Are democracies and republics inherently unstable? Monarchies and dictatorships lasted for thousands of years, while democracy at best lasted for about 300.
>>1235963
People like to think that 'the truth will always win' but really if you just say enough bullshit everyone will believe because they can't debunk it fast enough. There's a dialectic need for authoritarianism
>>1235963
collapsing democracy becomes autocracy
collapsing autocracy becomes autocracy
>>1235963
yes.
t. bordiga
>>1235963
>tfw we could've gotten a competent fascist and instead we got Pizza the Hutt
>>1235963
Yep, because humans are only social insofar as they establish hierarchies and bully others, which is the only thing that's guaranteed to get people horny. You really think a system of government based on cooperation would work, ever?
>>1235990
>Public at large voting for an actual fascist
Not a chance in hell. Baby steps lad.
>>1235999
>>1235990
Fuck off fashit, Don is a traditional Republican liberal. If you want fascists go register Democrat.
>>1235999
Couldn't he atleast be aesthetic?
he's got the grace of a hogs corpse
>>1236007
>The political climate in Germany then is the same as it is in America now.
Pls be bait
>>1236023
[spoiler]But it kinda is :^)
Where do you think all those SJW's and alt-righters came from.
>>1236021
>traditional Republican liberal
Which part?
Is it the devout christian part of him?
or his pro gun stance
Republics and democracies do fine as long as the citizens who have rights and vote are limited to the one group that a governemnt is made up of.
When the state ceases to represent a tribe of men, and becomes it's own abstract entity representing a piece of land and anyone on it then it falls apart.
Republican rome was a far more virile sucessful civilization than either monarchic rome or imperial rome, but that is because it's citizenship was constrained to romans and only romans.
>>1236028
From a place of wealth and boredom. Nothing like Germany.
>>1235963
>Monarchies and dictatorships lasted for thousands of years, while democracy at best lasted for about 300.
lolwut?
>>1236030
It's his free market policies of course! Oh wait...
You're falsely thinking of monarchy as some kind of continuous system akin to the government of, say, the United States.
>>1236021
Sjw are laughed at for going mad, but I've never seen a group of people have tantrums as much a trump supporters. Talk like a normal non emotional faggot.
>>1236030
>Is it the devout christian part of him?
This is not a part of traditional liberalism. The modern Republican party is a complete joke for following this path.
>or his pro gun stance
That, and citizen-based nationalism plus protection of speech rights and internal businesses. The only real way he's against it is his protectionist stance.
>>1236039
>Republican rome was a far more virile sucessful civilization than either monarchic rome or imperial rome, but that is because it's citizenship was constrained to romans and only romans.
>I'm fucking stupid and don't know history
>>1236055
I agree, I fucking HATE it when some crowd of Trump supporters screams at me at my candidate's rallies and tries to shut them down.
Wait...
>>1236021
Trump fans make SJWs seem reasonable by comparison. And you have no clue on what trump believes, he believes in whatever works for his personal agenda and will flip flop back and forth as needed
>>1235990
Fascism is an inherently incompetent liberal political ideology
>>1236077
It could've been much "better", we know.
>>1236084
>Trump fans make SJWs seem reasonable by comparison.
>>1236085
only correct reply
>>1236085
>fascism
>liberal
Literally what
>>1235963
It's more about the destruction of individualism and the rise of a media-controlled state than anything else.
>>1236077
Awww baby doesn't feel his safe spot is safe enough. Baby doesn't like protesters yelling about his new strongman. Poor baby
>>1236091
/b/ told me he would increase our freedoms. Am I being cucked? Is Trump the real money-grubbing semite all along?
>>1236090
>post-French revolutionary secular nation state based ideology laced with enlightenment ideals
>anything other than liberalism
>>1236088
Trumpers whine and cry about violent protests, until one of their own gets violent. Then their strongman jumps in to save them and offers to cover the legal fees caused by said violence and steal the victims coat
>>1236101
>not based on personal liberty
>liberal
>>1236096
He doesn't need to pander
because he is who politicians pander to
>>1236096
It's been this way for a long time. JFK won his debate against Nixon not be his rhetoric, but because he looked better on television.
>>1236086
What, riots? Nah, that would suck. It would also never happen; Trump's people are mature enough to not go out of their way to attack other candidates' supporters.
>>1236093
>complain that Trump supporters have the worst "tantrums"
>get faced with an obvious counterexample
>"B-but that's just freedom of speech!"
If anyone here has incoherent ideas, I think it's you. It's not like I care if people protest at Trump rallies, as long as they don't vandalize property, attack people, or intentionally try to stop the rally (which they regularly do and all of which are illegal), just like I'm happy being able to call out bullshitters on the internet in my free time.
>>1236021
Donald isn't a tradition liberal Republican he is a centrist populist that leans right and says dumb things but is less worse than the other options
and I don't think Donald is religious
>>1236114
>just like I'm happy being able to call out bullshitters on the internet in my free time
This made me laugh so hard
>>1236096
lol what do you think
he's a right wing SJW.
>there are actual trumpposters even on /his/
>>1236114
... Never asked them to stop their tantrums. Not even close, quite the contrary. I was mocking trumpers like yourself for this behavior- touting free speech and the next moment complaining endlessly about protesters protesting. Because of course, only those protesting trump commit crimes.. Trump did not offer to cover the legal fees of a supporter who punched a guy. Totally didn't happen. Oh wait that did happen. Disgusting degeneracy I say!
>>1236117
>less worse than other options
>retarded trade ideas
>no idea how to handle foreign policy
>horrible tax plan
>>1236127
our country is essentially a comedic leper colony, the laughing stock of the entire world.
let's just hope the first people he nukes on whim is ourselves, because it looks like it's him unless Hillary gets indicted very soon
>>1236133
I hate Hillary and the green and Libertarian parties are jokes that are basically voting for Hillary.
I find some of his ideas at least palatable and find the idea of getting rid of the political correctness bullshit attractive, and can agree with him on some non controversial opinions. I cannot say the same for any other candidate, but that doesn't mean Trump is a good candidate, I just fear him less than the others
>>1236114
Was your 'counter example' the part where you said people were screaming at your fanboy crew? Jesus you really like your safe space. Now rebut this post by saying all trump protestors are violent, trump supporters act with honor, and therefore trump should be our next King.
