Monarchist Discussion Thread II: The Crown will Rise Again!

[The Parkus Empire]

Is this what passes for liberal wit these days? Voltaire the shitposter is rolling in his grave.

What's wrong you hate your ideology being applied to you?

How is excluding just one voter my ideology?

[Genivaria]

What's wrong you hate your ideology being applied to you?

How is excluding just one voter my ideology?

The point.
------------
Your head.

[The Parkus Empire]

How is excluding just one voter my ideology?

The point.
------------
Your head.

There is no point, you just think you're being clever like the people who say, "I notice no one who is pro choice was aborted!"

[Genivaria]

The point.
------------
Your head.

There is no point, you just think you're being clever like the people who say, "I notice no one who is pro choice was aborted!"

No it means that you want to disenfranchise people but apparently take issue with being disenfranchised....also that comparison was asinine.

[The Parkus Empire]

There is no point, you just think you're being clever like the people who say, "I notice no one who is pro choice was aborted!"

No it means that you want to disenfranchise people but apparently take issue with being disenfranchised....also that comparison was asinine.

If I'm disenfranchised peculiarly. If there were criteria to be able to vote which I simply didn't meet, I would take less issue.

[Washington Resistance Army]

No it means that you want to disenfranchise people but apparently take issue with being disenfranchised....also that comparison was asinine.

If I'm disenfranchised peculiarly. If there were criteria to be able to vote which I simply didn't meet, I would take less issue.

There are criteria, you can vote if you aren't Parkus.

[Genivaria]

If I'm disenfranchised peculiarly. If there were criteria to be able to vote which I simply didn't meet, I would take less issue.

There are criteria, you can vote if you aren't Parkus.

And have submitted to a blood test to make sure you aren't a Reptili-I mean Canadian.

[Genivaria]

No it means that you want to disenfranchise people but apparently take issue with being disenfranchised....also that comparison was asinine.

If I'm disenfranchised peculiarly. If there were criteria to be able to vote which I simply didn't meet, I would take less issue.

Your opinion might matter more if you weren't disenfranchised.

[The Parkus Empire]

If I'm disenfranchised peculiarly. If there were criteria to be able to vote which I simply didn't meet, I would take less issue.

There are criteria, you can vote if you aren't Parkus.

That's a criterion

This is akin to saying if you don't think everyone should have to pay income tax, just exempting yourself and no one else is equivalent to broader criteria

[The Parkus Empire]

If I'm disenfranchised peculiarly. If there were criteria to be able to vote which I simply didn't meet, I would take less issue.

Your opinion might matter more if you weren't disenfranchised.

Not really. My opinion, if it's minority, is worthless in a democracy regardless. It matters no more than if I could not vote

[Washington Resistance Army]

There are criteria, you can vote if you aren't Parkus.

That's a criterion

This is akin to saying if you don't think everyone should have to pay income tax, just exempting yourself and no one else is equivalent to broader criteria

We can also make sure Christians can't vote nor can conservatives, that's 3 criteria.

[Salus Maior]

That's a criterion

This is akin to saying if you don't think everyone should have to pay income tax, just exempting yourself and no one else is equivalent to broader criteria

We can also make sure Christians can't vote nor can conservatives, that's 3 criteria.

>Voting

>In the Monarchist thread.

IN THE NAME OF THE KING THIS PARLIAMENT IS DISSOLVED.

[The Parkus Empire]

That's a criterion

This is akin to saying if you don't think everyone should have to pay income tax, just exempting yourself and no one else is equivalent to broader criteria

We can also make sure Christians can't vote nor can conservatives, that's 3 criteria.

Well we are the predominant group among gun owners, military officers, and cops. That would be pretty interesting.

[The Parkus Empire]

We can also make sure Christians can't vote nor can conservatives, that's 3 criteria.

>Voting

>In the Monarchist thread.

IN THE NAME OF THE KING THIS PARLIAMENT IS DISSOLVED.

SOON

[Stonok]

What do you guys think of Alexander Hamilton's idea of an American Monarchy? Not the idea of the US being a monarchy itself, but the system he had in mind for it.

He argued to the Continental Congress that the US should have a system with a King at its head. Put simply, the people would elect a king who, if served the people well, would rule with mostly absolute power until his death. But he did include in his system a way for the king to be impeached if they turned out to be tyrannical.

A rather simple system, and the more I lull it over the more I think it a perfect premise for a monarchy. Any with me or against me?

[The Parkus Empire]

What do you guys think of Alexander Hamilton's idea of an American Monarchy? Not the idea of the US being a monarchy itself, but the system he had in mind for it.

He argued to the Continental Congress that the US should have a system with a King at its head. Put simply, a king who served the people well would rule with mostly absolute power until his death. But he did include in his system a way for the king to be impeached if they turned out to be tyrannical.

A rather simple system, and the more I lull it over the more I think it a perfect premise for a monarchy. Any with me or against me?

I think it's better than popular election, but I prefer our original method for selecting POTUS

[Stonok]

What do you guys think of Alexander Hamilton's idea of an American Monarchy? Not the idea of the US being a monarchy itself, but the system he had in mind for it.

