Leave the British to me

They are. People don't deserve to be near sole leaders of a country by being born into a family that has an ancestor that won a sword fight once, especially if they are authoritarian assholes.

t. republitard

>proceeds to get his ass kicked at nearly every major engagement

what about being born into wealth created by ransacking peasants once?

>People don't deserve to be near sole leaders of a country by being born into a family
You mean like the Clintons, or the Kennedys, or the Bushes, etc. Americans basically just substituted the monarchy and aristocracy with a vulgar plutocratic oligarchy. Similar thing happened after the establishment of the Roman republic (which was also a shithole).

If it's so simple why did low IQ Euros took much longer to realize it?

You mean like George Washington?

>still wins war

Monarchy isn't just the best system, it's the only good system.

>Monarchies are bad
>implying

constitutional monarchy is the best system of governance yet devised by man

Do the Clintons really count? Hillary wasn't born into the family.

delet

That's different, because the public actually voted for those people, and their qualifications weren't their great, great grandfather killing someone in a duel.

>their qualifications weren't their great, great grandfather killing someone in a duel
Hillary's qualifications was literally being married to a mediocre president.

>the public actually voted for those people
Why do democucks think that popular opinion equals legitimacy? If Nicki Minaj is the most popular "artist", does it means she's objectively the best artist? No? Same applies to politics.

Monarchies are for faggots.

Society should make decisions about society. Is it better that someone get power just by being born in a certain blood-line? No, of course not. Also, America is not a democracy, so "democuck" does not apply here.

Until one day your king dies and the next king is either an illiterate peasant or the king of the next country over who you hate because you fought six wars with them in the past hundred years.
Also, has no one ever even read about the reigns of various kings and how they got cucked by powerful nobles or generals or popes? When kings are great, things are fantastic, like Victorian England. When they're terrible, you end up with shit like Tsarist Russia.
I'll take democracy.

>because the public actually voted for those people
and usually they only had someone of those to chose from or someone that were indebted to people like those

Hillary actually served as Senator, First Lady and lawyer. I don't like her, but those are her qualifications. Also, she lost twice, so what's your point?

God bless America!

>implying this isn't ingenious commentary on the intersection of inwardly directed socially imprinted misogyny and externally projected femininity in the life and image of a 21st century female artist

youtube.com/watch?v=T6j4f8cHBIM

...

And royal successors often served as army commanders or administrators before they inherited the throne, your point?

My point being that Hillary had other qualifications besides being Bill's husband, which is what the person who I replied to said was her only qualification.

So as I understand it, your argument is "monarchy is bad because of this hypothetical scenario 700 years ago"

I'll take my functioning constitutional monarchy where the head of state is the non-partisan representative of a millennia-old institution that symbolizes the nation, rather than entrusting the state to a corporate-sponsored, media-driven popularity contest, thanks very much

You mentioned "first lady" which is literally "president's wife".

That's not the only thing I mentioned, though. Also, the First Lady serves a purpose besides being a wife. She has her own little pet projects and has to lead the public morally, like the President.

Different times though, the modern day equivalent would be like if the rebellious colony was on the moon

>when you depose the king so you and your loaded bourgeoise friends of peasant origins can LARP as the new aristocracy in a country where 90% of the population isn't eligible to vote while also pretending you live in a democracy and the entire thing was a will of the people even though only a tiny fraction of the population were outright secessionists
lelmao

>has to lead the public morally
>Hillary fucking Clinton
Well there goes her qualification

I said I didn't like her. I was just describing the role of the First Lady. Seriously, you need to learn to read.

What would happen if all of Queen Liz's close relatives died and the throne reverted to the house of Hanover? Would the British people accept Ernst Augustus as their king? He would surely be a bulwark and beacon of hope to the British people, eating bratwurst and sauerkraut!

ITT: buttmad britbongs attempt to defend their FAILED empire and conquests. Many such cases. SAD!

>Tfw the top pic beat everything on the bottom
Granted, with French help, but hey, you wished us good luck, and evidently we got some.

>What would happen if all of Queen Liz's close relatives died

the throne goes to one of her not so close
relatives, of which there are literally thousands in this country

we have an aristocracy, you know

>the public actually voted for them
>implying the popolar vote means anything when the current president had almost 2 million less votes than his competition

nice jokes. The electoral college chose our president out of a bag of people that the parties chose. At what point are the people a part of this process? Seems to me that in a country with almost 320 million people in it, than less than 61 million actually voted for the president, which is less than 20%. That means that the rest of the 80% of the population either didn't support him or are so disenchanted with the system that they didn't vote at all, neither of which are signs of a healthy democracy. There is very little democracy in America, we do things like gerrymandering and voting laws in order to prevent our population from voting effectively. A man with the support of a mere 20% of the population (a number that is no doubt currently dropping) can hardly be said to be a representative of the people.

That's not the point. If the next in line is a kraut, would you arbitrarily change the laws of succession?

Also, reminder that monarchy led to this dude right here ascending to the throne of Thailand

I was actually a monarchist coming into this thread but the arguments for monarchy here were so bad that I switched.

that's just sad

>If the next in line is a kraut, would you arbitrarily change the laws of succession?

irrelevant

You might as well ask what we'd do if the next in line is a Martian, because you're 74 people - most of whom are young and will have families of their own extending the line, deep into the line of succession before you come to a foreigner (King Harald of Norway, incidentally)

there are vastly more pressing arguments against monarchy, like what to do if the monarch behaves unconstitutionally, than the one you're clinging to

He's not clinging to it, there's just so many arguments against it that he's spoiled for choice.
Monarchism has been so utterly BTFO that it's more fun to argue the road less traveled.