>>1236131
I never complained about protesters. All I did was, when someone mentioned that Trump supporters are the most whiny, present a situation in which there were supporters much much whinier than us, and you strawman'd me to hell. Yes, I love free speech, and I'm fine if people protest within the bounds of the law.
>>1236137
Voting for president isn't a zero-sum game. You have the freedom to put "None of the above" as a vote.
>>1236135
The entire world is too busy dealing with its own problems to care about the US
Americans place too much importance on others opinions of them.
>>1236143
I would but I'd rather aid the candidate I hate the least to get in in order to prevent the candidates I hate more from getting in. If I didn't hate Hillary so much I would probably do that.
>>1236139
Yes, in fact. I would argue that forming organized protests in order to wave flags and posters and scream at a candidate qualifies more as a "tantrum" than trying to identify your own candidate's policies to someone else.
>>1236133
not to mention that his business skills are a meme, he could've sat on the money he started with and had more than he does now.
or even the part where he starts whiny bitch feuds with people he disagrees with or "wronged" him
or that he mocks the disabled, and encourages violences towards women and mexicans
.>>1236137
>Hillary
I get that she's horrible, and breaking the cycle of exploitation is really attractive. but do you really want a man so weak willed and impulsive to have his hands on the nuclear weapon codes? Who is good friends with all of the candidates you despise?
Do you really want want the most ridiculous, hypocritical group of people encouraged in their literally retarded behavior by voting in their mascot?
also he won't get rid of the PC crowd, he'll just give them fodder and prove them right.
the entire premise of SJWs being wrong is that there are reasonable people in this world, and he proves that that is not at all the case.
Expect SJWs to be much much worse.
>>1236146
Hillary and Trump are two sides of the same coin, both controlled by the same hand.
>>1236144
I know, but it doesn't make us any less of a joke.
>>1236140
So you say trump protestors are whiny or more whiny than trump supporters. Great point, now I know who to vote for. I thought you fanboys said trump protestors are violent. This back and forth started because you said trump protestors deliberately try and...protest. Don't waste your time comparing the fan clubs. Won't change that the fact that trump is an orange colored demagogue. You know, Mexicans are rapists and Muslims are all violent extremists. Pro tip, this is why those protesting him are so violent, or whiny, depending on what narrative you wanna push.
>>1236133
He has some of the most coherent and absolute foreign policy ideas of any candidate yet in this race. Compare that to Hillary's policy speech which was entirely complaining about how Trump would nuke everyone.
>>1236154
I'm just going to sum up my opinion in that in my eyes Hillary is guaranteed to be awful while Trump has a chance at being not awful/good
but
>nuke codes
he isn't a fucking idiot, now that I do know. He isn't going to actually hit the fucking button.
>>1236164
Like what? 'Talk to Kim Jong il'?
>>1236159
hey at least Trump will get impeached pretty quick so we can try again
Maybe he'll make someone who is intent on breaking our retarded exploitation cycle but is less of a retarded his VP so they can take over.
>>1236163
What in the fuck are you pinning this on me for?
I've been arguing in response to this shitty post >>1236055 but apparently this guy doesn't get the blame for "wasting his time comparing the fan clubs"?
>>1236169
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePlopVAV6Hc
Probably the most coherent speech in the race so far.
>>1236147
Oh all the people screaming about your new savior upsets you? Don't worry we have safe spaces for you. Trumpers, somehow more snotty and entitled than the SJW crew. Are you just a glutton for punishment... Glad we figured who throws the biggest tantrums. Won't change the fact trump is a thin skinned ego manic whose schtick is being a pied piper to racists lunatics nationwide. I'll give him this, it is masterful. Can't say I won't enjoy him crashing the gop.
>>1236178
>38 minutes
Can I get a tl;dw?
>>1236183
Basically
>we're stuck in a Cold War mentality and we need to stop giving our allies free passes while provoking our enemies in places we don't belong
>>1236178
I have no idea who you are anon. 'You' keep replying to my posts. Just driving the point that his supporters are generally whiny bitches who don't know they're being played. So they bitch about the people who criticize their hero for seeing him as the hate monger he is.
When His Holiness crowns the king, then God is with the kingdom.
>>1236188
That's pretty foreign policy 101
>>1236192
It's actually a big break from both party positions. Who knows what he believes though. I think that position is a little absurd i.e. lets give Japan nukes. The problem is he'll say anything to get elected. Just like biliary but less tactful.
>>1236168
>he isn't a fucking idiot, now that I do know. He isn't going to actually hit the fucking button.
That's the part where we disagree I suppose.
I'm not convinced that he's not that dumb
or atleast not dumb enough to fuck up international relations against to the point of heavy militarism.
That said, he is playing with fire he can't control with the less intelligent, more violent portion of his voters.
I would be VERY wary of militant populism in an era where terrorism in all it's forms is rampant.
really though, fuck hillary we deserve better choices.
>>1236192
Thats a huge break from both parties wtf are you talking about
>>1236208
We're on 4chan anon. Of course we're wasting time. Anyone who can't see through these two losers is a lost cause.
>>1236213
I don't like him either man, but I'm not going to pretend he isn't a smart man.
We need a shake up and while I don't necessarily think we should get Trump to give that shake up, we do need one to get rid of both parties because they are both shit.
>>1236220
How old are you? Do you realize it's been illegal to protest within a political rally since the dawn of fucking time? People only notice Trump calling it out because only people who oppose him are so willing to break the law for publicity.
>>1236220
My favorite trump gig is when he insults the (clearly incompetent) media. He gets the best of both worlds, the constant free exposure and insulting the unpopular media machine. He has 'elevated' political discourse to a new level. Some people just don't know theyre being played and want a safe space to hide when confronted with reality.
desu it brings up a valid question
how do you strike a balance between consent from the governed and not having all your decisions made by the lowest common denominator and childish nature of the masses?
>>1236229
>2012 is the dawn of time
Thanks Obama.
>>1236237
Dialectics desu
>>1236237
Indirect democracy. Consenting isn't the same as making decisions.
>>1236229
Serious question, is it illegal or is it just legal to remove people protesting from the venue? I mean, if it were illegal, wouldn't trump be trump and press charges whenever possible?
