the u.s president has the same role as a 17th century english king

his powers are basically identitical

no the powers are identical

if you're saying that the american president doesn't have the powers of a monarch then you're saying that the position it is copied from, which is the king of england, isn't a monarch

it's constitutional monarchy

that is how the english system works

the english king required approval from the lower hosue too

you don't seem to understand the history of the u.s and its political system

and the funny thing is that, as iirc abraham lincoln's advisor said, while the u.s is an elective monarchy the u.k became a hereditary republic

the u.k has this fucked up fake system of two monarchs and doesn't function properly

@Cobra Commander it's literally what david starkey, the leading historian on the subject, lectures about

laugh til it hurts

the entire system of u.s is a carbon copy of england

of course u.s.a was created by englishmen who wanted their own england and rights as englishmen

magna carta, provisions of oxford, petition of right, all flow directly into u.s constitution

the u.s constitution is just the english bill of rights

so they recreated their own english system in the u.s but further democraticsed it

becuase the u.k has changed, no the u.s

the u.k is very different now, but the u.s is the true continuation of england

the u.s has simply been further democraticsed and rationalised and systematised

but the u.k is just an incoherent mess of politics with no functioning true executive

to paraquote starkey:

if you look at the senate it is merely an elective house of lords. to begin with you were indirectly elected, remember the constitution amendment providing for direct election to the senate is only on the eve of the first world war, but if you look at the senators each rejoices in a quasi-noble status of two per two

per state

the kind of duke of minnesota and earl of oregon. they have effectively life tenures. they have, like the british peerage, access to loot and pillage and reward their followers, sometimes they get found out and there are processes, going directly up to the president itself of impeachment, which is taken straight out of the medieval constitution

the process that clinton narrowly escaped of trial before the senate with the lower house acting as prosecutors

what are the house of represenatives? they are simply the commons of england. their presiding officer is called the speaker just like in u.k parliament

even the administrative officer is the sergeant at arms. why is the u.s lower house run by the sergeant at arms? because the sergeant at arms is the administrative official of the house of cmmons in england since the reign of henry viii

we're not looking at how systems are furhter democraticsed but the structure ofthe system

of course originally when u.s was founded it was only white male property owners who could vote

the founders of the u.s were not concerned with democracy, they were concerned with liberty

that's why washington d.c is so beautifully laid out so that you can easily machinegun rampaging mobs from strongpoints

to continue:

the president is a monarch. i used to say, until reagan was elected, the president was simply geroge iii without a wig, but then reagan came along and the joke fell almost flat as his hair was bouffant

the u.s president also has a court, as all monarchs have their courts; america is ruled by a cabinet chosen purely by the president, and the key officers do not sit in the cabinet but are genuine courtiers, rogues of the night

right, and overtime it changed and evolved, but no

many people could vote, it changed back and forth overtime, but it was more a matter of property owners

you voted for your local knight to go to parliament or if you lived in a town voted for your burgess

not too dissimilar to parliaments in other european countires, at least on a surface level quite similar but really world's apart in the fundamentals which is why u.s.a and u.k and anglo world so different in politics to european countries

which we see with u.k leaivng e.u today that european politics is a roman model and roman law while anglo world is english law, which is sort of inverted

in the 19th century we get mass suffrage coming along both in u.k and u.s and other countries, and the whole thing is a sham

it's just politicians realising that you can bribe people with their own money

you mean when? 800 years ago in the beginnings? yea and it changed overtime

back then most of hte population weren't even freemen but were slaves and serfs

similarly in the u.s.a slaves could not vote

women could not vote

non-whites could not vote

people who didn't own property couldn't vote

through the high middle ages far more people are represented as serfdom collapses and by late 1300s/early 1400s you have most population become freemen

but there are arguments today against universal suffrage and that the people would be better represented if less people could vote

another interesting thing is that there was a far higher level of rerpesentation the further back we go

like if we go back to high middle ages a few thousand people to even a few hundred people had a represenative

we look at today and we are alienated from political power where it is even millions of people to one represenative who just toes party line

so if this stuff you're going on about is as if somehow people have less political power today then you've got to be kidding

even slaves could talk to their knight and influence them

what power does you average person in the u.k or u.s today have over their local mp or congressman or women?

when are you talking about? you keep doing this weird thing of talking about britain and u.s withotu any context of time

no the common people in america rebelled as they had no represenation

they wanted and deserved their own parliament

70% of people in u.s owned land when?

5% of people in britain owned land when?

the u.k system was messy and corrupt already by the early 1700s as there were so many seats with virtually no population

there was a term for that i forget of basically seats on populationless areas

when? historically england was very powerful militarily because its commoenrs were allowed to own and train weapons, and the peasants got very rich from it

this goes way back, like hundred years war peasants got very rich from hundred years war and were paid very high salaries

by around 1500 serfdom had virtually disappeared

latest season's swimwear collection fyi

are you defending serfdom?

the collapse of serfdom in england is the catalyst for creation of modern civilisation

it drove the late middle ages urbanisation and most of the population going into towns becoming competing tradesmen, within 2 centuries population went from something aorund 10% literate to 90% literate

huge tax revenues, huge infrastructure spending, this all creating economic viability of mechanisation

like no point in a water-powered factory when you only sell to a small local market, but when you sell to tens of thousands of people then mechanisation is economically viable

so what if they didn't own land?

the "private" farmers with enclosure was far more efficient creating way more food with less workers breaking the malthusian trap and creating modern civilisation

human civilisation was basically stagnant for the previous 10,000 years

and it could have continued that way for another 10,000 even

real change always happens from the ground up

and as for your meme

that's ridiculous as serfdom was miserable, and you can see some people today living similar lives who by their mid 20s look like old people with broken backs, malnutrition and so on

the real meme of that is hunter gatherer vs agricultural cuck

humans living as hunter gatherers as they evolved for is how humans truly should live where they eat healthy varied diets, live in close communal tribes and so on

serfdom was just a far worse version of all the problems present in modern industrial civilisation

and was like living in sierra fuckning leone lol

have you seen the homicide rates of english villages?

"wasn't sustainable"? humans lived in it for hundreds of thousands of years

your average small english farming community in the high middle ages had the homicide rates of like african warzones today

natural resolves itself, if there are too many humans then some will die off

well now you're just discussing the supposed inevitability of settled agriculture, but we're not discussing that it happened and will happen but are discussing recognising that it sucks balls

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TkFmmdmk50

get redpilled

right but what point are you making?

but they lived miserable lives

humans live more fulfilling lives as nomads and hunter gatherers

or whatever comes of industrial civilisation

what do you mean by "not really"? malnutrition, regular famines, oppression - we're talking about a people who repeatedly rose up and fought for freedom even though they knew they had previously been crushed

we can see the physical effects too from looking at skulls where they all had fucked up teeth. the superior chad jaws of hunter gatherers is testament to the true natural lifestyle man is made for

no cavemen needed braces, they had perfect teeth. serfs were all mouthbreathing chinless virgins

why would that be? the people in cities were richer and suffered less from malnutrition

based on what do you say that?

these people lived off mostly grain