Right Wing Discussion Thread XIX

[Novus America]

Wasn’t the whole point that the King was not above the rule of law?

What did Charles I even do that was against the law?

“The king also derived money through the granting of monopolies, despite a statute forbidding such action, which, though inefficient, raised an estimated £100,000 a year in the late 1630s.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_England

Although with the UK system being (especially at that time) based on unwritten traditions over actual black letter law makes it easier to argue that he was violating more the spirit than the black letter law but his attempts to bypass Parliament’s taxation powers via every loophole he could find, legal, extralegal and sometimes outright illegal.

Of course that was not the only matter of dispute, the religious ones being just as critical (and in that case you can not prove who was objectively right or wrong because it was theological) but his attempting to bypass Parliament was quite a problem, and obviously Parliament would not like that and try to stop it.

[Bienenhalde]

What did Charles I even do that was against the law?

“The king also derived money through the granting of monopolies, despite a statute forbidding such action, which, though inefficient, raised an estimated £100,000 a year in the late 1630s.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_England

Although with the UK system being (especially at that time) based on unwritten traditions over actual black letter law makes it easier to argue that he was violating more the spirit than the black letter law but his attempts to bypass Parliament’s taxation powers via every loophole he could find, legal, extralegal and sometimes outright illegal.

Of course that was not the only matter of dispute, the religious ones being just as critical (and in that case you can not prove who was objectively right or wrong because it was theological) but his attempting to bypass Parliament was quite a problem, and obviously Parliament would not like that and try to stop it.

Well, I suppose his statute violations and his attempts at bypassing parliamentary taxation powers were a bit questionable, but parliaments response of declaring the king a traitor and having him executed were totally disproportionate.

[Novus America]

“The king also derived money through the granting of monopolies, despite a statute forbidding such action, which, though inefficient, raised an estimated £100,000 a year in the late 1630s.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_England

Although with the UK system being (especially at that time) based on unwritten traditions over actual black letter law makes it easier to argue that he was violating more the spirit than the black letter law but his attempts to bypass Parliament’s taxation powers via every loophole he could find, legal, extralegal and sometimes outright illegal.

Of course that was not the only matter of dispute, the religious ones being just as critical (and in that case you can not prove who was objectively right or wrong because it was theological) but his attempting to bypass Parliament was quite a problem, and obviously Parliament would not like that and try to stop it.

Well, I suppose his statute violations and his attempts at bypassing parliamentary taxation powers were a bit questionable, but parliaments response of declaring the king a traitor and having him executed were totally disproportionate.

I do not think what Parliament (or more specifically the faction that won out) did was all good either.

Sometimes both sides can suck.

[Imperium Romanum Sanctis]

“The king also derived money through the granting of monopolies, despite a statute forbidding such action, which, though inefficient, raised an estimated £100,000 a year in the late 1630s.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_England

Although with the UK system being (especially at that time) based on unwritten traditions over actual black letter law makes it easier to argue that he was violating more the spirit than the black letter law but his attempts to bypass Parliament’s taxation powers via every loophole he could find, legal, extralegal and sometimes outright illegal.

Of course that was not the only matter of dispute, the religious ones being just as critical (and in that case you can not prove who was objectively right or wrong because it was theological) but his attempting to bypass Parliament was quite a problem, and obviously Parliament would not like that and try to stop it.

Well, I suppose his statute violations and his attempts at bypassing parliamentary taxation powers were a bit questionable, but parliaments response of declaring the king a traitor and having him executed were totally disproportionate.

Charles caused two civil wars, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of his subjects, and tried to become an absolute monarch. The taxes and statute violations were just the tip of the iceberg.

He was one of the worst monarchs in British history, and 100% deserved to have his head lopped off. There was nothing disproportionate in Parliament's decision to declare the king a traitor and have him killed. The man was a narcissistic and incompetent buffoon who was more interesting in amassing power for himself than actually governing his kingdoms. Even when matters came to a close and the Royalist cause was clearly lost, Charles repeatedly made any attempt at reconciliation impossible. He refused negotiations with the Parliamentarians at every available turn, and was unwilling to make any kind of compromise.