>>1236237
>consent from the governed
The governed have no business making decisions
>>1236247
Legal to remove people, really. Rallies are private events and have always been. When people complain that Trump supporters are looking for a "safe space", they're just showing off their ignorance. A rally is not a place to argue, that's what debates are for. It's a place for a candidate to garner support and for supporters to be able to openly show theirs. This has always been the case. I'm sure a portion of Trump supporters who are ignorant would also make the same case if there were consistently protests (or riots) within any other candidate's event.
>>1236229
Baby's safe space isn't safe enough. Perhaps we could execute a few protestors to discourage the others from trying to speak out against our movement which will MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. The wall just got ten feet higher
>>1236247
No one wants to actually take it to the supreme court and get a precedent. It's a much more powerful tool as it is now. Pressing charges means it could be found unconstitutional, or cause enough of an outcry that the law gets changed. It slipped under the radar with bipartisan support because it protects politicians.
It has not been illegal since the dawn of time, which is a dumb victim mentality meme. It's been a gray-zone law since 1971, meaning there is most likely an extremely high threshold of evidence required to act.
The 2012 update changes the wording so now you can create a safe space, and confine protesters to a protest area far far away, like "free speech" zones and makes it much easier to act.
>>1236264
>look at all these strawmen I can throw!
Fuck it, this is a /pol/ argument anyway and should stay there. I wish OPs on /his/ would stop using Trump in their images to discourage this kind of shitflinging.
>>1236237
The theory of republics is that the governed send a representative to vote for them. In practice, however, it's come down to special interests overriding the governed.
>>1236262
>safespaces are legal tho
t. you
>>1236262
Hilarious. Well it was "it's been since forever illegal to protest at rallies," oh wait never mind. The girls got in your club house (read safe space) and now you whine about it. Because whining about that would be far easier then defending the shit that comes out of trumps fat face. And yeah, I'm sure trump fans would definitely come to another candidates defense if this occurred to them... Oh wait when Bernie was interrupted in Washington by BLM all the trumpers came out to grunt "cuck" over and over again. The more articulate among them just said our strongman would never allow this, he would take their coat and cover the legal fees of the trumpers who stepped in to 'help'
I'm a monarchist, but the idea of that man as king is pretty much the contrary to the soul of monarchy, which requires great dignity. Being an American monarchist means supporting the British crown.
>>1236279
Needs more checks and balances desu
>>1236282
Do you have any argument other than "safe space"? Please, I'd honestly love to hear it.
>>1236277
Strawman hey. He said Mexicans crossing the border are rapists. He said McCain wasn't a war vet to be respected. He claimed Megan jelly couldn't do journalism because she's on her period. He insinuated that he has a big dick on national tv. He said women who get abortions should be punished, then flip flopped ten minutes later. He said he'd cover the legal fees of a fanboy who punched a protestor. He says stupid shit, maybe you haven't heard.
>>1236297
I'm not arguing against Trump. That's some other anon. I'm just making fun of safe spaces.
>>1236297
Not him, but argument for what..? That he says stupid incendiary shit? Who would argue against that? It's no secret when trumpers whine about protestors they are whining for a safe space to circle jerk.
>>1236294
>wanting to be ruled by Germans
No thanks.
>>1236310
Trump's ancestry is German as well.
>>1236301
>>1236306
Explain to me why a "safe space" is inherently bad, then. Once I left the rally I got bombarded with negative ads and signs and constant belittlement on the news anyway. It's not like I care, I just want to have one event where I can openly display my support without being drowned out by the media and people more militant than I am. Do you realize how difficult it would be for any non-establishment candidate to get anywhere if they didn't have that much right? We'd be a total oligarchy.
>>1236298
>>1236313
This is not relevant to an argument over rallies and I'm not about to try to refute a case of whataboutism.
>>1236295
Needs no input from the pleb public
>>1236294
>Being an American monarchist means supporting the British crown.
I support an empire of multiple kings, and a single emperor above them
I don't have an interest in being part of the commonwealth though. The revolution was treason, but at this point it'd be best for us to get our own monarch. Perhaps choose one from one of the current families with royal claims. I vote for a bourbon king
The Ancien Régime is America's first ally
>>1236323
Because safe spaces are hugboxes that remove you from reality and exist only for pandering to you. It doesn't matter if you're gay, a woman, a brown, or a Trump supporter. They're dumb and retarded.
>Do you realize how difficult it would be for any non-establishment candidate to get anywhere if they didn't have that much right? We'd be a total oligarchy.
>protestors are secretly controlled by the establishment to supress antiestablishment
>I just want to have one event where I can openly display my support without being drowned out by the media and people more militant than I am
>but i cant turn the tv off mom
Haha, what
>>1236323
A safe space is something trump supporters generally mock for one. I personally think if you can't handle the heat then stay outta the kitchen. I won't support sanctioned circle jerks. If you can't handle opposition then stay out of the political arena.
And it is so fitting you ignored all the stupid shit you know he said. Because "that isn't what we're talking about right now." This thread isn't an argument over safe spaces, it may include the notion of them, but this thread is about the functionality of democracy. Right now there is an election going on, and of the two parties, there are two candidates who have no principals. One of which will say literally anything to get elected. And it's working. That doesn't bode well for democracy in my opinion.
>>1236114
>Trump's people are mature enough to not go out of their way to attack other candidates' supporters.
>>1236294
You're also a tranny senpai
>>1236331
>I support an empire of multiple kings, and a single emperor above them
So which do you high loyalty to in the event of a conflict, hm?
>I don't have an interest in being part of the commonwealth though. The revolution was treason, but at this point it'd be best for us to get our own monarch. Perhaps choose one from one of the current families with royal claims. I vote for a bourbon king
Why should we choose a Bourbon monarch when we already have a rightful monarch? That makes no sense.
>The Ancien Régime is America's first ally
The first ally of anti-monarchists, maybe
>>1236331
>the revolution was treason
>it's okay for parliament to fuck up Massachusetts by breaking the agreement between the colony and England
>>1236347
Not at all. I'm an Orthodox Christian, transsexualism is a form of self-harm and mutilation.
>>1236353
Parliament is treason too unless called for by the king without external pressure, desu
>>1236237
Wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have to regard the masses as childish?