He argued to the Continental Congress that the US should have a system with a King at its head. Put simply, a king who served the people well would rule with mostly absolute power until his death. But he did include in his system a way for the king to be impeached if they turned out to be tyrannical.

A rather simple system, and the more I lull it over the more I think it a perfect premise for a monarchy. Any with me or against me?

I think it's better than popular election, but I prefer our original method for selecting POTUS

The original way of elected the POTUS was horrible, imo. Not the system itself, but the way results were handled. In it, the leading candidate became president and the one who came in second became VP.

Imagine, if that system were still in place Trump would have Clinton as VP.

[The Parkus Empire]

I think it's better than popular election, but I prefer our original method for selecting POTUS

The original way of elected the POTUS was horrible, imo. Not the system itself, but the way results were handled. In it, the leading candidate became president and the one who came in second became VP.

Imagine, if that system were still in place Trump would have Clinton as VP.

Lol no he wouldn't because they were chosen as candidates by partisan, popular vote

[Stonok]

The original way of elected the POTUS was horrible, imo. Not the system itself, but the way results were handled. In it, the leading candidate became president and the one who came in second became VP.

Imagine, if that system were still in place Trump would have Clinton as VP.

Lol no he wouldn't because they were chosen as candidates by partisan, popular vote

Parties didn't matter that much in the original system. Adams, a Federalist, had Jefferson, a Republican, as VP because Adams came first in the election, Jefferson came in second.

What I'm saying is if Trump and Clinton ran underneath that system, and Trump still came in first, Clinton second, Trump would be POTUS and Clinton would be VP. Not a nice idea to imagine.

[The Parkus Empire]

Lol no he wouldn't because they were chosen as candidates by partisan, popular vote

Parties didn't matter that much in the original system. Adams, a Federalist, had Jefferson, a Republican, as VP because Adams came first in the election, Jefferson came in second.

What I'm saying is if Trump and Clinton ran underneath that system, and Trump still came in first, Clinton second, Trump would be POTUS and Clinton would be VP. Not a nice idea to imagine.

Yeah, and Jefferson resigned due to hating Adams' party, and hating Adams personally

[Stonok]

Parties didn't matter that much in the original system. Adams, a Federalist, had Jefferson, a Republican, as VP because Adams came first in the election, Jefferson came in second.

What I'm saying is if Trump and Clinton ran underneath that system, and Trump still came in first, Clinton second, Trump would be POTUS and Clinton would be VP. Not a nice idea to imagine.

Yeah, and Jefferson resigned due to hating Adams' party, and hating Adams personally

He did no such, thing both he and Adams left their respective offices on March 4th, 1801. But that wasn't the point, anyway.

[The Parkus Empire]

Yeah, and Jefferson resigned due to hating Adams' party, and hating Adams personally

He did no such, thing both he and Adams left their respective offices on March 4th, 1801. But that wasn't the point, anyway.

Yes, my bad, I was thinking of Washington's cabinet (which was controlled by Federalists, including Adams as vp and Hamilton as Secretary of Treasury --John Jay was made Chief Justice of the Supreme Court). While in Washington's cabinet, he leaked anti Washington information, and he did the same to Adams under him.

[Camelone]

What do you guys think of Alexander Hamilton's idea of an American Monarchy? Not the idea of the US being a monarchy itself, but the system he had in mind for it.

He argued to the Continental Congress that the US should have a system with a King at its head. Put simply, the people would elect a king who, if served the people well, would rule with mostly absolute power until his death. But he did include in his system a way for the king to be impeached if they turned out to be tyrannical.

A rather simple system, and the more I lull it over the more I think it a perfect premise for a monarchy. Any with me or against me?

Interesting I have heard of it but never the details just the general idea. I'm going to try and find his system now to read for myself.

[Sahansahiye Iran]

What do you guys think of Alexander Hamilton's idea of an American Monarchy? Not the idea of the US being a monarchy itself, but the system he had in mind for it.

He argued to the Continental Congress that the US should have a system with a King at its head. Put simply, the people would elect a king who, if served the people well, would rule with mostly absolute power until his death. But he did include in his system a way for the king to be impeached if they turned out to be tyrannical.

A rather simple system, and the more I lull it over the more I think it a perfect premise for a monarchy. Any with me or against me?

I can get down with this dirty, dawg.

[Minzerland II]

I feel 'trapped' in a country that is wanting to become a federal republic (Australia).

I say this because we have been more wanting to dump the monarchy and I am fully supportive of the monarch. One of my big fears is that if we do leave the commonwealth, not only no more commonwealth games for Aus, but primarily that we will devolve into the state that is the US today. Til the day I die, I will support the monarch through and through, regardless of the king/queen at the throne.

Does anyone else have the same or similar thoughts?

I say Elizabeth needs to start doing something more than she's doing if Australia is to see a monarch as anything but pointless

That is very unlikely to happen. She is not allowed to do anything but play figurehead, and as long as that continues, so will support for a Republic in Australia. Even then, Australia's support would diminish if the monarchy exercised more power too. Republic is inevitable and is something we deserve. The only things stopping us are royal weddings and babies.