Liberal Democratic UnionBoard

WW3
The city of Oujda, Morocco has been fully encircled well the air force bombs the air port

Lochak wrote:

As an american,

i agree this place sucks

Worse than Europe but better than most everywhere else, unless you're rich of course!

Vantier wrote:

And what if your king is an incompetent cheater who caused a diplomatic crisis after breaking his leg while hunting elephants in Botswana?
Juan Carlos I moment

For democracy to be successful, the entire nation must be wise. Monarchy requires just one person to be wise. Which is more likely in today's day and age of degeneracy and rampant liberalism? Even in the holy continent of Europe itself.

Furthermore, it's easier to deal with a single, easily regicidable, bad king than an almost infinitely growing class of corrupt oligarchs and corrupt congressmen spawned by democracy.

Some say that Europe is falling due to bloody immigrants, I say hell to that! The Europe we knew died the instant we stopped following our old traditions for the sake of modernity. A system that was, has been, and will continue to be- efficient for the last 900 years.

Filipinn wrote:

Isn't that an inherently bad thing?I agree. If I had the money, I'd move to Sweden.

Sweden is defenitely a good place to live. But most of Western-Europe is (some even centre and easter, like Poland and Czech Republic). I can't imagine living in the USA. I'd never move there unless for work if necessary. But for now Belgium keeps my favorite place to live, although I really like Finland. Belgium is a messy place, but it's our messy place.

Pan-Pacific States wrote:

Democracy is a government for the people, by the people, of the people; but the people are retarded. The solution isn't necessarily a regression to authoritarianism but to reduce the amount of control the government should have on the people. As if a king wouldn't be easily corrupted by oligarchs or their own selfish interest.

Firstly, noice quoting of memri tv.

But secondly, how would a king be corrupted by bribes exactly? What are you going to bribe an emperor with? Currency that has his own face minted on it?

Plus, like I said. This is why it's better to just have a simple absolute monarch and a military. No need for petty nobles, or annoying as hell bureaucrats carrying prime minsters in their pockets.

Just one, single, trained from birth leader with complete control over the nations police and military. A cabinet of ministers directly chosen by him based on merit not a popularity contest.

If anything, I'd say that monarchy is more moral. If a king screws up, it's completely and utterly his fault. If a representative on the other hand screws up, every single damn person who voted for them will have to bear the guilt forever, since they indirectly had a part in letting him get into power.

This is why I would never insult a Chinese person under their dictatorial government, but I am wholly willing to berate every American person for what nonsense their president does because they chose that idiot.

You'd never say that a person from Saudi Arabia is a terrorist just because his monarchy fund's terrorists would you? Of course not. He had absolutely no say in what his king did. So he doesn't deserve to be blamed for it in the slightest.

However, you would wholeheartedly consider every single 1945 German to be a Nazi wouldn't you? And of course! It was completely their fault for electing a leader, that openly and often publicly disclosed his plans in great detail.

Just another point why I feel monarchy is better. Not denying that Kings can't be corrupted, it's often just easier to deal with one jackass than an army and lawyer-ed up platoon of jackasses

Das viertes kaiserreich wrote:

Firstly, noice quoting of memri tv.

But secondly, how would a king be corrupted by bribes exactly? What are you going to bribe an emperor with? Currency that has his own face minted on it?

Plus, like I said. This is why it's better to just have a simple absolute monarch and a military. No need for petty nobles, or annoying as hell bureaucrats carrying prime minsters in their pockets.

Just one, single, trained from birth leader with complete control over the nations police and military. A cabinet of ministers directly chosen by him based on merit not a popularity contest.

If anything, I'd say that monarchy is more moral. If a king screws up, it's completely and utterly his fault. If a representative on the other hand screws up, every single damn person who voted for them will have to bear the guilt forever, since they indirectly had a part in letting him get into power.

This is why I would never insult a Chinese person under their dictatorial government, but I am wholly willing to berate every American person for what nonsense their president does because they chose that idiot.

You'd never say that a person from Saudi Arabia is a terrorist just because his monarchy fund's terrorists would you? Of course not. He had absolutely no say in what his king did. So he doesn't deserve to be blamed for it in the slightest.

However, you would wholeheartedly consider every single 1945 German to be a Nazi wouldn't you? And of course! It was completely their fault for electing a leader, that openly and often publicly disclosed his plans in great detail.