>>1236362
is wishes were horses then beggars would ride
>>1236354
Dunno man, word around here is you're a tripfag tranny. I haven't made up my mind yet, but the whole orthodox monarchy thing is a bit much. Having said that, there's at least a few in this thread who support (the R nominee) trump. So I'm on the fence about democracy.
>>1236354
Don't be silly of course you're a tranny. I can't remember if you're an ftm or mtf though
>>1236338
>Because safe spaces are hugboxes that remove you from reality and exist only for pandering to you. It doesn't matter if you're gay, a woman, a brown, or a Trump supporter. They're dumb and retarded.
This is just how indirect democracy functions. People take sides, and they like to celebrate their side. It's not like Trump's people do it less or more than others do.
>protestors are secretly controlled by the establishment to supress antiestablishment
I never said this. The point is that if we go for a system in which anyone can suppress anyone else's time to speak, whoever has the most willing and aggressive voters can just block out any other candidate by organizing protests to make it seem like that candidate doesn't have the support that they really do. This shuts them out from gaining any ground in politics.
>but i cant turn the tv off mom
I don't want to, because I want to be politically up-to-date. I want to read articles talking about the happenings and watch the broadcast polls and primary updates. Of course all of these places have lots of real opposition to my candidate, but anyone who wants to know what's going on has to grow up and accept it. If I loved a safe space I wouldn't be on /his/.
>>1236339
The only way to not ignore it would be to try to dissect every point he made, which I can't do because it would only be assumptions, just like his points. Certainly the argument you're all making is sound, that being that democracy is susceptible to demagogues, but you can't prove that he "will say literally anything to get elected" or that he has "no principles", and you can't put out simple statements as examples without explaining your point behind them.
>>1236349
>So which do you high loyalty to in the event of a conflict, hm?
The emperor
>we already have a rightful monarch?
The British monarchy is not the house of Hanover, and is certainly not the rightful ruler of King George III's American colonies.
Someone from the house of Hanover could also be invited
If they don't accept, then house Bourbon would be the next best choice due to their historic support for the American people
>>1236353
>the revolution was treason
Yes it was
>>1236366
I have sympathies regarding Trump's foreign policy, but the fact is, the significant possibility of him being our next president is probably the greatest possible indictment of our turn against the Crown. Our democracy is a farce, it's become a reality TV that caters to popular taste, the contestants have arguments about penis size and who has the prettier wife. It's repugnant.
>>1236368
Neither. The meme comes from an unhealthy obsession by this board with my sex, which I did absolutely nothing to foster
>>1236387
If you'd just answered the question of "are you actually a girl" with yes/no instead a rant about how it doesn't matter in an evasive matter it wouldn't have blown up into a meme
>>1236375
>The emperor
That's never going to happen, are you going to choose Emperor Durka Durka over your own monarch if there is a conflict?
>The British monarchy is not the house of Hanover, and is certainly not the rightful ruler of King George III's American colonies.
The Colonies are right of the Crown, and that hasn't changed regardless of the house in that stead.
Your choices are all arbitrary and narcissistic. Monarchism is not about choosing who gets to be your monarch.
>>1236387
ARE YOU A GIRL CONSTANTINE
also you never answer this question either
ARE YOU RUSSIAN, CONSTANTINE
>>1236114
Was being ironic part of your plan?
>>1236373
>>Do you realize how difficult it would be for any non-establishment candidate to get anywhere if they didn't have that much right? We'd be a total oligarchy.
>I never said this. The point is that if we go for a system in which anyone can suppress anyone else's time to speak, whoever has the most willing and aggressive voters can just block out any other candidate by organizing protests to make it seem like that candidate doesn't have the support that they really do. This shuts them out from gaining any ground in politics.
Protestors are totally establishment man, backpedaling faggot.
>>1236387
It would be even worse then.
>>1236373
>>It's not like Trump's people do it less or more than others do.
dunno about that. Only candidate to ever say I'll cover the legal fees of my supporter because he assaulted someone
>>trump is so oppressed omg
Jesus Christ this guy is on the tv 24/7. He's drown out all the candidates because the media loves a train wreck.
Fucking no one can stop him from getting his message out. How the fuck isn't this obvious? Still you're actually claiming to want a safe space.
I can't prove he'll say anything to get elected. I can repeat what he says and apparently you tacitly support it. Which is ludicrous because the shit he's says is mind numbingly stupid. But you don't see this because you actually seem to think he is a man of principles. Even though that really isn't what it looks like. But I can't objectively prove it, therefore trump is good. But since you haven't outright supported trump in any of your statements, this is the part you cry le strawman.
>>1236339
Durrrrrr
>>1236392
>The Colonies are right of the Crown
They're the right of the house of Hanover
The house of Windsor is not the American royal family, and has no legitimate right to it fag
>Emperor Durka Durka over your own monarch if there is a conflict
Yes
Loyalists exist in all conflicts
>Monarchism is not about choosing who gets to be your monarch
Our legitimate monarchs are few and far between
And we've been an independent nation for centuries
The Brits have no rightful claim to the colonies, but a monarch is needed. The one with the most connection to America, other than Hanover is Bourbon. The crown should go to Hanover, and if they won't accept it then it shoudl go to Bourbon. Plain and simple
Deal with it heretic
>>1236405
I think Trump's line about "pandering" in picking a vp makes it obvious as fuck.
Trump is pandering to a large population that hasn't been pandered to for some time, and they can't see what's right under their nose, and eat that shit up and his narrative just like feminists and microagression theory or whatever.
They can't see they're being pandered to because their narrative is they're anti-pandering. It;s just like the safe space thing. It's not that they're anti-pandering or anti-safe-space. They just want to be the ones who are pandered to, and they want safe spaces too.
>>1236398
The only way it could end up worse is if you were actually a girl
>>1236416
What about a native American monarch?
Make America native again
>>1236423
Natives didn't really have monarchies like Europe
Republics are inherently better....if ALL your people are educated, reasonable and represented, something that's just not possible, but at least you rely on millions of people to not be retarded rather than chancing it all on a single all-powerful individual, that's even the reason parliaments and some structures to limit the monarch's power emerged, once all power is concentrated in a person things can go to shit pretty fast.
Also
>there are people honestly trying to shill trump itt
Why do you do this to yourselves?
