What Form Of Government Is Better Than A Constitutional Republic?

[dblack]

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson already did that. And they called it America.

Whatever. I'll continue to stand against the fascist culture war.

 

[toobfreak]

Whatever. I'll continue to stand against the fascist culture war.

Good! The fascist culture war is not about diversity, it is about a globalist-socialist indoctrination in a perverse way of life.

 

[cnm]

Wow are you really that dumb?

It appears I am that dumb in expecting you to be able to give the metrics you would use in measuring the worth of a form of government.

Too, I am that dumb in thinking you may abandon your semantic security blanket of 'happiness' in order to discuss the best form of government.

My bad. Especially since I already know what a fuckwit you are.

Mea culpa.

 

[cnm]

Saying that happiness is subjective in now way means I "don't like happiness".

For the hard of reading comprehension that was, 'you don't like happiness as a metric of the form of government'.

I realise now you cannot give up your semantic security blanket, nor can you remedy your lack of reading comprehension. As you say your government failed you there and you yourself did no better.

To think you couldn't even do better than the government you despise. Hang your head in shame.

 

[cnm]

And you are utterly incapable of comprehending what I am saying.

I understand you cannot give a metric for evaluating the forms of government. It should not have taken me so long to accept that, agreed.

 

[cnm]

Multiculturalism leads to multi-confusionism and mult-chaotic conditions. Water is best when it remains water. Oil is best when it remains oil. But try mixing the two.

The USMB racist lament...

 

[SaxonJackson]

The USMB racist lament...

Still having trouble posting anything of value or substance. Keep trying ... maybe you'll get lucky.

 

[cnm]

Lol. I bet you can't say how you'd measure the quality of a form of government either.

It's a thing with slack jawed yokels.

 

[cnm]

I love the way these slack jawed yokels refuse all suggested metrics to determine the quality of different forms of government yet can suggest none of their own.

It almost leads one to conclude they haven't a clue about the subject on which they witter so earnestly.



Almost.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Whoever knew parliamentary constitutional monarchists were Marxist revolutionaries?

TIL.

Sneaky little devils

 

[frigidweirdo]

So you just don't think America's Constitutional Republic is all that good. You don't think having rights is all that necessary, and you don't like the idea of a small government with limited powers. You're not fond of a system of checks and balances, by which no single human has too much power.

What's a better form of government and how much power should it have?

A Proportional Representation system is much better.
In Germany they have a PR system with a 5% cut off (you need 5% of the votes to get PR seats), they also use FPTP, so you could win a seat in a constituency, and not reach 5% of the vote and you still get a seat.

Why is Germany's system good? There are six viable parties, traditional left and right, environmental left, center right and further right and left.

In Denmark they have a 2% cut off, and they have 10 viable parties.

More parties means more choice for voters. I think the US can see the problem of only having two viable choices, both old men and neither seem to represent most people.

It also means more oversight. The smaller parties might not be viable for heading the government, but they can put pressure on the government and larger parties for things, and they tend to gain when the larger parties don't do so well.

PR also means parties need to listen. In the UK with FPTP, UKIP, a further right party, got 12.6% of the vote in 2015. They were founded in the early 1990s and they gained ONE SEAT.

In Germany the AfD, a further right party, for 12.6% of the vote in 207. They were founded in 2013. They gained 90 seats.

What does this mean? It meant that the traditional right (CDU/CSU) party in Germany suffered, they had to change their policies to what people actually wanted.
In the UK the traditional right (The Conservative Party) didn't have to give a damn, carried on as before, because they KNOW people don't care vote UKIP in case Labour get elected.

I prefer the head of the country being elected through the party, rather than a presidential vote. It's fairer, and one person can never run a country anyway.

