Well, was he right?

well, was he right?

Other urls found in this thread:

greatagain.gov
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Democracy is alright but the problem is that it gives uninformed fuckwits the same voting power as you.
It also makes decisions take longer amounts of time because it needs to be approved multiple times.

U.S. isn't a democracy lad, it has always been a constitutional republic

His alternative system didn't last very long

says the man who had his dead body dragged through the streets by his own people

America is not a democracy. It's a constitutional republic which is why the electoral college saved us from the popular vote

I don't think he was saying the US is a democracy. In the original untranslated quote he's referring as democracy as the broader idea of a system in which everyone gets to vote and elect representatives.

He's right, but the other choices are still worse

Pure democracy is pure shit as it's equal to basically mob rule with all that it entails. Also lots of tensions because you can be guaranteed that most people won't vote but they'll still bitch and moan.
Republics are... Alright. The least worse established form of government.
Constitutional monarchies are possibly better than republics as long as the royal family is at the very least decent.
Dictatorships/absolute monarchies have the potential of being GOAT but most of the time they're pure shit.

Out of context, yes, but it's obvious he's implying autocracy is superior, which it's not.

uninformed fuckwits MORE voting power, you mean. montana voters have 80 times the power that california voters do. this is the way it was set up: the slave owners wouldn't have ceased the civil war if this imbalance wasn't politely placed into their lap. conservatives are mentally disadvantaged, so it made sense to give them a louder voice. it was the humane thing to do at the time, but obviously this is the inevitable conclusion of the american republic.

i think i speak for the popular vote when i say that i'd much rather have a sanders dictatorship than the tyranny of a mob of intellectually deficient, emotionally lazy buffoons.

I hope you're aware that if it wasn't for the rigging, including but not limited to people voting multiple times, votes from the afterlife and illegals voting Trump would be winning the popular vote by at the very least a million.

Yeah, sanders would have been infinitely better than Hillary. Thank god we got Trump

Yes, who would doubt that Plato would be the best tyrant? The problem is Plato doesn't get to be the actual tyrant.

As crazy as it is to say, there is some merit to the electoral college system. It's democracy filtered by enough layers of bullshit to actually be a good representation of what the country needs. If we let city dindus have exactly as much say as the farmers who feed the whole world then we're fucked forever (talking about the US, obviously).

damn you are fucking ass busted lmao

We already did ,a nigger got elected twice

fuck the DNC, fuck clinton, and most of all, fuck trump and his merry band of manchildren.

Feed us more tears, sweetie.

i'm allowed to be, considering my community's natural resources are at stake because of trump's asinine environmental plan. opening FEDERAL LANDS to fracking and coal mining is hands down the stupidest thing i've read today, and it's only been 24 hours since the vote was called.

Meaningless purposefully ambiguous statement that could never really be proved wrong by it's design.

>someday you'll see I'm right or I'll be dead and everyone will forget the stupid shit I said.

Take my meme, it's worthless now.

drill baby drill

greatagain.gov

No

Democracy and term limits caps the damage and abuse a single person can do. If you want power in a democratic system, its a lot of fucking work and decades of work can blow up in your face, ask hillary.

You'll never appoint good and qualified people with democracy because the population is retarded, but you can't do that with any other system either because the elites would just appoint who is best for them.

But the most important part of democracy is that people are only governed as well as they deserve. No better, no less. Better government sounds like a good idea, but if that better government is not the will of the people, they will reject it. An example is implementing sound economic policy that economists actually know is optimal. Voters will see we still have poverty and inequality and will want policies to "fix it" even though it can only make things worse. And things can be disastrous, but if voters are happy with policy, it's smooth sailing politically.

>Italians
>Right

Pick one

>looks like Brando

>95th minute

It's better than fascism ya dumbfuck. The best system is limited democracy. If only male landowners were able to vote then we would have virtually none of the problems we have right now

You are correct that democracy caps the damage a single person can do, but it also limits their power in what good they could do. In fact most elected politicians spend their term trying to fix up the damages caused by the previous ruler, and the effects of many their policies won't be seen until after they are no longer in power.

>but you can't do that with any other system either because the elites would just appoint who is best for them.
You are assuming that no good leader can be appointed because "the elites". But in the chance of a good leader there that wouldn't happen and there would be only benefits.
Democracy isn't much different really.
The richer group of people who control the media can get the population's support. Look at the Clinton campaign. She was close to becoming the president, thanks to the democratic vote.

If the voters are voting for an objectively worse policy it's just further proof that democracy is faulty.
People should get good leaders regardless of their own capabilities.
If they want bad economic policies and even the greatest economic experts and advisors can't convince the population of the benefits that the intelligent leaders want to put into place should they get the bad policies anyway or have good policies that they don't understand forced on them?

If only male landowners were able to vote they could vote a system it extremely difficult for non-landowners to ever own land and get any kind of power.

From the moment you impose on the people something you don't want you stop being a democracy. While that's theoretically great and all (assuming that those measures work) you create a bad precedent.

I actually know one guy who will say to his last breath that the functioning definition of democracy is "having faith in the system and trusting the system will do what's right for the people" , he is a high ranking military guy and is the most blue pilled person you could ever envision.

How is that even possible, I thought that being in the military gives you huge red suppositories. Is that guy a dunce?

>High ranking officer , seen combat and multiple tours
>believes CNN as truth and voted hillary
>though trump had absolutely no chance
I honestly could not tell you why , though I'd expect enlisted to be more redpilled

Universal suffrage was a mistake.

Qualified democracy is, in my view, the "best" we could hope for. Only taxpayers making a net contribution to society should vote.

Other qualifiers are debatable, but it'd have to be clearly limited at the constitutional level to prevent authoritarianism.

That's what our fucking system is supposed to be. It has been perverted for over 100 years by leftist cunts. The franchise should only belong to land owning or wealthy white men.

I bet you are the one shouting "La Mafia รจ giusta" down in calafrica

> land owning or wealthy white men.

I think this is outdated. Why should a female neurosurgeon be denied a vote over an illiterate male who inherited property?

There should definitely be qualifiers, but they should also be rational.

Ofc he is.
Democracy equalizes people, witch is false.
Facism or some sort of Tribalism are the only systems for the white man.
A system must be build on the laws of nature.

I agree, but we need a cleansing period of at least a generation. College educated white women didn't vote for Trump (49%). Only white demographic he didn't carry.

Isn't California's iq average one of the lowest and still dropping?
You don't deserve more voting power.

>America has Donald fucking Trump as president

Democracy IS beautiful

A representative form would prevent the populous from being too deeply involved into politicking and worry on more important things. We now have a group who are obsessed with having government in every facet of society.

The "problem" is not democracy itself, but the power of he media. In the last election people could only vote for trump or hillary, because of the financial means of both sides. A third party never stood a chance, because it wasn't in the mind of the people.
Elections have become more about the person and less about the politics and mainstream-media is a big reason for that.

I actually believe technocracy would be the best.

>but it also limits their power in what good they could do

A fair trade. You can only do so much good, but you can completely destroy an economy and send it back to the stone age if you do bad.

Aren't currently in a technocracy so to speak, with the political insiders being the technical experts?

>People should get good leaders regardless of their own capabilities.

good luck, it just doesn't happen