>>1236420
She's a girl who pretends to be a boy online and threfore is a tranny
>>1236427
Hawaii did. Hawaii was a sovereign nation with a sovereign. Can we at least have Hawaiian independence?
>>1236418
Well said. They believe their immune to the games politicians play. Trump has just taken it to a new level. He's assembled his fan club quite masterfully. And to tie it into history, this is what always seems to happen. From the fall of the republic to the increasingly powerful American president.
>>1236397
My point in depth is that the Establishment generally gets very heavily supported by the media, and it's through the media that people get their information. If the Establishment shows that there's more support for a particular candidate, it will encourage people to also support that candidate. This is a pretty proven case example-wise. When the media has an obligation to show a candidate's events, but not an obligation to interpret it any particular way, it's easy for the media to put down a non-establishment candidate if they don't have to show the huge amounts of support they have. This is what would happen in a society in which voices can be drowned out. The Establishment would be happy to know that there are many people out there who get their opinions from the media, and if the media doesn't have to show that a candidate has support, we go back to the point that that candidate will not gain traction because people will be deterred from supporting them. This doesn't mean the Establishment "controls" them, so don't put words in my mouth.
>>1235963
>Are democracies and republics inherently unstable? Monarchies and dictatorships lasted for thousands of years, while democracy at best lasted for about 300.
Take a look at the conditions they operated in. What you are saying here would be like saying that monarchies are unstable because they only lasted a thousand years compared to the tens of thousands of tribal democracy
>>1236415
But I thought the only syllable you knew cuck... My whole world view is being destroyed.
>>1236430
Hawaii could be a state with a Hawaiian king
A US emperor would still be above overall
>>1236416
No, their line which had the right to the crown (and hence right to rule America) died with Queen Victoria. The right to rule America passes to the next in succession to the crown, not someone who is far off in succession just because they have the same name.
>>1236429
I don't think you know what a tranny is.
>>1236430
I would support that.
>>1236441
Emperor of the United States is a different crown which the House of Windsor has no claim to
>>1236434
Or you could be Trump, work in media, know the ins and outs of the media, and learn to play the media.
You tried to justify removing protestors as but muh establishment, muh oligarchy. What do you think is better for establishment? Allowing protests or suppressing protest?
>>1236066
>Republican rome was a far more virile sucessful civilization than either monarchic rome or imperial rome, but that is because it's citizenship was constrained to romans and only romans
Until it got into political deadlocks toward the end that was nearly impossible to solve and got lucky that they weren't invaded by any serious force when that happened.
>>1236452
Allowing them is good for the establishment itself, but not for the people working within it at the time.
>>1236405
>But you don't see this because you actually seem to think he is a man of principles
He has coherent ideas for America. This, in my mind at least it seems, makes him a man of principle.
>Even though that really isn't what it looks like
Because that's nothing but personal interpretation. I could ignorantly say it "seems like" blacks are inferior to whites, or that it "seems like" Hillary Clinton maliciously committed her e-mail scandal, and I would have no right to act victimized when someone tells me to prove it. Yes, unfortunately my friend, in the real world you have to prove things for people to take them seriously.
>>1236455
>got lucky that they weren't invaded by any serious force when that happened.
The Kimbri and Teutons were considerably larger than the forces that toppled the Roman empire.
Shit got Marius'd
>>1236451
How exactly can a claim to rule America be shown here?
>>1236365
Well, solutions have to start from something.
It's a good question though, why do we regard the masses as childish? You'd think people would take the privilege of shaping the government very seriously.
>>1236456
It's only good in the fact that it allows a change of the guard without the total collapse of society if that's what you mean by establishment.
>>1236467
Grant the crown and he's got a title to defend
If he can do so his legitimacy has been pressed by force, like literally every royal title starts.
House of Bourbon > House of Windsor
The Windsor family is shit tier, and I can't wait for their next king to be the first to not be crowned "defender of the faith" to prove me right
>>1236462
Why you insist on making me prove he's a shit head? Obviously I can't do that because you're right, it's a matter of perspective. Since you know so much about the real world, I'm baffled that you think he has a coherent vision for the future. Can you describe them as you see them to make discussion easier?
My point is he's said terrible shit, from trashing war veterans, to saying all immigrants are rapists, to making fun of a disabled journalist, to saying he'd force generals to break the law and torture people, to saying women can't function on their periods, to women should be punished for having abortions. It goes on and on and I think its unacceptable, I must assume you agree with his statements.
My friend you do realize I can't prove that these are shitty things to say because it's based entirely in morality. For being on a history board one would think you'd know that. I think this bodes poorly for democracy because he's fear mongering, it's obvious, and it's working. Even on what I assume is a reasonably intelligent person such as yourself
>>1236477
>Grant the crown
On whose authority?
>>1236477
>The Windsor family is shit tier, and I can't wait for their next king to be the first to not be crowned "defender of the faith" to prove me right
He might make the Church of England Orthodox, which would be a good thing.
>>1236491
>to saying all immigrants are rapists
Source?
>>1236491
>to women should be punished for having abortions
I don't deny that it is very hard for what women do through, but if you see abortion as murder, then not punishing women who have one would be a massive double-standard, and if you don't see it as murder, then outlawing it would be ludicrous.
>>1236498
>He might make the Church of England Orthodox
Glad you've outted on why you're supporting the SJW who vowed to call himself defender of faith, instead of defender of the faith
He's a byzaboo, who'll join a shit tier apostate church
>>1236493
Papal
>>1236502
Uhhh seriously? How are you participating in this conversation? I believe he said 'Mexico, they, they're not sending their best people. They're sending rapists and criminals' Fucking google it, it's not a secret and trump wants you to know.
>>1236491
>to women should be punished for having abortions
>goodness gracious we can't punish the poor women murdering their children
Get fucked
>>1236493
God chose the House of Bourbon to oust the British crown from the United States
It's his will that they be granted the crown to it's new empire
>>1236510
I agree. I don't see it that way. And we're trying to discuss democracy and it's failures. Which are all around us. Entirely uninterested in a religious debate on abortion. We can agree to disagree right now
>>1235963
depends heavily on national identity
>>1236515
I think he objects to your use of all.
>>1236512
>implying the pope is legitimate
>>1236520
God sure rewarded King Louis for that, eh?
>>1236516
It's not illegal you derp. Check out the Supreme Court sometime. Christcuck we aren't fighting here. Take your zealotry and shove it up your ass.