Charles the First was the architect of his own fate, and got what he deserved.

[Salus Maior]

Even when matters came to a close and the Royalist cause was clearly lost, Charles repeatedly made any attempt at reconciliation impossible. He refused negotiations with the Parliamentarians at every available turn, and was unwilling to make any kind of compromise.

What he did was, correctly, point out that the trial that the Commons set up was illegitimate and did not have the authority to do what they were trying to do. Hell, they only got as far as they did because Cromwell threatened violence to MPs who didn't agree to sign the order for execution.

And on the last day of the trial, he did agree to be tried before Parliament in full. But the Commons, despite certain MPs agreeing to support the motion (and then becoming absent after Cromwell took them out), decided to force through the sentence of execution anyway.

[Imperium Romanum Sanctis]

Even when matters came to a close and the Royalist cause was clearly lost, Charles repeatedly made any attempt at reconciliation impossible. He refused negotiations with the Parliamentarians at every available turn, and was unwilling to make any kind of compromise.

What he did was, correctly, point out that the trial that the Commons set up was illegitimate and did not have the authority to do what they were trying to do. Hell, they only got as far as they did because Cromwell threatened violence to MPs who didn't agree to sign the order for execution.

And on the last day of the trial, he did agree to be tried before Parliament in full. But the Commons, despite certain MPs agreeing to support the motion (and then becoming absent after Cromwell took them out), decided to force through the sentence of execution anyway.

Calling it illegitimate is redundant. England had just experienced two civil wars. What few de jure administrative procedures remained were weak and irrelevant. Legitimacy by this point in English history was in the hands of whoever could maintain some form of order, and neither the Royalists nor the Moderates in Parliament were up to the task, so their opinions were frankly irrelevant.

What mattered was that three kingdoms were in a state of chaos, and Charles was to blame. Charles had inflicted two civil wars upon his own subjects, and it was time for him to reap what he had sown. His last-minute willingness to be tried before Parliament was too little too late.

[Salus Maior]

What he did was, correctly, point out that the trial that the Commons set up was illegitimate and did not have the authority to do what they were trying to do. Hell, they only got as far as they did because Cromwell threatened violence to MPs who didn't agree to sign the order for execution.

And on the last day of the trial, he did agree to be tried before Parliament in full. But the Commons, despite certain MPs agreeing to support the motion (and then becoming absent after Cromwell took them out), decided to force through the sentence of execution anyway.

Calling it illegitimate is redundant. England had just experienced two civil wars. What few de jure administrative procedures remained were weak and irrelevant. Legitimacy by this point in English history was in the hands of whoever could maintain some form of order, and neither the Royalists nor the Moderates in Parliament were up to the task, so their opinions were frankly irrelevant.

What mattered was that three kingdoms were in a state of chaos, and Charles was to blame. Charles had inflicted two civil wars upon his own subjects, and it was time for him to reap what he had sown. His last-minute willingness to be tried before Parliament was too little too late.

In which case Charles was right in saying that what Cromwell and his conspirators were doing was merely usurping power, and that if that were the precedent instead of the rule of law, what's to stop them from taking whatever they wanted? How could anyone feel secure when the mere possession of power without regard to the law, was the new rule?

And considering how awful the Commonwealth was, and how it would fall apart, I suppose Charles was validated.

[Imperium Romanum Sanctis]

Calling it illegitimate is redundant. England had just experienced two civil wars. What few de jure administrative procedures remained were weak and irrelevant. Legitimacy by this point in English history was in the hands of whoever could maintain some form of order, and neither the Royalists nor the Moderates in Parliament were up to the task, so their opinions were frankly irrelevant.

What mattered was that three kingdoms were in a state of chaos, and Charles was to blame. Charles had inflicted two civil wars upon his own subjects, and it was time for him to reap what he had sown. His last-minute willingness to be tried before Parliament was too little too late.

