Italy was a constitutional monarchy under fascist rule.
And the US is, theoretically, a democracy, and if we aren't under fascist rule, we will be soon enough. Fascism can spring from any form of government.
your second paragraph is something only ignorant bootlickers say
So you feel that Obama-Trump-Biden-Trump was as stable as any government needs too be? No improvement to be made there?
The reason one has a constitutional monarchy is to try to split the difference, I think, and get the best parts of each system.
But I'm with you. No kings.
As it is we in the UK are stuck with a mind-meltingly wealthy, influential and unaccountable family who have extremely questionable members and histories.
They influence laws to benefit their own ends, they shield abusive behaviour and individuals, and they do it all in the name of maintaining a tradition that fundamentally says that some people are simply “better” than others.
We have these too. Is just that they are more unofficial.
Do none of you people have clothes pins? Or does that count as Neutral Good?
Also, CG and CN need to be switched. There is no way the bottle hack counts as "good."
I wouldn't choose such a system, I think, but I can't say that there aren't at least a few half decent arguments for it.
A constitutional monarch may have a wide range of powers, depending on the constitution. It doesn't automatically mean "powerless figurehead."
Given the way the US has been recently, I'm willing to admit that there may be some benefit to having a leader in some position of power that had been there a long time, and has, more or less, been training for the responsibly since birth.
Of course, there are plenty of arguments against such a leader, but the least of which is how much you have to stretch the word "training" to make it fit that sentence above.
I recall our 46th president deliberately torpedoing a perfectly good deal wee had with Iran to control it's nuclear program. And at a much earlier stage, too.
I've made up my mind already that if they try to take me or my wife, they are gonna have to kill me, and I'm gonna try as hard as I can not too die alone.
Of course, that's big talk from me. I'm weak, overweight, and pasty.
I think you (and everyone else) have lost the thread, mate. He was replying directly to the question "why can't they just stay in Europe." The answer is "Europe had immigration laws."
I don't see anything wrong with this exchange.
No, it's not for after conviction. It's for when I'm being held before conviction. My lawyer gets to make the government prove that they have a reason to hold me. It's why a cop can't throw me in prison for six months for looking at him funny.
It may have some application after conviction too. I'm not a lawyer. This sort of thing is taught in high school, though, and it's important enough that it should be remembered.
It means that when I get arrested, I'm not allowed to ask why, or to demand even the thinnest shred of proof that I've done anything at all wrong.
Such a good game. I always wound up with a pile of guards in the basement, or a closet or something.
Best we keep reminding them of it.