How is excluding just one voter my ideology?
Advertisement
by The Parkus Empire » Sun Jul 08, 2018 6:35 pm
by The Parkus Empire » Sun Jul 08, 2018 6:38 pm
by The Parkus Empire » Sun Jul 08, 2018 6:42 pm
Genivaria wrote:The Parkus Empire wrote: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.
by Washington Resistance Army » Sun Jul 08, 2018 6:43 pm
The Parkus Empire wrote:Genivaria wrote: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.
by Genivaria » Sun Jul 08, 2018 6:45 pm
The Parkus Empire wrote:Genivaria wrote: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.
by The Parkus Empire » Sun Jul 08, 2018 6:47 pm
by The Parkus Empire » Sun Jul 08, 2018 6:48 pm
by Washington Resistance Army » Sun Jul 08, 2018 6:48 pm
by Salus Maior » Sun Jul 08, 2018 6:55 pm
Washington Resistance Army wrote:The Parkus Empire wrote: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.
by The Parkus Empire » Sun Jul 08, 2018 7:02 pm
Washington Resistance Army wrote:The Parkus Empire wrote: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.
by The Parkus Empire » Sun Jul 08, 2018 7:03 pm
Salus Maior wrote:Washington Resistance Army wrote:
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.
by Stonok » Sun Jul 08, 2018 8:20 pm
by The Parkus Empire » Sun Jul 08, 2018 8:24 pm
Stonok wrote: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?
by Stonok » Sun Jul 08, 2018 8:29 pm
The Parkus Empire wrote:Stonok wrote: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
by The Parkus Empire » Sun Jul 08, 2018 8:37 pm
Stonok wrote:The Parkus Empire wrote: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.
by Stonok » Sun Jul 08, 2018 8:49 pm
The Parkus Empire wrote:Stonok wrote: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
by The Parkus Empire » Sun Jul 08, 2018 8:53 pm
Stonok wrote:The Parkus Empire wrote: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.
by Stonok » Sun Jul 08, 2018 8:55 pm
The Parkus Empire wrote:Stonok wrote: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
by The Parkus Empire » Sun Jul 08, 2018 9:03 pm
by Camelone » Sun Jul 08, 2018 9:05 pm
Stonok wrote: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?
by Sahansahiye Iran » Sun Jul 08, 2018 9:52 pm
Stonok wrote: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?
by Minzerland II » Sun Jul 08, 2018 9:53 pm
The Parkus Empire wrote:Australian Seperatists wrote: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
St Anselm of Canterbury wrote:[…]who ever heard of anything having two mothers or two fathers? (Monologion, pg. 63)
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Ifreann, Lycom, Lysset, Page, Port Carverton, Roighelm, The Holy Therns
Advertisement