In which case Charles was right in saying that what Cromwell and his conspirators were doing was merely usurping power, and that if that were the precedent instead of the rule of law, what's to stop them from taking whatever they wanted? How could anyone feel secure when the mere possession of power without regard to the law, was the new rule?

And considering how awful the Commonwealth was, and how it would fall apart, I suppose Charles was validated.

It's hardly usurping power when the previous administration effectively gutted itself of any semblance of legitimacy. Cromwell and the Roundheads picked up the slack and effectively re-established order in a land that had fallen into rebellion and chaos. Sure, Cromwell's administration got a bit weird and excessively Puritan at times (banning Christmas being a notable example), but it effectively regained control of Ireland, put down rebellions in Scotland, successfully prosecuted wars abroad and re-established some form of central authority. It was, all in all, a success.

The fact of the matter is that Charles began his reign as the king of three fairly stable kingdoms, and ended it being beheaded by his own subjects. One can sympathize with him as much as one pleases, but at the end of the day he was a disastrous and failed monarch.

[The East Marches II]

View if you would gentlemen the bravery of our stalwart liberal internationalists.

The end result is being told to shut the fuck up about a topic and complying because you are too scared of the consequences of standing up. This is the end result of the zero tolerance hand holding worrier crowd. Gutless functionaries all too happy to cover up things for a power willing to strip your organs. A pity we bought our own lied and are unwilling to apply... the necessary pressure to keep these types in line.

They are pathetic and mewling. They only have power because we are even more pathetic and worthless, they have convinced people of their powerlessness.

[Nakena]

View if you would gentlemen the bravery of our stalwart liberal internationalists.

The end result is being told to shut the fuck up about a topic and complying because you are too scared of the consequences of standing up. This is the end result of the zero tolerance hand holding worrier crowd. Gutless functionaries all too happy to cover up things for a power willing to strip your organs. A pity we bought our own lied and are unwilling to apply... the necessary pressure to keep these types in line.

They are pathetic and mewling. They only have power because we are even more pathetic and worthless, they have convinced people of their powerlessness.

Whoa fuck.

[Novus America]

View if you would gentlemen the bravery of our stalwart liberal internationalists.

The end result is being told to shut the fuck up about a topic and complying because you are too scared of the consequences of standing up. This is the end result of the zero tolerance hand holding worrier crowd. Gutless functionaries all too happy to cover up things for a power willing to strip your organs. A pity we bought our own lied and are unwilling to apply... the necessary pressure to keep these types in line.

They are pathetic and mewling. They only have power because we are even more pathetic and worthless, they have convinced people of their powerlessness.

If he even had enough brains and guts to even defend his disgusting PRC puppet organization I would have more respect. He is too weak to even defend how disgusting he is. What pathetic excuse for a human being.
No convictions, no ability to defend the disgusting system he works for, just a weak and mindless stooge.

The Eichmann for our times.

[Constaniana]

View if you would gentlemen the bravery of our stalwart liberal internationalists.

The end result is being told to shut the fuck up about a topic and complying because you are too scared of the consequences of standing up. This is the end result of the zero tolerance hand holding worrier crowd. Gutless functionaries all too happy to cover up things for a power willing to strip your organs. A pity we bought our own lied and are unwilling to apply... the necessary pressure to keep these types in line.

They are pathetic and mewling. They only have power because we are even more pathetic and worthless, they have convinced people of their powerlessness.

"I'm sorry, I couldn't hear your question"
>very clearly could, given how he wrinkled his nose in disgust at words not approved by Xinnie the Pooh
"Okay, let me repeat the question"
"No, that's OK. Let's move to another one then."

How gullible does he think we are? What sort of braindead limpet doesn't clearly hear what someone is saying, and then decides the best response is to say you're ignoring it? Does he think we can't see him obviously move to click out of the interview when she keeps mentioning the existence of over 23 million people?

