Is it time to get rid of Congress?

[Vassenor]

"our"
Please tell me you imagine that you'd be a part of this dictatorship.

No, i don't care if i am or not. as long as it is in the best interests of our nation and race.

But why your race?

[Thermodolia]

Ah, so then it would revert back to some kind of democracy, since that's in its best interests.

No, democracy eventually breeds the sort of problems we have now. It degenerates. It goes from "Minorities shouldn't be slaves" to "Minorities should have basic rights" to "minorities can vote" to "minorities can represent/lead"

Then it goes from "Homosexuals shouldn't be permitted" to "Homosexuals can engage in sodomy without jail time" to "homosexuals can marry"... I mean, it all devolves over time as an uncontrolled culture and society undermines itself. Culture in a 'free society' eventually disintegrates into the most shocking things, things that sell. Like sex. This devolves society and undermines our morals, our nation and denigrates our race.

A strong, idealistic party is the only way to assure that the ideology is not only maintained but imposed.

That's not a design flaw, that's the idea.

[Infected Mushroom]

Congress is largely a theatrical production. Its largely a pork market for the rich where different companies, elites, and dynastic politicians trade favours all day.

Its time to get rid of it.

Its time to really empower the government to get things done.

The American people deserve better. The Americans deserve strong leadership.

I agree wholeheartedly.

I'm almost tempted to have a new government charge almost all existing legislators in Congress with corruption. Such is the mess. Its time to bring down the house of cards.

[Infected Mushroom]

No, democracy eventually breeds the sort of problems we have now. It degenerates. It goes from "Minorities shouldn't be slaves" to "Minorities should have basic rights" to "minorities can vote" to "minorities can represent/lead"

Then it goes from "Homosexuals shouldn't be permitted" to "Homosexuals can engage in sodomy without jail time" to "homosexuals can marry"... I mean, it all devolves over time as an uncontrolled culture and society undermines itself. Culture in a 'free society' eventually disintegrates into the most shocking things, things that sell. Like sex. This devolves society and undermines our morals, our nation and denigrates our race.

A strong, idealistic party is the only way to assure that the ideology is not only maintained but imposed.

That's not a design flaw, that's the idea.

I've always thought of a democracy like a high school popularity contest (except for adults and with real financial and social consequences). Its a very strange way to run a nation.

Why be a mediocre nation that only appeals to the average denominator when we can instead be led by the strong?

[Great Minarchistan]

Don't be silly, OP. Democracy and mob rule is the way to go. One-man authoritarian rule has never wor-

Jk he was pretty tolerant

[Thermodolia]

Fuck your legislation and fuck a rubber stamp legislative branch

I sense a lot of animosity, why so upset?

Because I didn't serve my country just to see it turn into a dictatorship

[Infected Mushroom]

Don't be silly, OP. Democracy and mob rule is the way to go. One-man authoritarian rule has never wor-

(Image)

Jk he was pretty tolerant

its been working for thousands of years

the vast majority of history's governments have been authoritarian and dictatorial, and they've moved us forward for the most part... hundreds and hundreds of regimes of technological, commercial, and social progress

[Thermodolia]

That's not a design flaw, that's the idea.

I've always thought of a democracy like a high school popularity contest (except for adults and with real financial and social consequences). Its a very strange way to run a nation.

Why be a mediocre nation that only appeals to the average denominator when we can instead be led by the strong?

Because everyone gets a say. I don't want to live in a state where some strongman rules as they please

[Great Minarchistan]

Don't be silly, OP. Democracy and mob rule is the way to go. One-man authoritarian rule has never wor-

(Image)

Jk he was pretty tolerant

its been working for thousands of years

the vast majority of history's governments have been authoritarian and dictatorial, and they've moved us forward for the most part... hundreds and hundreds of regimes of technological, commercial, and social progress

cough Pedro II was pretty tolerant and brazilian monarchy had the highest standards of freedom in the world actually

[Iengal]

Instead of trampling a whole article of the Constitution, why don't we place term limits on Congressmen to wash out all the bought-and-paid-for tools?

And also crack down on corporate lobbying/vote buying.

And union and cc ollege financing, which are just as big contributers

[USS Monitor]

As long as you stop short of actually trolling, carry on.

Although I obviously changed it, I don't really think the original iteration of my last post even got close to trolling, but OK. Carrying on.

It wasn't trolling. Just since you admitted you were poking at the OP's white supremacist beliefs...

[Thermodolia]

And also crack down on corporate lobbying/vote buying.

And union and cc ollege financing, which are just as big contributers

Why unions? Those actually do a lot of good

[Infected Mushroom]

I've always thought of a democracy like a high school popularity contest (except for adults and with real financial and social consequences). Its a very strange way to run a nation.

Why be a mediocre nation that only appeals to the average denominator when we can instead be led by the strong?

