Abolish the Monarchy

@shavixmir said
The same could be said about the position of the US president.

Explain why. I'm not asking this in an attacking manner, you usually have well-informed opinions on such things.

-Removed-

Okay, and you're hated on every forum you post on. Care to address the thread topic?

-Removed-

I would be if anyone cared about you. Care to address the topic?

@shallow-blue said
Yes, and it's been pointed out repeatedly over the last... well, ch 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.

They think they are happy , but they have nothing to compare their lives to. One can hardly be happy when they are dependent on government. But they were born into it and don't know anything else. They think it is normal to be supported by government, to be supported by their neighbors. I F'n cannot IMAGINE that. They could not imagine living in a country with no limitations.
I think I will go out today and buy a rental property, use the bank's money to do it, and collect rent while it pays for itself. I'll sign the contract at 9Am, and wrap up paying and owning it before noon. Now THAT'S happy!

@athousandyoung said
*Counterpoint - Japan’s economy was very unstable in the 90s

You know, that brings up a point:

Correlation doesn't equal causation. Specifics acts by a monarchy must be pointed out in order to give credit or blame for the state of a country's financial situation. None have been offered.

The UK's economy was also quite unstable during the Thatcher years with record-high unemployment. And during the European financial crisis, it was Germany's leader, not a constitutional monarchy (for example, Spain was badly affected), that took the most instrumental role in steering Europe out of it.

If we credit parliamentary monarchies for a country's prosperity do we also blame them for their economic downfalls?

You could argue that EU affiliation better explains the economy of these nations rather than a monarchy. UK's unemployment highs during the thatcher years went into decline shortly after the formation of the EU, and (mostly) continued that trend until Brexit, when their unemployment started to rise again.

You could also argue those countries spend far lesser percentage of GDP on military compared to the U.S. or France, and therefore are able to better fund social welfare.

So without specific examples of how monarchies help a nation's economy, that can't be used as an argument.

I still agree that a monarchy could be useful as a check on a PM or president.

@athousandyoung said
If Congress had the power to fire the President would that provide the same effect?

How does a Parliament’s power to ask the monarch to remove the Prime Minister differ from impeachment?

Very little, is the point: the power lies with Parliament and/or Congress, and with the Prime Minister and/or President, not with the monarch and/or... ah, and there's the problem!

In our system, the person who should not have real political power does not have real political power. He (or c.q. she, though both the Netherlands and the UK are now ruled by kings) has symbolic power only. In the USA, the person who should not have political power - the figure-head, the rallying point, the one who unites all the nation - is the same identical person as the very apex of political power and intrigue, the one whom half the country adores and half the country abhors.

A parliamentary monarchy does what a personal presidency should do, but unlike a presidency, it actually does so: it keeps national love and party politics (mostly - there's always a few idiots in any system) separate.

@vivify said
So you prefer to be ruled by people bred from hundreds of years of incest. Good on you.

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? You're like an atheist pretending that Christians believe in a thunderbolts-and-lightning beardy-daddy-in-the-sky God.

Try and look at it from a non-mediaeval point of view, you might understand it then.

@vivify said
I would be if anyone cared about you. Care to address the topic?

He did.

Your desire to abolish the monarchy - someone else's monarchy, mind you! - is based in a fundamental misunderstanding of how monarchies have worked since... well, it depends on the country, but since somewhere between the 17th and 19th century at least.

In other words, your ignorance is older than your very presidency.

@averagejoe1 said
They think they are happy , but they have nothing to compare their lives to. One can hardly be happy when they are dependent on government. But they were born into it and don't know anything else.

Unlike you blinkered yankees, us Europeans regularly get information about the rest of the world that isn't filtered through Fox "News".

@shallow-blue said
He did.

Your desire to abolish the monarchy - someone else's monarchy, mind you! - is based in a fundamental misunderstanding of how monarchies have worked since... well, it depends on the country, but since somewhere between the 17th and 19th century at least.

In other words, your ignorance is older than your very presidency.

You and Dive are making empty claims without explaining anything. What "misunderstanding" do I have that changes the fact that monarchies, parliamentary or not, are antiquated?

Let's go back to Boris convincing the Queen to suspend Parliament. The Queen actually granted Boris this request despite this being an obvious move to prevent stopping a no-deal Brexit.

This woman in her 90's whose role is largely ceremonial made a decision that was potentially damaging to the UK economy, including the prices of imports and food increasing. The courts overturned the decision but Parliament was still suspended for a few weeks, until that decision.

Why should she have this ability for no other reason than being born into the right family?

You and Dive have made case for keeping a monarchy, possibly because there isn't one.

@shallow-blue said
You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? You're like an atheist pretending that Christians believe in a thunderbolts-and-lightning beardy-daddy-in-the-sky God.

Try and look at it from a non-mediaeval point of view, you might understand it then.

a) Christians do believe in that. You've already wrecked your post.

b) What do you mean "mediaeval"? Queen Liz and Philip were third cousins. You talk about "hee-haw yanks" while being ruled by inbreeders. What's more "hee-haw" than getting knocked up by your cousin?

@vivify said
You and Dive are making empty claims without explaining anything. What "misunderstanding" do I have that changes the fact that monarchies, parliamentary or not, are antiquated?

This woman in her 90's whose role is largely ceremonial made a decision

This one.

@vivify said
a) Christians do believe in that.

No, we don't.

You really are vegan-and-Ayn-Randian-level pathetic in your insistence that you know us better than we know ourselves.