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

Taiwan BTFO.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Dissolve the WHO.

[Novus America]

Dissolve the WHO.

Absolutely. Dissolve it and replace it with an organization that bans the PRC from membership. But allows in Taiwan. It would be delicious.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

The WHO is a UN agency.

The Republic of China is no longer recognised by the United Nations.

The WHO can't ban a UN member state from membership and it can't go further and substitute that member state with one that isn't even in the UN.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The WHO is a UN agency.

The Republic of China is no longer recognised by the United Nations.

The WHO can't ban a UN member state from membership and it can't go further and substitute that member state with one that isn't even in the UN.

^This. Global politics isn't your autistic Swedish map painting simulators. You have to accommodate major powers to maintain peace without giving in totally.

[Proctopeo]

The WHO is a UN agency.

The Republic of China is no longer recognised by the United Nations.

The WHO can't ban a UN member state from membership and it can't go further and substitute that member state with one that isn't even in the UN.

the UN is artificial, homosexual, and may Allah forgive me for saying this, communist

[Albennia]

View if you would gentlemen the bravery of our stalwart liberal internationalists.

The end result is being told to shut the fuck up about a topic and complying because you are too scared of the consequences of standing up. This is the end result of the zero tolerance hand holding worrier crowd. Gutless functionaries all too happy to cover up things for a power willing to strip your organs. A pity we bought our own lied and are unwilling to apply... the necessary pressure to keep these types in line.

They are pathetic and mewling. They only have power because we are even more pathetic and worthless, they have convinced people of their powerlessness.

If he even had enough brains and guts to even defend his disgusting PRC puppet organization I would have more respect. He is too weak to even defend how disgusting he is. What pathetic excuse for a human being.
No convictions, no ability to defend the disgusting system he works for, just a weak and mindless stooge.

The Eichmann for our times.

"Eichmann for our times" come off it.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

The WHO is a UN agency.

The Republic of China is no longer recognised by the United Nations.

The WHO can't ban a UN member state from membership and it can't go further and substitute that member state with one that isn't even in the UN.

^This. Global politics isn't your autistic Swedish map painting simulators. You have to accommodate major powers to maintain peace without giving in totally.

Originally it was the ROC, but we decided to recognize the PRC for business reasons. I think it's time to reverse that policy.

[Albennia]

^This. Global politics isn't your autistic Swedish map painting simulators. You have to accommodate major powers to maintain peace without giving in totally.

Originally it was the ROC, but we decided to recognize the PRC for business reasons. I think it's time to reverse that policy.

Why?

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

You recognised them for business reasons but the rest of the world recognises that is only sensible that the government which rules over 1,000 million Chinese people is recognised as being the government of China, as opposed to the government which rules over 23 million Chinese people, since the purpose of the Chinese government in global affairs is to represent the Chinese people and not do what the United States tells it to do.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Originally it was the ROC, but we decided to recognize the PRC for business reasons. I think it's time to reverse that policy.

Why?

They're a communist threat, that's why.

[United Muscovite Nations]

^This. Global politics isn't your autistic Swedish map painting simulators. You have to accommodate major powers to maintain peace without giving in totally.

Originally it was the ROC, but we decided to recognize the PRC for business reasons. I think it's time to reverse that policy.

We decided to recognize the PRC because not doing so is a denial of reality.

[Proctopeo]

^This. Global politics isn't your autistic Swedish map painting simulators. You have to accommodate major powers to maintain peace without giving in totally.

Originally it was the ROC, but we decided to recognize the PRC for business reasons. I think it's time to reverse that policy.

IMHO we probably shouldn't have recognized them in the first place, but it's not like in 1971 we could've fathomed a guess as to the consequences of giving them a seat.

You recognised them for business reasons but the rest of the world recognises that is only sensible that the government which rules over 1,000 million Chinese people is the government of China, as opposed to the government which rules over 23 million Chinese people.

the only government I recognize is the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom