2 edits
@vivify saidAs Shallow Blue once pointed out, Republics are more aggressive and lack strong balances on the President’s power. Constitutional parliamentary monarchies seem for whatever reason to be more sensible and stable with better quality of life and healthier economies*. Why? IDK. Does the monarch have the power to fire the Prime Minister or something?
I thought it was in bad taste to bring this up last month so soon after the Queen's death, but is there any practical reason to keep the monarchy apart from empty buzz words like "tradition", "history", etc.?
Such a relic has no place in modern politics.
Keep in mind - the UK without a monarch ends up with Oliver Cromwell. France without a Monarch led to the Terror of Robespierre and Napoleon.
*Counterpoint - Japan’s economy was very unstable in the 90s
@earl-of-trumps saidDon’t forget the Prince of Pop
I don't know why you feel this way. I think that America could benefit by having royalty.
Think about it, @King-Elvis and @Queen-Latifah. Dig it, y'all 😍
@athousandyoung saidInteresting point. I suppose a constitutional monarchy could serve as an additional check/balance against other branches of government.
As Shallow Blue once pointed out, Republics are more aggressive and lack strong balances on the President’s power. Constitutional parliamentary monarchies seem for whatever reason to be more sensible and stable with better quality of life and healthier economies*. Why? IDK. Does the monarch have the power to fire the Prime Minister or something?
Keep in mind - t ...[text shortened]... Terror of Robespierre and Napoleon.
*Counterpoint - Japan’s economy was very unstable in the 90s
And it is true that monarchs are groomed for their positions from birth, so they are likely quite educated and well-prepared for their government roles.
No idea who Cromwell is. Looks like I have some Googling to do.
4 edits
@vivify saidCromwell was a radical Puritan holy warrior, a Republican and champion of Parliament who led the winning side of the English Civil War. His men captured and executed King Charles I and set up a theocratic Republic with draconian religious laws like criminalizing Christmas, sports, theater, makeup etc. Basically the English version of the Taliban. When he died the English people thankfully put Charles II, the executed King’s son back on the throne.
Interesting point. I suppose a constitutional monarchy could serve as an additional check/balance against other branches of government.
And it is true that monarchs are groomed for their positions from birth, so they are likely quite educated and well-prepared for their government roles.
No idea who Cromwell is. Looks like I have some Googling to do.
Some silly history skits about this time period:
The American version is comedically portrayed here - The Witchfinder General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Bay;
@athousandyoung saidThank you. I'm gonna buy some tequila tonight and watch these.
Cromwell was a radical Puritan holy warrior, a Republican and champion of Parliament who led the winning side of the English Civil War. His men captured and executed King Charles I and set up a theocratic Republic with draconian religious laws like criminalizing Christmas, sports, theater, makeup etc. Basically the English version of the Taliban. When he died the En ...[text shortened]... General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Bay;
[youtube Witchfinder Xmas]iA0vD2Qgdqk[/youtube]
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@vivify saidYes, and it's been pointed out repeatedly over the last... well, decades at least.
I thought it was in bad taste to bring this up last month so soon after the Queen's death, but is there any practical reason to keep the monarchy apart from empty buzz words like "tradition", "history", etc.?
Such a relic has no place in modern politics.
We Europeans don't want your Yankee Yee-Haw style of presidency. We prefer to keep politics and national identity far apart, lest we descend into your kind of jingoism. Having a hereditary head of state and a separate, political head of government works a lot better than having your citizens baying for the blood of those who didn't vote for your national representative.
Also - and this, too, has been pointed out to you pathetic republicans again and again and again - which are the happiest, most prosperous, free-est, countries in the world? Yeah, the Nordic countries and the Benelux. How many of those are American-style republics? How many of us are parliamentary monarchies? Best by test, dear. Best by test.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@vivify said"How to say you're an ignorant damyank who doesn't know anything about any other country's political system, without saying that you're an ignorant damyank who doesn't know anything about any other country's political system."
So keep the monarchy but completely eliminate its remaining power in government.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@athousandyoung saidNo. Unless Parliament asks her to. And that's the very point. The monarch has the symbolic power - but parliament has the real power. In a Republic, the mon... sorry, "president", has it all.
Constitutional parliamentary monarchies seem for whatever reason to be more sensible and stable with better quality of life and healthier economies*. Why? IDK. Does the monarch have the power to fire the Prime Minister or something?
@vivify saidThe same could be said about the position of the US president.
I thought it was in bad taste to bring this up last month so soon after the Queen's death, but is there any practical reason to keep the monarchy apart from empty buzz words like "tradition", "history", etc.?
Such a relic has no place in modern politics.
2 edits
@shallow-blue saidIf Congress had the power to fire the President would that provide the same effect?
No. Unless Parliament asks her to. And that's the very point. The monarch has the symbolic power - but parliament has the real power. In a Republic, the mon... sorry, "president", has it all.
How does a Parliament’s power to ask the monarch to remove the Prime Minister differ from impeachment?
1 edit
@shallow-blue saidThe French, Irish and Russians seem to like their Republics. That little patch of sea floor you people salvaged with your clever dams and such does not speak for Europe any more than my little patch of inner city California speaks for North America.
Yes, and it's been pointed out repeatedly over the last... well, decades at least.
We Europeans don't want your Yankee Yee-Haw style of presidency. We prefer to keep politics and national identity far apart, lest we descend into your kind of jingoism. Having a hereditary head of state and a separate, political head of government works a lot better than having your cit ...[text shortened]... ican-style republics? How many of us are parliamentary monarchies? Best by test, dear. Best by test.
1 edit
@shallow-blue saidKeep trying to be Zahlanzi, I'm sure you'll have half the wit one day.
"How to say you're an ignorant damyank who doesn't know anything about any other country's political system, without saying that you're an ignorant damyank who doesn't know anything about any other country's political system."
1 edit
@shallow-blue saidSo you prefer to be ruled by people bred from hundreds of years of incest. Good on you.
Yes, and it's been pointed out repeatedly over the last... well, decades at least.
We Europeans don't want your Yankee Yee-Haw style of presidency. We prefer to keep politics and national identity far apart, lest we descend into your kind of jingoism. Having a hereditary head of state and a separate, political head of government works a lot better than having your cit ...[text shortened]... ican-style republics? How many of us are parliamentary monarchies? Best by test, dear. Best by test.