Because everyone gets a say. I don't want to live in a state where some strongman rules as they please

If everyone gets a say, then the only logical outcome is that you're going to get mediocre to poor governance outcomes because not everyone is equally qualified to make decisions.

The optimal way to govern should be to find a way to make the decisions of those who are most qualified count the most.

If you're going to operate a military campaign, you don't want everyone to have a say. You want the best military minds working on it. Same with any medical, commercial, technological campaign... It's the same principle with governance.

If you see a bad dictatorship the correct answer isn't to go... "Well let's give everyone a say," that just guarantees mediocre to poor outcomes.

It should be... "Well lets look for the right group to take command."

[Soyouso]

Because everyone gets a say. I don't want to live in a state where some strongman rules as they please

If everyone gets a say, then the only logical outcome is that you're going to get mediocre to poor governance outcomes because not everyone is equally qualified to make decisions.

The optimal way to govern should be to find a way to make the decisions of those who are most qualified count the most.

If you're going to operate a military campaign, you don't want everyone to have a say. You want the best military minds working on it. Same with any medical, commercial, technological campaign... It's the same principle with governance.

If you see a bad dictatorship the correct answer isn't to go... "Well let's give everyone a say," that just guarantees mediocre to poor outcomes.

It should be... "Well lets look for the right group to take command."

Infected Mushroom for leader 2k21
That was brilliant.

[Great Minarchistan]

And union and cc ollege financing, which are just as big contributers

Why unions? Those actually do a lot of good

Do they?

[Jute]

Because everyone gets a say. I don't want to live in a state where some strongman rules as they please

If everyone gets a say, then the only logical outcome is that you're going to get mediocre to poor governance outcomes because not everyone is equally qualified to make decisions.

The optimal way to govern should be to find a way to make the decisions of those who are most qualified count the most.

If you're going to operate a military campaign, you don't want everyone to have a say. You want the best military minds working on it. Same with any medical, commercial, technological campaign... It's the same principle with governance.

If you see a bad dictatorship the correct answer isn't to go... "Well let's give everyone a say," that just guarantees mediocre to poor outcomes.

It should be... "Well lets look for the right group to take command."

Which is exactly what democracy is about, looking for and electing (ideally) the best and most capable leader or president.

[Thermodolia]

Because everyone gets a say. I don't want to live in a state where some strongman rules as they please

If everyone gets a say, then the only logical outcome is that you're going to get mediocre to poor governance outcomes because not everyone is equally qualified to make decisions.

The optimal way to govern should be to find a way to make the decisions of those who are most qualified count the most.

If you're going to operate a military campaign, you don't want everyone to have a say. You want the best military minds working on it. Same with any medical, commercial, technological campaign... It's the same principle with governance.

If you see a bad dictatorship the correct answer isn't to go... "Well let's give everyone a say," that just guarantees mediocre to poor outcomes.

It should be... "Well lets look for the right group to take command."

The thing is that I don't view that as a problem. That's part of the design not a design flaw, I don't want some dictatorship where some strongman rules by their whim and bans things like dogs.

If everyone gets a say, then the only logical outcome is that you're going to get mediocre to poor governance outcomes because not everyone is equally qualified to make decisions.

The optimal way to govern should be to find a way to make the decisions of those who are most qualified count the most.

If you're going to operate a military campaign, you don't want everyone to have a say. You want the best military minds working on it. Same with any medical, commercial, technological campaign... It's the same principle with governance.

If you see a bad dictatorship the correct answer isn't to go... "Well let's give everyone a say," that just guarantees mediocre to poor outcomes.

It should be... "Well lets look for the right group to take command."

Infected Mushroom for leader 2k21
That was brilliant.

Do you want your pet banned?

Because that's how you get your pet banned

[Thermodolia]

Why unions? Those actually do a lot of good

Do they?

Detroit isn't some much the Unions fault than the idiots governing and the US economic policy.

[Soyouso]

Do you want your pet banned?

Because that's how you get your pet banned

'Twas just trying to be nice.

[Thermodolia]

Do you want your pet banned?

Because that's how you get your pet banned

'Twas just trying to be nice.

IM is kinda known for wanting to ban crazy things like dogs and cats. It's a big reason why I don't like the idea of a strongman.

[Ifreann]

...The Roman Empire...fell...after thousands of years of existence...the Roman Empire(which lasted 500 years...)...

I'll just leave this here.

[USS Monitor]

Who will then be destroyed, from within or without. They'll always be undermined. The monarchy of the UK was overruled by the nobility, and then the merchants. The Roman Empires fell in war. Hitler was besieged by the armies of the west and the USSR. The USSR itself was legislated out of existence. Franco lasted a long while, but fascist Spain died with him. Yugoslavia broke up. The centre of power in Japan drifted from the Emperor to the Shogun and then back, who established a western style government under him, and which superseded the emperor after WW2.

Hitler was besieged before Nuclear weapons were a thing, and he fought western allies(English and Americans, who were, at the time, aryan.)

the USSR was a communist shithole

Franco did indeed last a long time, and his legacy of dealing with the problems of Spain continue on to this day.