>reminder that monarchy led to this dude right here ascending to the throne of Thailand
Are you sure you want to go that way? Because democracy produces even more comical politicians

youtube.com/watch?v=cesSRfXqS1Q.

Anything is worth it in the struggle against the eternal Anglo

>doesn't achieve the objective
>wins the war
What

What are you defining as his objective, exactly?

Whatever was the original objective for the US to go to war

so...sovereignty...something the US achieved...? So they won

They wanted representation, not independence. Checkmate

>what is the Declaration of Independence

It's not the original reason for the people inhabiting what is known as the US, rebelling against Britain.

They literally got representation

the fuck are you even going on about. Who gives a shit what the original Jamestown and Plymouth settlers thought of the subject. That was nearly 150 years before the revolution

Well then, that's kind of hard to define, depending on whether you're referring to the objective of the initial skirmishes, or the actual United States, once the DoI was issued.

If you're referring to the Official United States post-1776, then the objective would more or less be to remove the British Imperial presence from the 13 colonies and establish the independence of the United States. In this regard, the objective was obviously completed, given that Britain relinquished control of the colonies and recognized the US after the treaty of Paris.

For the initial skirmishes before the US had actually formed, the cause was primarily to stop acts seen as "British Tyranny" by the colonists, such as taxation without representation, the quartering of soldiers in colonists' homes, and the seizure of colonial arms. Once again, in regards to this, the objective was successful, as the British certainly could no longer tax, quarter soldiers with, or seize the arms of a people they no longer controlled, and which now lay in the hands of another sovereign nation.

So going by either case, America succeeded in its objectives, so it's fairly obvious that the war was a victory for America.

Don't see any MP's from America in British Parliament, do you?
They didn't achieve the original objective

Because hereditary rule is retarded. A monarch doesn't represent a people in his body nor the spawn of it. If we kidnapped Prince George and turned him into a weeabo furry faggot, you'd have to accept him as king.

>Don't see any MPs from America in British Parliament, do you

No because they're all in the US Congress dumbass.

We surpassed Britain so achieving the "original objective" would have been stupid

So they didn't get representation in the British Parliament? Then they didn't achieve their original objective
>we surpassed Britain
Subjective

it's not subjective when the world economy, military, and politics are controlled by American interests

The fact monarch is so detached from the people is the reason why he's the best type of ruler. He doesn't have to engage in idiotic popularity contests every 4 years promising people the moon and never delivering shit.

I know you think you're trolling but this amount of error is more harmful to yourself than it is to us. If you get a kick out of willfully making yourself look retarded then you might should reevaluate your purpose here.

We're much whiter and racially purer than you, there's an angle. We have less violent crime, there's another. We have universal healthcare, i could go on. Pointless argument
100% serious

>Subjective
Lol is it really?

This is a dumb argument. Any institution is a political institution and has the potential to be used as such. Look at Emperor Meiji or Showa.

>100% serious

Please stop posting.

enjoy buying a house for twice the price I pay

>They didn't achieve the original objective
is this a meme? is this the *nglo way of saying racist when they have no arguments?

My house is made of brick and metal, yours is made of cardboard. Subjective nonsense

>Any institution is a political institution and has the potential to be used as such.
I never claimed otherwise. Literal strawman. But not every institution is a DEMOCRATIC institution and those that aren't democratically ruled tend to also be the best.

Nothing racist about that post. This theme continues into every war the US ever fought
>vietnam
>korea
>iraq
>Afghanistan

jokes on you, my house is made of brick as well

>achieved objective in Korea
>same in Iraq
literally wat, you need to get in touch with reality

I'm not claiming democratic institutions tend to be ruled best. I'm claiming hereditary institutions are ultimately flawed and outdated.
I'd also love for you to show me how non-democratic institutions tend to rule best.

>leave the french manlet to me

youtube.com/watch?v=bn-7UtKNuwE&app=desktop

Not him and I've lived in both Britain and America while not being native to either country and America has the superior housing and it's really not even close. The UK has those cramped terrace shithouses you pay out of your ass for and they're retardedly poorly insulated, moldy, with poor plumbing and heating and basically everything, you need to pay literal millions of pounds to buy something at least slightly resembling a human dwelling. Complete third world conditions. I don't understand why Brits feel like they have better housing than Americans when even goddamn Hungary or Croatia blow Britain the fuck out. You're not even in the same galaxy as America when it comes to this shit.

It would've been best for Washington to have become a monarch for the US, but he was sterile.

Because American homes get WTFBTFO by literal category 5 hurricanes and retarded Britbongs look at the wreckage and think "u wot? it wa' jus' a bit o' wind m8?"

American objective in Iraq was to depose Saddam Hussein and Saddam ended up hanging from the gallows, I'd check that as objective achieved.

It's even more stupid when you realize a vast majority of Americans don't live in the tornado alley or New Orleans.

Kek, it's almost like there isn't enough anti-British circle-jerking on this board already

(you)
No one actually believes monarchism is a good system today

>be big GW
>commander in British army
>ordered to take troops to scout a fort but explicitly told not to attack it
>nah, fuck yall
>start the French and Indian War
>drain British coffers
>they start taxing colonies post war
>collaborate with others to begin a rebellion
>command the military against your former empire
>win
>become president
>be the sneakiest bastard in history

The germans helped too! why is it that no one ever mentions us?!!? We're kawaiiii too desu

but your monarch is a meaningless figurehead everyone knows the prime minister holds the rod. Your taxes go to the worthless expenditure of funding the lavish lifestyles of some inbred noble shits that contribute nothing to your government. It's meaningless bloat meant to instill some sort of national pride based on old glories. Your royal family is both physically and figuratively statues, draining the treasury for pride.

Then you must be weeping at the state of USA now huh?

I guess some people wants to live on their knees

The war was staged. The British let them win, George and George were mason buddies.