trees and plants are spears and other various weaponry from hell that are being stabbed into the surface of the world by satanic beings. they are what allow intelligent life to exist, thus causing the destruction of the world. all life is evil and must be exterminated we must destroy all the trees

>>726789
wrong they are pretty and nice to look at and one of the few pure things in the world

they are evil they are rupturing the skin of the planet

#killalltrees

idk what anticiv is its just something i thought of walking home last night

destroy all trees destroy all plants

no i will replant a tree for every you cut down

i eat trees i only suck dick so i can practice swallowing entire trees whole

carl is so silly i wish he wasnt a hallucination

ok but england got razed like a ton of different times, and if you look at europe they were in constant war with threat, it's just a fact that the USA was basically insulated from all conflict which allowed them to focus on building up their industrial base

like only having what 2 times your country was ever at serious threat, and even then realistically most of the northern states were never really at threat in the civil war, over your entire history is incredibly unusual for a country aznd is due to the geography of the united states and the countries that surrouned it

100 years war?

7 years war?

napoleon?

ok but it was more of a threat than the US ever really had

idk what you're arguing really we might just be misunderstanding eachother

oh, yeah i disagree with that

look at england england had the same thing to some extent as the US, which is why they were able to empire build so successfully

giant moat between them and the rest of europe, and once they solved their domesitc issues they could turn outwards which is what they did

i'm not talking about englands democracy i'm talking about their kingdom and empire so they wouldn't have a similar system at that point

in fact them switching to a more democractic sywstem arguably lost them most of their empire

>>726878
our system was modelled of of the romans and the three fires confedaracy

wow i misspell shit

>>726887
it like definitely resembles the roman system lmao

common law sure

separation of powers, a strong senate, at the time limitations on who could elect people, a strong executitve

and elected exective

>>726897
what partof rome are you talking about are you talking about the republic or are you talking about the late republic

because in the early republic separation of powers was important yes

but idk much about roman republic, but i do know that the system was heavily modelled on it

we don't have much resemblancy to the parlimentary system in britain at all

ok and they fixed that issue with the constitution

but that doesn't mean they4 weren't directly inspired by it

the magna carta was largely repealed

>>726910
#reply

the american system definitely takes more from the english model. magna carta’s influence on due process and checks on power is obvious in the bill of rights. the two-house legislature, executive branch, and judicial review echo the english parliamentary system more than rome’s cursus honorum. the roman consul’s short-term unchecked power is way closer to a dictator than the constrained presidency. america kept rome’s republic aesthetics but functionally it’s way more english in structure.

>>726912
#refute

oh wow, you’ve really cracked the case. except you’re ignoring the massive, glaring differences that make this comparison painfully superficial. let’s dismantle this lazy take piece by piece.

first, just because the bill of rights and magna carta both mention "due process" doesn’t mean america just copied england wholesale. the magna carta was a feudal document securing baronial privileges—hardly the radical individual rights emphasis of the american constitution. the founders explicitly rejected the british system’s unchecked parliamentary supremacy, hence judicial review and formal separation of powers, which england didn’t even have. but sure, because both systems have "checks," they’re the same. brilliant.

two-house legislature? wow, how unique to england. oh wait—rome had the senate and plebeian councils, and there’s a reason the founders explicitly referenced the roman model in debates during the constitutional convention. the british parliament wasn’t some groundbreaking template; it was a mess of rotten boroughs and aristocratic control, which america deliberately moved away from. but keep pretending the senate’s name and function are just a coincidence.

the presidency vs. consuls? seriously? the president’s veto power was directly modeled on the roman tribunes’ intercessio, and the entire concept of a single executive balancing legislative power echoes rome far more than the british prime minister, who sits in parliament and relies on its coalition support. "constrained presidency" my ass—rome’s consuls had collegiality (two consuls checking each other) and were answerable to the senate and assemblies. but yeah, totally the same as a hereditary monarch with unchecked royal prerogative, right?

