caribbean with similarities to English culture is part of this new organization.

Could you please fix the multiple errors here? This was difficult to read. I really have no idea what you are saying.

[Ostroeuropa]

10 British Senators?
...
Okay, I can live with that. Make it 12 and divide into North and South England...

Wales+Cornwall already skew electoral college in our favor from low populations with minimum delegates.
We'd pretty much drag america to the left a bit, and seeing as Americas policies eventually happen everywhere else, we might actually end up more left wing as a country.

You're English?

Welsh.

[Southeastern Xiatao]

One of my ancestors was Betsy Ross. Since she married a guy who's last name was Claypoole and my great grandparents' last names were Claypoole.

[Ashworth-Attwater]

lol isn't this forum full of british chauvinists

[Hakons]

Needless to say, this would violate the US Constitution, and thus be completely illigal. The Law, having the full backing of US armed forces, would never allow a monarch to rule. Yes, I know this is supposed to be some cute joke, but millions of Americans have died in defense of our Democracy and (most the time ) around the world. Proposing, even satirically, to reinstate hereditary rulership does great disservice to our veterans and servicemen and women.

Tl;dr There's a reason we ditched you 239 years ago

[Noraika]

For those interested in supporting Her Majesty the Queen in their signatures!
♔ Make America Great Britain Again ♔

Code:

Code: Select all

[b]♔ [color=#0080FF]Make[/color] [color=#FF0040]America[/color] Great [color=#FF0040]Britain[/color][color=#0080FF] Again[/color] ♔[/b]

[Old Tyrannia]

Needless to say, this would violate the US Constitution, and thus be completely illigal.

So was the revolution.

[Hakons]

Needless to say, this would violate the US Constitution, and thus be completely illigal.

So was the revolution.

British rulership violated our inalienable rights

[Trump International Hotel Chain]

Make America Great Again! #TRUMP 2016

[Thermodolia]

lol isn't this forum full of british chauvinists

How so? I'm neither British nor a chauvinist

[Imperial Idaho]

this is why the US needs a none of the above option for elections

[Major-Tom]

Needless to say, this would violate the US Constitution, and thus be completely illigal.

So was the revolution.

Give it up, you lost 250 years ago.

[Major-Tom]

lol isn't this forum full of british chauvinists

Eh, not really, but I'll admit that I've seen a few people who think America should be taken by the "more tolerant Europeans."

[Hakons]

this is why the US needs a none of the above option for elections

There are numerous minor parties, but they don't get much attention from our good 'ol media.

[Noraika]

lol isn't this forum full of british chauvinists

How so? I'm neither British nor a chauvinist

Indeed, and the same applies to me. I simply believe that a monarchy is not only better for the nation as a who, but also provides quite a benefits to political stability and unity, as well as assisting in preserving and benefiting democratic governance. Having Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II brings us these benefits (and more!) while also giving the United States a much better form of government, in my opinion, in the form of a Parliamentary system.

[Thermodolia]

So was the revolution.

Give it up, you lost 250 years ago.

They also lost most of the empire, Ireland, and they almost lost Scotland. I think I'm starting to see a trend here.

[Major-Tom]

How so? I'm neither British nor a chauvinist

Indeed, and the same applies to me. I simply believe that a monarchy is not only better for the nation as a who, but also provides quite a benefits to political stability and unity, as well as assisting in preserving and benefiting democratic governance. Having Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II brings us these benefits (and more!) while also giving the United States a much better form of government, in my opinion, in the form of a Parliamentary system.

Oh, you're being serious.

[Noraika]

Give it up, you lost 250 years ago.

They also lost most of the empire, Ireland, and they almost lost Scotland. I think I'm starting to see a trend here.

With that said, much of the empire, and especially its most significant territories, with exception to India, remained under the monarchy, in the same manner as is being proposed by the OP. Even Scotland wanted to keep the monarchy if they seceded. The empire fell, and the Commonwealth of Nations took its place, and the United States can apply any time, since it was under British administration.

Indeed, and the same applies to me. I simply believe that a monarchy is not only better for the nation as a who, but also provides quite a benefits to political stability and unity, as well as assisting in preserving and benefiting democratic governance. Having Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II brings us these benefits (and more!) while also giving the United States a much better form of government, in my opinion, in the form of a Parliamentary system.

Oh, you're being serious.

