[–] TestForScience 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

What's better? Genuinely asking.
I've been going over government types for a few weeks now trying to Frankenstein some shit together that would make sense but it always ends up being "Yeah, this is just as exploitable as the situation we're in now."

[–] MrBlueChip 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Facism under a white leader who cares about the race. Or at least some kind of authoritarian capitalism

[–] ShakklezthaKlown 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago 

national socialism with a monarch

[–] TestForScience ago 

See, that’s the one I looked the hardest at - but with fascism comes a socialized economy. That would be completely fine if America was still isolationistic, but we import so incredibly many things that our entire economy would be at the mercy of import and tariff costs.
Changing it to a free market, or even a protected trade market style would alleviate that, but then you’re back to foreign investors, which brings us back to a non-unified economy which would mostly contradict the rest of the structure of the government - which ultimately weakens it and any sense of nationalistic loyalty.
Capitalism is almost the exact opposite to a fascist economy, but getting rid of capitalism destroys any chance of becoming ‘self-made man.’ I don’t know your stance on it, but I find capitalism essential.
Everything, to me, just ends up coming back to, “If people were more nationalistic, none of this would be a problem.” But they’re not.
It just doesn’t seem possible to have a government that is for the people if the people themselves don’t care about each other.
How fucking poetic is that. Communistic Americans claim right wing people just want to divide everyone and destroy America while we sit here and talk about unifying the people and trying to find ways to make the government more acclimated to better serve America.

[–] BlackSheepBrouhaha 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Only net tax payers vote.

[–] VoatsNewfag 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

There never will be a system run by humans that cannot be exploited.

The question is if you want to be tyrannized by a mob or a handful of people.

The thing is in the west we don't even have democracy, for the most part we have representational democracies. I believe that's the worst of both worlds. You get a handful of powerful people elected by a mob. And the people elected have no obligations to fulfill their promises. A monarch will try to keep his country in a good shape because he wants his heir to inherit it and a direct democracy has in theory the same interests.

But a representational politician is only interested in getting the most from his ~4 years. They don't mind increasing inflation and debt to get elected in the first place or to enrich themselves.

A dictatorship can work out. Look at Augusto Pinochet who turned his country into the most wealthy latin country. They portray him as a monster because he killed and tortured communists but less people died under him than under communism. But a more direct democracy may work out too. Swiss is a beautiful country and afaik not as insane as the rest of europe.

[–] LlamaMan 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Monarchy imo.

Sure you have bad leaders but you have great leaders too. There is usually less tyranny as the people will literally kill bad monarchs. Look at how long some bad kings ruled, days? Weeks? You can only suppress your people so much.

[–] Alhambra 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

a communist jew with the initials "BS" who looks like a crazy child-diddler. if you tried to put a character like this in a movie it would get shut down for antisemitism.

[–] edgelord666 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

a man with a tupee who cheats on his pregnant wife with a pornstar then tries to pay the pornstar hush money and says things like "grab em by the pussy" and republicans vote for him. if you tried to put a character like this in a movie it would get shut down for being politically incorrect

[–] weezkitty 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Given how easy it is to be a "felon", I do think it is justifiable that felons can vote. Either that or reserve "felony" for violent crimes against people.

[–] PewterKey 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

If we let the government decide who can and can't vote too aggressivily, then eventually no one can.

If felons are a large enough voting block to change an election then they should. Either the laws have become too restrictive or the population too criminal to continue the current government. In either case voting is the less violent option. If say 40% of the population are felons, then letting them vote stops them from just revolting.

[–] u_r_wat_u_eat 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I almost became a felon because I have a tiny baggy with some pot leaf remains in it and the cop pulled me over in a school zone.

I seriously had to beg the cop not to make me a felon and ruin my entire life

[–] retto 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

If Bernie lived with the American freedoms that made him a millionaire and owner of multiple properties, and his suggestion as an old man is that young people should focus on having government deciding how they should live, removing their freedoms... well, that is just the valuable jewish thought we are told is the basis of our selves as a civilised people

[–] Corpse_washer 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

The US is a republic, not a democracy. Anyway. Democracy has no future.

[–] Zoldam ago 

The US started as a constitutional republic that functioned under the democratic system, but has since morphed in to a corporate oligarchy.

[–] Eualos ago 

Authoritarianism is the only working form of government for empires, where the emperor is from the original conquering group.

[–] boekanier ago 

Bernie is obsessed. But since he's a politician, nothing abnormal about that.

[–] Sosacms ago 

Might not be so easy to control the vote if 80% of the country opted out of their own voting power.

load more comments ▼ (10 remaining)