The Roman Empire did not fall to war, it fell to foreign migrants after thousands of years of existence as a civilization that laid the foundation for the nationstates of Europe, as well as accomplishments in the area of science, the arts and so on. The Legacy of the Roman Empire can still be found today in Latin, for example.

If you're trying to demonstrate the inefficacy of authoritarian governments, i don't think the USSR(which industrialized the soviet union in less than a decade), Nazi Germany(which went from bankrupt puppet state to the edge of world domination) or the Roman Empire(which lasted 500 years and contributed a great deal to western civilization) are good examples.

Nazi Germany was never on the edge of world domination.

They didn't come especially close to beating Russia. They never managed to land an invasion force in Britain or the US -- despite the fact they were at war with both and Britain isn't even far away. They scrapped their nuclear program and fell behind badly in the areas of air and naval power. This was partly just Goering being a lazy ass and neglecting the Luftwaffe, partly the Germans giving up on the development of radar, partly not getting into aircraft carriers. Some places that the Nazis occupied, they never got the resistance under control. The armaments industry suffered recurring quality-control problems due to sabotage by disgruntled slave laborers, and production was constantly hindered by labor shortages, which were exacerbated by Hitler's refusal to let German women work in the factories. The Nazi government had constant problems with corruption and internal conflicts between different agencies and officials jockeying for position. The Abwehr was so badly infiltrated with anti-Nazi double agents as to be practically useless.

There is no way to achieve world domination under such conditions.

WWII wasn't a close fight. It was big and messy, but that's not the same thing as being a close fight.

[Nocturnalis]

...The Roman Empire...fell...after thousands of years of existence...the Roman Empire(which lasted 500 years...)...

I'll just leave this here.

Yes, yes, we can all sound smart when we butcher quotes and mangle their contexts to prove a point.

The Roman Empire did not fall to war, it fell to foreign migrants after thousands of years of existence as a civilization...

If you're trying to demonstrate the inefficacy of authoritarian governments...the Roman Empire(which lasted 500 years and contributed a great deal to western civilization) [is a] good examples.

The Roman Empire as a civilization lasted for thousands of years, from its time as an insignificant city-state in central Italy and its preeminence among the Latin city-states, to the conquest of Constantinople by the barbarian Turks in 1453 (and/or Trebizond in 1461). In this context, "Empire" merely denotes a state that dominates over a culturally and ethnically diverse population through political and military force, which Rome became in the centuries following its foundation as a Republic in 509 BC.

The Roman Empire as a system of government lasted from 27 BC with the rise of Augustus to 395 AD with the permanent division of the Empire into two separate entities, with the Western half continuing on until 476 AD (which is more-or-less a continuous 500 years) and the Eastern half persisting until 1453/1461. Here, 'Empire' refers to a specific form of government ruled by an Emperor as sovereign; the Emperors under the Principate did not refer to themselves as such (rather as Princeps Civitatis - First Among Citizens), but they certainly wielded all the powers of such a sovereign ruler.

[Ifreann]

I'll just leave this here.

Yes, yes, we can all sound smart when we butcher quotes and mangle their contexts to prove a point.

The Roman Empire did not fall to war, it fell to foreign migrants after thousands of years of existence as a civilization...

If you're trying to demonstrate the inefficacy of authoritarian governments...the Roman Empire(which lasted 500 years and contributed a great deal to western civilization) [is a] good examples.

The Roman Empire as a civilization lasted for thousands of years, from its time as an insignificant city-state in central Italy and its preeminence among the Latin city-states, to the conquest of Constantinople by the barbarian Turks in 1453 (and/or Trebizond in 1461). In this context, "Empire" merely denotes a state that dominates over a culturally and ethnically diverse population through political and military force, which Rome became in the centuries following its foundation as a Republic in 509 BC.

The Roman Empire as a system of government lasted from 27 BC with the rise of Augustus to 395 AD with the permanent division of the Empire into two separate entities, with the Western half continuing on until 476 AD (which is more-or-less a continuous 500 years) and the Eastern half persisting until 1453/1461. Here, 'Empire' refers to a specific form of government ruled by an Emperor as sovereign - the Emperors under the Principate did not refer to themselves as such (Imperator being a military rank), but they certainly wielded all the powers of such a sovereign ruler,

That's less amusing, but does undermine the point about the superiority of authoritarian systems of government.

So yay?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Cos Trump's sky-high approval rating totally suggests that his bullshit is the direct will of the people...

FAKE NEWS!!

You mean ''alternative facts''.

To answer the OP: nah. Perhaps some tweaking is necessary but no, it is not time to get rid of Congress. If we do, who's going to control or halt the POTUS from doing idiotic stuff? I mean, we're talking about a man that tweets his every thought and none of them are very intelligent, so that ship has already sailed, but still. Congress serves a purpose.