>>1236535
He punished the French with the reign of terror for their treason
>>1236541
But the French Revolution had the same ideals as the America one Louis supported. Secularism and democracy.
>>1236538
>when I define murder as killing only against my nation's laws it stops being wrong hahaha
>I are a genius
>Oh no except for the major contradiction that is double homicides when pregnant women, no matter the stage of development, are murdered
Get fucked
>>1236515
> I believe he said 'Mexico, they, they're not sending their best people. They're sending rapists and criminals' Fucking google it, it's not a secret and trump wants you to know.
I googled the quote
>"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
How does that translate to Trump saying all immigrants (black/white/yellowect) illegal or legal are rapists?
>>1236532
Fair enough. The actual quote I believe is correct, and he passively implies all, to which I'm sure he back peddled. I still say the point stands, people are vulnerable to fear mongering. And we're witnessing it now, and over the last 100 years the presidency has grown stronger and stronger. With a presidential candidate saying he'd force generals to commit war crimes. It's not making democracy look to great.
>>1236545
>Cult of Reason
>Secularism
>Madness that was the complete revolution of every facet of society from the calendar, to the cult of the state
Yeah that was not what happened in the US and you know
Things barely changed after the American revolution, because it wasn't an attempt to restructure society like the French Revolution, and it certainly wasn't the American revolution's goal to go around exporting liberalism around the world's monarchies like the First Republic. It was selfish treason yes, but it wasn't the same as the French Revolution
>>1236084
I don't remember a time trump fans blocked highways and threatened to riot when they didn't get their way homie.
>>1236491
>My friend you do realize I can't prove that these are shitty things to say because it's based entirely in morality
The point is not whether they're shitty things to say, the point is whether they display an inherent flaw of democracy by proving Trump is a demagogue. But you can't say that without proof when at the same time it's clear he has many many ideas which resonate with the American voterbase.
Now, if you're trying to argue that he's using media attention to spread his viewpoints, I can agree to that. This can be easily interpreted as a flaw of democracy, but I would argue that it's a flaw of authority in general. Obviously Trump is part of a class of people which can easily receive a noticeable mention from the media just by sneezing, but this exists equally through the aristocracy in a monarchy. The aristocrats control the media. They can make their own opinions heard much more loudly than an average person can. It makes people think certain ways because of what they hear through the press. Unless you believe that monarchy isn't meant for the people at all, which is a totally different argument, then this could be a disaster for any society that relies on the will of the people to thrive, which is pretty much every society.
>he's fear mongering, it's obvious
Fear isn't inherently bad. If people didn't fear things they would never vote. Any candidate's urges could be interpreted as fear mongering. Trump is obviously more intense because he's trying to acknowledge serious issues in the very establishment of our country's politics, which would certainly make a lot of people afraid.
>>1236559
That's not what happened in the U.S. only because people like Jefferson and Paine couldn't make it happen.
The U.S. changed massively after the Revolution, don't kid yourself.
>The departure of so many royal officials, rich merchants and landed gentry destroyed the hierarchical networks that had dominated most of the colonies. In New York, the departure of key members of the DeLancy, DePester Walton and Cruger families undercut the interlocking families that largely owned and controlled the Hudson Valley. Likewise in Pennsylvania, the departure of powerful families—Penn, Allen, Chew, Shippen—destroyed the cohesion of the old upper class there. Massachusetts passed an act banishing forty-six Boston merchants in 1778, including members of some of Boston's wealthiest families. The departure of families such as the Ervings, Winslows, Clarks, and Lloyds deprived Massachusetts of men who had hitherto been leaders of networks of family and clients. The bases of the men who replaced them were much different. One rich Patriot in Boston noted in 1779 that "fellows who would have cleaned my shoes five years ago, have amassed fortunes and are riding in chariots." That is, new men now became rich merchants but they shared a spirit of republican equality that replaced the elitism and the Americans never recreated such a powerful upper class as had existed before.[50]
>>1236552
It doesn't. If I inferred all, I didn't mean to. He says flat out they're not sending their best people, their sending rapists etc etc. This implies allow them but isn't explicit. I don't think it matters, the shit he says is ridiculous or fear mongering and usually both. I cannot prove this is shitty stuff to say. To me him saying anything about rapists and mass deportation is insane. Even if he didn't explictly say all immigrants are rapists, he says incendiary shit meant to provoke fear in people. This is bad for democracy, flat out terrible.
>>1236582
>Some rich families left
>This is the same as the massacres in France
Okay
>>1236586
Maybe it's because the spics being sent are actually rapists and drug dealers you bleeding heart
>>1236563
Oh ok. Nice contribution. I don't remember a trumper punching a protester and then trump offering to pay the legal fees for the assault, 'homie'
So call it a draw
This isn't pol, were/was discussing the development and the state of democracy.
>>1236593
Class completely disappeared, as well as centralized religion (replaced by a million cults).
>>1236604
>Class completely disappeared
Bullshit, it's just based on who's wealthy and who isn't
If you think it isn't incredibly static you're a lunatic
>as well as centralized religion
The US always had a million cults
This is where the Protestant reformation's fringe was sent from the beginning
Mainline Protestant morality legislation was still common until recently though (read: sodomy laws that existed up until 2003
>>1236154
>he could've sat on the money he started with and had more than he does now.
you know fuck all and are blindly repeating old memes
>he mocks the disabled
oh heaven forbid
>>1236586
>It doesn't. If I inferred all, I didn't mean to. He says flat out they're not sending their best people, their sending rapists etc etc. This implies allow them but isn't explicit. I don't think it matters, the shit he says is ridiculous or fear mongering and usually both. I cannot prove this is shitty stuff to say. To me him saying anything about rapists and mass deportation is insane. Even if he didn't explictly say all immigrants are rapists, he says incendiary shit meant to provoke fear in people. This is bad for democracy, flat out terrible.
You literally falsify the positions of a candidate attributing gross and horrific exaggerations to him and then based on these admitted falsehoods go on to use this a proof of a terrible problem.
The only person fear mongering here is yourself.
>>1236169
you're pretending like that isn't a revolutionary position
>>1236601
Are you honestly saying that the comment there is equal to left wing supporters violently preventing Trump supporters from listening to him speak and making a point of disrupting his rallies?