aesthetics? really? the founders were obsessed with rome—cicero, cato, the mixed constitution theory of polybius—while treating british governance as a cautionary tale. they openly cited republicanism as their ideal, not british constitutional monarchy. but sure, because both systems have laws, they’re "functionally the same."

did you even read the federalist papers, or are you just confident because you skimmed a high school civics powerpoint? next time, try looking beyond the most surface-level parallels before declaring how things "definitely" are.

why would you think the founding fathers who explicitly didn't like the british system would model their system after the british system,

just read the federalist papers '

>>726883
#reply this is concerning the american system

nice try fed. this is concerning the american system

>>726883
#reply this is concerning the american system

our system was heavily influenced by roman republic ideas like separation of powers, checks and balances, and representative government. some concepts were also inspired by the iroquois confederacy's democratic traditions (aka three fires), though modern historians debate how much direct impact that really had. the founding fathers borrowed ideas they liked from various ancient governments and mashed them together. this is concerning the american system

ok

anyways to sum it up i don't think anyone should be allowed to vote, not even me

gib me a dictator

>>726936
i don't like you voting bc if you vote then other peopl ehave to vote and they are all stupid

absolutely not i think it should be a lottery and only 1/3 of the population should be alloed to vote in any election and it's randomly chosen

we've tried education, and clearly it doesn't work so i think mandatory voting would bea bad idea

at least in americas current system, maybe if it was parlimentary it could be fine

idk all i'm saying is that clearly the people are too stupid to be trusted

right now it's non-functional

but that's because parties were not an intended thing in the framers originaly ideas

>>726959
if they can be tricked by the media with access to all of the information in the world then idk what to tell you

what's wrong with italians

the media is a reflection of the people imo

it's a reflection that the people really don't want to be informed

it's boring they want exciting conspiracys and whatnot they don't care about how government actually functions

you have a too optimistic view of people

because if they wanted to be informed then it woudln't be the case that the majority of americans can't name the 3 branches of government because uhh yeah that's covered in school

>>726984
you could have said the same during the french revolution

i believe the monarchy's record speaks for itself look at the propsperity we've had compared to before

faith girlcel?

>>726991
i was talking about before napelon

like the monarchy was in place from like what 867 until like ~1700ish

>>726803
we could have saved her

and democracies haven't?

but i feel like you're missing the point, you're looking at it with hindsight, look at it from the perspective of someone who lived in the time

>>727000
coffee????? you can't do that that's a drugf

and i'm not even really arguing for like, retvrn to dictator or monarch, really what i want is a return to a republic, like some kind of barrier should be but in place to vote

idk what it should be but it should be something

i'm not saying i would be fit to vote even to be clear lmao

no but it would stop the dumbest ideally

like idk even just like a mandatory course, where you have to learn how the three brnaches of government worked would do wonders i feel

>>727021
YEAH AND THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS STILL DON'T KNOW IT

>>727020
yeah so i agree like idk how you would do it but sure repulicans or democrats would use it to discriminate against "undesirables" whatever they would be

>>727024
clearly that's not working

i'm not saying i have a solution, i'm just saying there's clearly a problem

and the problem isn't the system i think it's the people

china is doing pretty well

we could copy their system

well but if your criteria is that it "works fairly well" then i mean you should be for it no?

>>727040
i'm not a tankie

oh why

china is a complicated country but like objectively i think some of the ways that they choose to do things works well

>>727047
but this is fair

like i think state owned corporations are a great idea tbh and there should be more

oh okay i think they work well and usually they're pressured to pay well and if you do themwith critical resources you can return money to the people

i was talking just about state-owned corporations i think they should be used more oh okay i see what you're saying

>>727056
yeah they should be used way more

i just disagree

people are not equipped to understand today's world i feel

which leads to them acting in really stupid ways, like i know that everyone here is a communist or anarchist or whatever, but the stock market and the economy is really complicated and i don't think first of all even *i* understand it, but i don't think the average person understands these things.