Switzerland have a 7 person executive. These people are elected by their peers and I think they need to get cross party support. So no partisan will ever make it to the executive. It leads to people needing to be SENSIBLE in order to get elected, and even then, they're not one person leading, the whole executive leads.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The original intent of the Founding Fathers was that the Federal Government was to be limited. It's power and scope was to be limited to specific goals and purposes. Never did the Founders intend for the Federal Government to grab so much power from the States and "We The People." So our current form of government is not a reflection of our Founder's vision.

I certainly agree with your last sentence.

No, it's not. Then again the vision the Founders had included an amendment system so that it could be changed for the changing times. What the Founders had simply wouldn't be viable in the modern era.
So, maybe the people of today should find a system that is compatible with the 21st century, certainly the current system isn't.

 

[SaxonJackson]

No, it's not. Then again the vision the Founders had included an amendment system so that it could be changed for the changing times. What the Founders had simply wouldn't be viable in the modern era.
So, maybe the people of today should find a system that is compatible with the 21st century, certainly the current system isn't.

I disagree. I believe that the original intent of the Founders and Constitution was to create a system of government that would ward off tyranny and not give too much power to a single individual or a monarchy or an oligarchy or, in our case, Wall Street & the Banking Cartel.

America has simply given too much power to a group of all-powerful individuals who've decided for themselves what is best for the rest of humanity. But in order for them to realize their dream of some "perfect utopia" with them at the helm ... they must strip the rest of humanity of all of their personal rights and human dignity. So now, more than ever, we need a government that divides the power and protects the individual. The basic tenets of the Constitution does that.

Now I agree that the Constitution was written by Christians for Christians, so it does need to be adapted to rule the unruly, non-religious people. For, as John Adams said, the Constitution is designed for a religious and moral people, while Americans have become one of the most immoral group of people on earth.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I disagree. I believe that the original intent of the Founders and Constitution was to create a system of government that would ward off tyranny and give too much power to a single individual or a monarchy or an oligarchy or, in our case, Wall Street & the Banking Cartel.

America has simply given too much power to a group of all-powerful individuals who've decided for themselves what is best for the rest of humanity. But in order for them to realize their dream of some "perfect utopia" with them at the helm ... they must strip the rest of humanity of all of their personal rights and human dignity. So now, more than ever, we need a government that divides the power and protects the individual. The basic tenets of the Constitution does that.

Now I agree that the Constitution was written by Christians for Christians, so it does need to be adapted to rule and unruly, non-religious people. For, as John Adams said, the Constitution is designed for a religious and moral people and Americans have become one of the most immoral group of people on earth.

Well they didn't make it work for the 21st century. The US is getting closer and closer to that tyranny all the time.


The people with the power aren't the politicians, that's the thing. The US isn't being run by elected people. It's being run by MONEY.

The Founders put in place the Bill of Rights, which makes your last paragraph totally wrong.

 

[SaxonJackson]

Well they didn't make it work for the 21st century. The US is getting closer and closer to that tyranny all the time.


The people with the power aren't the politicians, that's the thing. The US isn't being run by elected people. It's being run by MONEY.

The Founders put in place the Bill of Rights, which makes your last paragraph totally wrong.

Yes ... America is getting closer to tyranny. But the folks who say that the Constitution doesn't work are handing the reins of control over to those very people moving us towards tyranny. Thus, the title of this thread. Is that going to be better than living under a Constitutional Republic?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes ... America is getting closer to tyranny. But the folks who say that the Constitution doesn't work are handing the reins of control over to those very people moving us towards tyranny. Thus, the title of this thread. Is that going to be better than living under a Constitutional Republic?

What, in your opinion, are the people who say the Constitution doesn't work doing to make it move more towards tyranny?

 

[SaxonJackson]

A Proportional Representation system is much better.
In Germany they have a PR system with a 5% cut off (you need 5% of the votes to get PR seats), they also use FPTP, so you could win a seat in a constituency, and not reach 5% of the vote and you still get a seat.

Why is Germany's system good? There are six viable parties, traditional left and right, environmental left, center right and further right and left.

In Denmark they have a 2% cut off, and they have 10 viable parties.