>>1236573
>> The point is not whether they're shitty things to say, the point is whether they display an inherent flaw of democracy by proving Trump is a demagogue. But you can't say that without proof when at the same time it's clear he has many many ideas which resonate with the American voterbase.
No my point is they're shitty things to say and they are working. You seem to be implying that because they're working they are not shitty things to say or believe. Which is ridiculous. How the fuck would I prove trump is a demagogue? How are you not understanding that's impossible? I don't think providing compelling evidence would be hard. But you'd see it differently.
>>fear mongering is good
Won't waste too much time. Appealing to mans base instincts, especially anger and fear only create a stronger us vs them. I think that's a negative, especially in a democracy where cooperation and communication are vital. I don't understand how you think trump is trying to address serious issues whereas the other candidates were not. I'd make a converse argument that of all the candidates he's provided the least substance, even at this point where he's been the presumptive nominee for weeks.
Also I haven't been advocating a monarchy.
>>1236066
>plus protection of speech rights
Doesn't he want to shut down the internet or something?
>>1236028
Germany was a joke country in ruin when Hitler rose. People complain about "muh economy" in the US but we still make more money than any other country. It would be hard not to with this much temperate land.
In any case, not comparable at all to the political climate in post-WWI Germany. America has yet to experience that extreme level of cuckolding and loss of territory.
Democracy has only been a serious political idea for 300 years. Democracy spread throughout the globe absurdly quickly after ww2 and then after the cold war.
>>1236618
>Bullshit, it's just based on who's wealthy and who isn't
This is class in liberalism, not class in a traditional sense.
>The US always had a million cults
And the Revolution took away the bulwark that kept them from too much social influence.
>>1236657
He said "close up", whatever that means. Sounds awfully fishy to me tbqh
>>1236628
>>You literally falsify the positions of a candidate attributing gross and horrific exaggerations to him and then based on these admitted falsehoods go on to use this a proof of a terrible problem.
nope not even close. Go back to pol. Falsehoods. He said Mexico is sending rapists. I conveyed that message with a high degree of accuracy, I don't believe I said all, neither did he, but it was implied in both cases. You and the other pol/acks getting in this thread can shit fling all you want. Helps illuminate the state of our democracy is in.
>>1236237
Make sure the people who vote have a stake in the game
>>1236667
That's wonderful
But you still haven't shown it to be even remotely the same as what the French Revolution did.
Secondly House of Bourbon is still better than the House of Windsor ever was or will be for the US
Not to mention the Treaty of Paris recognized that the US was independent, and thus renounced their claim to it by the British crown
>>1236670
>Mexico is sending rapists
>that means they aren't sending drug dealers, farm laborers, welfare sponges, normal people too.
>only rapists are allowed to cross
you are being deliberately retarded
kill yourself
>>1236640
Yeah I would dipstick. Trump is running for president and offering to cover his supporters legal fees after they adult someone. The mob is the mob and does what it does, from trumpsters violently attacking, to anti trumpers doing the same thing. That's why their names won't be on a ballet.
>>1236640
Back to pol. This is shit tier bait
>>1236678
Fuck off back to pol. He said they're sending rapists. I said he said that. Case closed. Go back to your safe space. I guess a picture of God trump was bound to draw in the flies tho..
>>1236586
Except he is completely correct. Why do you think the heroin trade in America has only gotten worse over the last 5 or so years? why do you think the death rate has gone up for the first time in a decade? All of it points to drugs, and they are coming from Mexico
>>1236646
>
No my point is they're shitty things to say and they are working. You seem to be implying that because they're working they are not shitty things to say or believe. Which is ridiculous. How the fuck would I prove trump is a demagogue? How are you not understanding that's impossible? I don't think providing compelling evidence would be hard. But you'd see it differently.
Then you're missing the point. I'll go as far as to agree that some of the things you listed are shitty, and that others are simply matters of policy.
Whether he's a demagogue is the real point. If someone has genuine viewpoints and presents them, and people agree, then he is not a demagogue. It means he has agreeable ideas. Whether you believe these are good or bad things doesn't matter. Again, you can attribute anyone to be a demagogue if you can't discriminate between statements of policy and those which are just politically unbased insults. Does Trump fit partially into both of these? Yes, but I firmly agree that his policy is what is more important to his recent success, and unless you can convince me otherwise, you can't say that he is a demagogue.
>>fear mongering is good
It's neither good or bad. It depends on what you're using it for. When, in the case of Trump, you have an advocation to tighten our laws, and it can be supported that such an act is necessary, then stating legitimate flaws in our current system in order to convince people of a problem is justified. If he couldn't support it, and had no legitimate flaws to push, then it would be a poor case of politician fear mongering.
>>1236670
>nope not even close. Go back to pol. Falsehoods. He said Mexico is sending rapists. I conveyed that message with a high degree of accuracy, I don't believe I said all, neither did he, but it was implied in both cases.
So accurate was your reporting that you happened to chop of the "good people part" and ignored all his other clarifications of that point and his policies towards immigrants and Mexico.
Notice how you said he said that all immigrants were rapists and that only when challenged to give substance to that you changed to it to being an "inference"
Ask yourself this, how many quotes, policy statements and the like would it take for you believe that Trump immigration policy is directed at illegal immigrants and because 62% of them are from Mexico they have the spotlight?
>You and the other pol/acks getting in this thread can shit fling all you want. Helps illuminate the state of our democracy is in.
Im not flinging shit here only pointing out that one of the assumptions you make on your argument is not founded.
>>1236699
Fucktard it has a lot more to do with Afghanistan and the prescription pill epidemic. Abandon thread
>>1236692
troll
>>1236712
I recommend you check out a book called Dreamland: The True tale of America's Opiate Epidemic
If you read it, you'll realize that most of the people dying from heroin are addicted to prescription drugs in the first place
>>1236685
>Yeah I would dipstick. Trump is running for president and offering to cover his supporters legal fees after they adult someone. The mob is the mob and does what it does, from trumpsters violently attacking, to anti trumpers doing the same
Have you got any sources of Trump supporters going out to attack and break up any other rallies?
Well yeah they are. Look at fucking Russia or North Korea. They haven't changed in a decade, while the EU and US government always feel like they're on a fucking meme rollercoaster from one crisis to the next.