Just another point why I feel monarchy is better. Not denying that Kings can't be corrupted, it's often just easier to deal with one jackass than an army and lawyer-ed up platoon of jackasses

I agree in that regard. As a Taiwanese, I feel horrible for what happens to our fellow brothers in the insane monstrosity to the west. It's even more scary that something like that can be what we're ruled under one day, with how the CCP is going and it terrifies me.

Some like the communists, some like the nationalists.

But we all know neither of them hold the Mandate of Heaven

Das viertes kaiserreich wrote:

For democracy to be successful, the entire nation must be wise. Monarchy requires just one person to be wise. Which is more likely in today's day and age of degeneracy and rampant liberalism? Even in the holy continent of Europe itself.

Furthermore, it's easier to deal with a single, easily regicidable, bad king than an almost infinitely growing class of corrupt oligarchs and corrupt congressmen spawned by democracy.

Some say that Europe is falling due to bloody immigrants, I say hell to that! The Europe we knew died the instant we stopped following our old traditions for the sake of modernity. A system that was, has been, and will continue to be- efficient for the last 900 years.

Monarchies failed because monarchs failed, too. If the person that controls everything and is the absolute leader of the nation is not wise, it can lead to the nation's collapse, because there is nobody with the power to stop them. In democracies, however, the leader doesn't have unlimited, unquestionable power and if the leader makes a truly awful mistake, they will be held accountable for that. While it is true that an unwise populace can be very harmful to the nation, with very little education and logic they are able to understand the situation of the country. What is actually more dangerous is politicians that exaggerate and lie, just to earn a few more votes. Then, they become dictators. Take a look at Venezuela or Russia. Both were initially democracies and Venezuela in particular was rather thriving, but some parties took advantage of some social issues and exaggerated them. Then, they win elections, become dictators and ruin the country after a brief period of economic success.
While democracies are very faulty, they are much better than absolute monarchies and dictatorships in every single way. When a person holds too much power, they abuse it most of the time. They crush the opposition that may have a point, and refuse to listen to critics. As a result, they ignore the situation of the nation. Dictatorships and monarchies are doomed, that's undeniable. Only constitutional monarchies may survive and endure, because the king has barely any power. The UK may remain a monarchy, as long as Elizabeth is the queen. But I guarantee you that, shall Charles try to abuse his power once Elizabeth dies, the UK will become a republic in no time. This has already happened once, it can happen twice.
And the reason why Spain is still a monarchy is because we haven't been allowed to vote against it. Only when our constitution was created, back in 1978, we were able to "vote" against it. But it was tricky, since the monarchy was included with the democracy we desired. People just wanted to live in a democratic country, so they just accepted it. If we were allowed to do a referendum to stablish a third republic, you can be sure we would stop being a monarchy.

Das viertes kaiserreich wrote:

For democracy to be successful, the entire nation must be wise. Monarchy requires just one person to be wise. Which is more likely in today's day and age of degeneracy and rampant liberalism? Even in the holy continent of Europe itself.

Furthermore, it's easier to deal with a single, easily regicidable, bad king than an almost infinitely growing class of corrupt oligarchs and corrupt congressmen spawned by democracy.

Some say that Europe is falling due to bloody immigrants, I say hell to that! The Europe we knew died the instant we stopped following our old traditions for the sake of modernity. A system that was, has been, and will continue to be- efficient for the last 900 years.

Umm I have to ask, are those your irl opinions or RP opinions?

Romanum et Britannia Minor wrote:

*ignores the fact that mcdonalds is also in spain*

To be fair, American McDonald’s just tastes better.

Usoniy wrote:

*ignores the part I said American mcDonald's*

Potenzia wrote:

It seems like the main problems in Spain are robbery, public masturbation, and cocaine addiction. But at least we’re unlikely to be shot here.

Unless you go to Vallecas...

Potenzia wrote:

It seems like the main problems in Spain are robbery, public masturbation, and cocaine addiction. But at least we’re unlikely to be shot here.

Isn't there an issue of unemployment in Spain, I heard it's actually the worst in Europe (including Eastern Europe, The Balkans and Greece)

Filipinn wrote:

Isn't that an inherently bad thing?I agree. If I had the money, I'd move to Sweden.

Sweden is very nice place if you want to get raped.