Indeed. I've made my support for monarchism no secret, and I don't know why you would think I wasn't being serious?

[Thermodolia]

How so? I'm neither British nor a chauvinist

Indeed, and the same applies to me. I simply believe that a monarchy is not only better for the nation as a who, but also provides quite a benefits to political stability and unity, as well as assisting in preserving and benefiting democratic governance. Having Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II brings us these benefits (and more!) while also giving the United States a much better form of government, in my opinion, in the form of a Parliamentary system.

I will have to disagree with you on those points. As I am a staunch republican. Also I don't think the Parliamentary system is worse as I don't believe that the head of government should be chosen by or from legislative branch. The head of government, in my opinion, should be completely separate from the legislative assemblies

[Hakons]

How so? I'm neither British nor a chauvinist

Indeed, and the same applies to me. I simply believe that a monarchy is not only better for the nation as a who, but also provides quite a benefits to political stability and unity, as well as assisting in preserving and benefiting democratic governance. Having Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II brings us these benefits (and more!) while also giving the United States a much better form of government, in my opinion, in the form of a Parliamentary system.

What are the benefits of having a largely symbolic ruler that did nothing to earn that position? All humans are created equal, so it's very ridiculous to let someone be the face of a nation just because they got born into the right family.

[Major-Tom]

They also lost most of the empire, Ireland, and they almost lost Scotland. I think I'm starting to see a trend here.

With that said, much of the empire, and especially its most significant territories, with exception to India, remained under the monarchy, in the same manner as is being proposed by the OP. Even Scotland wanted to keep the monarchy if they seceded. The empire fell, and the Commonwealth of Nations took its place, and the United States can apply any time, since it was under British administration.

Oh, you're being serious.

Indeed. I've made my support for monarchism no secret, and I don't know why you would think I wasn't being serious?

Nah, it's just that it's fundamentally stupid to even think that the USA would be better off under Queen Elizabeth. Constitutional monarchy works fine for the UK, but here?

Noooope.

[Noraika]

Indeed, and the same applies to me. I simply believe that a monarchy is not only better for the nation as a who, but also provides quite a benefits to political stability and unity, as well as assisting in preserving and benefiting democratic governance. Having Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II brings us these benefits (and more!) while also giving the United States a much better form of government, in my opinion, in the form of a Parliamentary system.

I will have to disagree with you on those points. As I am a staunch republican. Also I don't think the Parliamentary system is worse as I don't believe that the head of government should be chosen by or from legislative branch. The head of government, in my opinion, should be completely separate from the legislative assemblies

And I would disagree with you there.
So long as the legislature is democratically elected, the Prime Minister is selected through the expression of the people through election results. Since the Prime Minister is selected with the confidence of the legislature, this usually means that the legislative program that the party leader campaigned on has a much more solid foothold to be implemented, since the question of political divides between the executive and legislative branches are all but eliminated. In addition, the ability for the executive to act is directly tied to the support of the legislature, and the actions of the government are directly tied to and responsible to the legislature. Those are just a few points, but let's not get off topic by debating the merits of parliamentarian democracy.

Indeed. I've made my support for monarchism no secret, and I don't know why you would think I wasn't being serious?

Nah, it's just that it's fundamentally stupid to even think that the USA would be better off under Queen Elizabeth. Constitutional monarchy works fine for the UK, but here?

Noooope.[/quote]
What specific and unique conditions exist in the United States which, in your opinion, would cause a Constitutional Monarchy as Head of State to be incompatible? Is not the British monarchy, and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II already immensely popular in the United States?

[Thermodolia]

They also lost most of the empire, Ireland, and they almost lost Scotland. I think I'm starting to see a trend here.

With that said, much of the empire, and especially its most significant territories, with exception to India, remained under the monarchy, in the same manner as is being proposed by the OP. Even Scotland wanted to keep the monarchy if they seceded. The empire fell, and the Commonwealth of Nations took its place, and the United States can apply any time, since it was under British administration.

When was the last time a former British land applied to become a part of the commonwealth after being a republic?

[Anywhere Else But Here]

I'm a staunch, put-their-heads-on-spikes republican, but even I support this expansion of the Queen's realm. Note, however, that this only increases the need to remove Prince Charles from the succession somehow (or make Liz immortal). You can't let him inherit the world's only superpower.