>>1236677
The French Revolution has worse results purely due to scarcity of land. America had abundant land, not really much royalty residing it it. If there was a institutionalized royalty residing in America, and a scarcity of land, you'd have seen the same exact thing.
>Secondly House of Bourbon is still better than the House of Windsor ever was or will be for the US
Monarchism is not about picking and choosing which family you want, it is about loyalty to the family with legitimate claim. The whole point of monarchism is that you *don't* choose your leader.
>Not to mention the Treaty of Paris recognized that the US was independent, and thus renounced their claim to it by the British crown
As opposed to the French crown, which never made any pretense to such a claim?
>>1236701
Who decides the point? Apparently you. I can't prove he's or anyone is a demagogue. We've been through this. Just because people agree doesn't make his opinions valid, it just makes him an effective demagogue.
I've made clear how I feel about fear mongering. You disagree, partly because your candidate uses it. He's divide and conquer, total war style. We have to agree to disagree. Neither of us can prove objectively anything, this is a discussion on the idea of democracy after all. We can agree the state of democracy is poor I think. We can also agree pol has arrived so I'm outta here. I appreciate the discussion and meant no offense being a dickhead.
>>1236726
Definitely. I lived it. The over prescription of painkillers drove this mess
>>1236728
>>Have you got any sources of Trump supporters going out to attack and break up any other rallies?
Now that I think about it, no...no I don't. Oh my god that means we should elect him King. I see the light now brothers! MAGA. Ten feet higher. Bye all, I'm off to shitpost.
>>1236133
I thought the left was in favour of protectionism
>>1236711
Oh my god I didn't provide the entire context. I bet I misled a few people from our true savior. I have seen the light now brother, my slanderous attack is unforgivable and certainly worth your wall of text. All the things I said he said, about John McCain, Megan kelly, about banning Muslims and ordering generals to commit war crimes, all the way back to his tin foil conspiracy hat of the birther controversy.. All of that just needed context. I see the error in my ways and repent.
>>1236771
>Get BTFO and outed for the slimy rat that you are
>Be a smug dick about it because you're a fucking cuck
>>1236777
Oooh direct hit, nailed it. Go back to your safe space that is pol. Wish we could build a wall around it, so I wouldn't feel compelled to converse with the disgusting degenerate cuckold scum.
>>1236755
Some more choice "inferences" to prove the failure the failure of democracy eh?
>>1236789
Fucking adorable how thin skinned you are. Much like your leader and his enormous cock. Which he totally didn't INFER (chuckles) on national tv. So cute
>>1236785
I'm not even /pol/ you leftist nigger, but the fact is that you've been show to be quote mining, and cherry picking, and making bullshit lies to discredit a candidate that you don't like
Telling me to go a nazi shitposting safe space is your attempt to make /his/ your own safe space from non-leftist opinions
Why don't you fuck off to >>>/r/eddit or >>>/leftypol/ for your own safe space
>>1236794
>le cutesy talk
Ah yes, the standard leftist defense position when their brain shuts down and they have no argument left
>>1236795
Oooooh check it out /his, it's a pol comes to his and gets real butthurt episode. I know my campaign of disinformation is terror inducing, but I totally believe in your ability to be misinformed.
>>1236794
>Fucking adorable how thin skinned you are. Much like your leader and his enormous cock.
Not even an American. There are good examples of problems with democracy and your arguments and not amoung them.
>>1236797
You too hey. Yes, you got me. I'm a Frankfort school agent. And a Jew, I almost forgot about that. Brb gonna go kill myself
>>1236798
Fuck off faggot redditor
You're as cancerous to the board as /pol/ stormniggers
>>1236804
No, you're just a normie with painfully generic opinions.
>>1236802
Don't you have shitposting to do? I hope you eat your steaks well done like our dear leader, anything else is heresy.
>>1236811
I don't visit pol nearly as much as I should, you know. Sorry for stealing your schtick, didn't mean to offend.
>>1236823
>u mad xD
>a high level of discourse is expected
>>1236825
This thread lost any semblance of that long ago. It held together longer than expected, it had a picture of emperor trump for Christ sakes.
>>1236829
>this thread's potential for high quality discourse isn't high
>better make it zero by shitting it up with condescending baby talk
>UNIRONIC
>MONARCHIST
>SHITPOSTING
>>1236106
So basically
>Trump
>Imperium of man
>Hillary
>The tyranids
>Sanders
>Tau empire
>>1236375
>rightful ruler of America
Kings and queens have absolutely no right to rule America, we have no obligation to make someone from the House of Hanover or any other house for that matter. We kicked them out and established a different political system and even have it in our consititution a rule that prevents us from having a king. The British lost and recognized our independence, any insistance that the US should get a monarch is absurd and nonsensical. We have been very stable through our existance without one, far more stable than European monarchies before they fell.
>>1237755
Fuck off
>>1235990
>hillary
>competent
>>1237762
>He expressed an opinion? What do I do!?
>I know! I'll tell him to fuck off!
>>1236039
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_War_%2891%E2%80%9388_BC%29
faggot
itt: lol trump sucks!
>why?
LOL are you KIDDING me? its 2016!!
There hasn't been a single argument in this thread that isn't just "his policies are bad becuase salon says so"
>>1236093
You sound clingy as fuck
>>1236093
>Being this much of a child
I thought summerfags weren't due for another couple weeks
>>1237799
Please leave this place
>200+ replies to a thread whose OP does nothing but imply that Donald Trump has dissolved the Constitution and ended the American tradition of small-r republican government
How has this thread not been deleted?
>>1236051
Republicans have always been protectionists. Democrats were the ones pushing free trade. At least traditionally.
Name a dynasty that has outlasted the Democratic United States of America.
Especially a dictatorship.
>>1237824
>>1237861
Bourbons in Spain. That is the first one to come to mind. The house of Borgogna rulled Leon/Castille for 600 years. That is another one. The Capet's ruled France since forever,and the Habsburgs ruled Austria longer than America's existance
>>1237879
post American independence.
>>1237888
I dont know,but that is quite a crappy limitation,that proves nothing.
>>1236093
There is a difference between protesting someone and beating up their supporters and throwing rocks at them.
But of course, blinded as you are by your own self righteousness, are too daft to see it