More parties means more choice for voters. I think the US can see the problem of only having two viable choices, both old men and neither seem to represent most people.

It also means more oversight. The smaller parties might not be viable for heading the government, but they can put pressure on the government and larger parties for things, and they tend to gain when the larger parties don't do so well.

PR also means parties need to listen. In the UK with FPTP, UKIP, a further right party, got 12.6% of the vote in 2015. They were founded in the early 1990s and they gained ONE SEAT.

In Germany the AfD, a further right party, for 12.6% of the vote in 207. They were founded in 2013. They gained 90 seats.

What does this mean? It meant that the traditional right (CDU/CSU) party in Germany suffered, they had to change their policies to what people actually wanted.
In the UK the traditional right (The Conservative Party) didn't have to give a damn, carried on as before, because they KNOW people don't care vote UKIP in case Labour get elected.

I prefer the head of the country being elected through the party, rather than a presidential vote. It's fairer, and one person can never run a country anyway.

Switzerland have a 7 person executive. These people are elected by their peers and I think they need to get cross party support. So no partisan will ever make it to the executive. It leads to people needing to be SENSIBLE in order to get elected, and even then, they're not one person leading, the whole executive leads.

There are likely some good ideas mixed into your post. No system of government is perfect, and our system is proving that point. It's my opinion that the problem stems from trying to force too many cultures with too many opposing opinions under one roof.

We're also witnessing all the various European forms of government being melted into the EU, Globalist form of government. A One-World Government will be the most dangerous form of government. Once the rich, powerful, Oligarchs consolidate power and have control over the world's military and economic system ... we can all kiss our personal sovereignty goodbye once and for all time. It will be the dictatorship of all dictatorships and none of us bottom feeders will have a voice at all.

 

[SaxonJackson]

What, in your opinion, are the people who say the Constitution doesn't work doing to make it move more towards tyranny?

Currently, they're voting for politicians who don't believe the Constitution works in the 21st Century and who are trying to dissolve it. Unfortunately ... they don't have a viable alternative other than to collude with the UN and the WEF.

 

[frigidweirdo]

There are likely some good ideas mixed into your post. No system of government is perfect, and our system is proving that point. It's my opinion that the problem stems from trying to force too many cultures with too many opposing opinions under one roof.

We're also witnessing all the various European forms of government being melted into the EU, Globalist form of government. A One-World Government will be the most dangerous form of government. Once the rich, powerful, Oligarchs consolidate power and have control over the world's military and economic system ... we can all kiss our personal sovereignty goodbye once and for all time. It will be the dictatorship of all dictatorships and none of us bottom feeders will have a voice at all.

Yes, good ideas that have been around for a LONG TIME. Germany put theirs in place in the 1940s. Switzerland put their executive in operation in 1848. Denmark introduced PR in 1920.
So, these ideas are actually very old, that America doesn't seem to know they even exist is testament to how manipulated people are.
I've been harping on about PR on this forum for years, maybe 6 or 8 years, I don't remember.

The US problem is trying to get too many viewpoints into one political system. The Tea Party and Bernie are evidence of this, the same in the UK.
These parties should be separate so individual voters understand what a party stands for.
What does the Democratic Party stand for when there are Communists and Conservatives in the same party? And a current President who stands for.... nothing.

You can say that the EU is countries melting into each other, but I think the reality is that in the modern era, it's the only real way to survive. The EU isn't much bigger than the US. The EU, US whole of NATO and Japan, South Korea and others... aren't bigger than China, the threat coming.

However PR leads to more opposition to the EU, and is more likely to keep it in check than FPTP ever could. The EU is far, far, FAR more democratic than the US

 

[SaxonJackson]

I love the way these slack jawed yokels refuse all suggested metrics to determine the quality of different forms of government yet can suggest none of their own.

It almost leads one to conclude they haven't a clue about the subject on which they witter so earnestly.



Almost.

Still chattering like a little squirrel. We can all hear you outside the window, but can't make out what you're fussing about.