Which leads to them literally thinking the most braindead conspiracies on how companies work, and how these things work, which leads to them voting for dumb decisions which leads to worse outcomes

>>727067
nah technocrats or whatever

a body of experts

true i guess

but then there's a dillema i feel where you have people who have no idea what they're voting on voting and leading to really dumb stuff

ok focusing on the economy, there is people who believe that a trade deficit is a bad thing, like catastrophically.

>>727075
mr president another period of trump has hit the united states

>>727077
i disagree it's been explained to them numerous time, there is a large body of people who will violently disagree with you if you explain to them that just because they make more money doensn't mean they will lose money. Like they cannot understand graduated tax brackets, and will get violently angry with you if you point it oput

>>727078
ur right actaully this would probably lead to a dicatator

>>727082
i feel like the people who are dug in that far are the problem

i'm just a simple blue collar worker, idk what i'm talking about

>>727087
you're taking away their agency, they might just be straight up stupid, or unwilling to listen it's not misinformation

>>727086
eh

idk honestly, i could see drawbacks to limitations placed on that like saeki was saying tbf

yeah but if you limit who can be elected, then you are limited who can represent the people. Like I think that you could miss out on a lot of people who would want to be represented if you did that

like what saeki was saying

yeah but this is like your representative like your memeber of congress

>>727100
ok and the problem isn't that they elect bozo the clown the problem is that they vote

yeah i think the issue with the reqs is no matter what you make them, there is always the chance someone stacks the deck yano? which people won't accept

>>727110
yeh i get what you're saying, like if you make civil service a thing to be a represenattive then people who coujldn't get a job in civil service for whatever reason would be locked out

idk which is why we should bring back kings to make these decisions for us

or queens i'm cool with that too

nah

no more judges either the king can be the judge

anyways idk, you guys see the represenatatives as a problem, and i don't. I think they're accurately representing their people. I think the people are the problem. I think that's the core disagreement.

I disagree with the notion that it's just misinformation, these people are gleeful, they know what they're are doing. They are hateful and fucking idiots. I think this is an inevitable problem, in a democaracy, which is why i don't think everyone should necessarily be allowed to vote.

That's my argument.

Your argument is, the represenstatives are the probelm, the elites are tricking the people into voting against their own interests, and that, if presented with the correct information, they wouild make better decisions.

Is that a fair summary?

>>727133
i don't think that the elites are some united group, i also think thats where we differ. I think that the "elites" if they exist are giving the people what they want. basically. Which is why fox news is so popular, they WANT that to be the case

BTW to be clear, i'm not like, errr, i'm not like a idocracy kinda person, like i think the messaging in that movie was kinda bad

>>727137
but it was funny if you don't think about hte natural conclusion of their arugments

>>727140
yeah i get what you mean

yeh

>>727143
>>727127
i think this message sums it up, but i might be not representing their arguments well they haven't confirmed yet

all i am saying is if they let me run america like it was a paradox game i would win ez

(joking)

i can't wait until i get my computter back and i can play vic 3 again

i am a *nom nom nom* eating your country and making it apart of mine and improving the quality of life ist

i love seeing my country on the top of the 4quality of life average by a lot because i think its fun

it functions as a democracy technically but i usually just ignore the party in power if i don't like them and just not pass any laws until the party that i want to be in power is and then i pass their laws and then after i finish passing all of the good laws then i just ignore it for the rest of the game

boger

shimp

fujowujo

FUJO WHY DON'T YOU HAVE A LESBIAN FLAG ON

it removes my lesbo flag from tiem to time i dont know

like when my browser restarts my flag is just gone

speaking of vic 3 it made me want to learn more about lat am history a bit because there's a mechanic about the constillados or something i forget the name but basically if you have the military too strong then it becomes stuck like that and there's a lot more civil unrest and i was curious if that was accurate